Upload
others
View
0
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Open Space Assessment and Strategy
2014 - 2019 Document updated August 2017 Appendix A
CONTENTS 1.0 Background 1
1.1 Introduction
1.2 Why produce an Open Space Strategy? 1.3 Executive summary 10
2.0 Context
2.1 Local Context 2.2 Strategic Context
3.0 Key Issues and Objectives 12
3.1 Vision
3.2 Objectives
4.0 Methodology of open space assessment 13
5.0 Assessment Findings 16 5.1 Full assessment and recommendations of open space study by settlement
/neighbourhood area
SETTLEMENT NEIGHBOURHOOD AREA
Adlington - Southeast Parishes Buckshaw Village - Astley, Euxton and Buckshaw Chorley Town - Chorley Town East/West Clayton Brook/Green - Clayton and Whittle Clayton-le-Woods - Clayton and Whittle Coppull - Southern Parishes Eccleston - Western Parishes Euxton - Astley, Euxton and Buckshaw Whittle-le-Woods - Clayton and Whittle Withnell/Brinscall - Eastern Parishes
Other Villages 5.2 Assessment and Recommendations of Open Space by typology:
Parks and Gardens
Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace
Amenity Greenspace
Provision for children and young people
Allotments
Cemeteries/Churchyards
Civic Space
Green Corridors
5.3 Quality and Value Matrix by site.
6.0 Future Provision 52
6.1 Delivery of the deficiencies and key recommendations
Management and Development
Funding Sources.
How provision is to be made to address deficiencies
7.0 Strategy Review 57 APPENDICES
Appendix A: Maps showing typologies within settlements 58
Appendix B: Total open space provision by ward 68
1
1.0 BACKGROUND
1.1 Introduction This strategy sets out how Chorley Council plans to protect, manage, enhance and secure its
open spaces over the next five years and beyond. It focuses on sites that need to be improved
or sustained to mitigate against negative trends and recommends how any identified
deficiencies should be addressed.
It provides a rationale to help secure external funding for the improvement and additional
provision of open space and facilities, particularly via developer contributions.
1.2 Why produce an Open Space Strategy? The Open Space Strategy focuses on the findings of the Open Space Audit Report prepared by
consultants Knight, Kavanagh and Page (KKP) which was published in May 2012 (Central
Lancashire Open Space Study). This study was important in the contribution /development of
the Core Strategy and Local Development Framework process and helped to inform:
Site allocation processes
Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) on open spaces
The Strategy will:
Analyse and update the findings of the open space study 2012.
Recommend how future open space should be secured.
Identify any deficiencies or surpluses in provision and options for dealing with this now and
in the future.
Consider how the Council, in partnership with the local community and partner agencies,
can ensure total inclusion and improve existing provision for health and wellbeing.
Prioritise future spending on open spaces through action plans.
Provide information to inform the Council to make decisions on the distribution of developer
contributions, prioritising projects and sites according to a range of core criteria.
Ensure that any targets identified through the strategy are delivered in a clear, collaborative
and inclusive manner.
Ensure the Borough of Chorley demonstrates equality of accessibility across both the rural
and urban areas.
Consider how sustainability and Climate Change can be addressed.
An assessment of the quantity, quality and accessibility of open space provision was carried out
in 2012 by consultants and re visited by Chorley Council in 2014 and 2017. This was carried out
in accordance with the companion guide to Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (PPG17)
‘Assessing Needs and Opportunities’ using the same methodologies for consistency. The study
covers the open space typologies identified in the table below.
As part of the Central Lancashire Development Plan consultants are currently in the process of
being appointed to review and reassess all sites across Chorley, Preston and South Ribble to
write an updated strategy 2020 – 2025 linking into the forthcoming local plan review and
evidence base.
2
PPG17 Typology Primary Purpose
Amenity greenspace Opportunities for informal activities close to home or work or enhancement of the appearance of residential or other areas.
Parks and gardens
Accessible, high quality opportunities for informal recreation and community events. Does not include Country Parks due to their more natural characteristics. They are included in natural and semi-natural greenspaces.
Natural and semi-natural greenspaces
Wildlife conservation, biodiversity and environmental education and awareness. Includes urban woodland and Country Parks.
Allotments Opportunities for those people who wish to do so to grow their own produce as part of the long term promotion of sustainability, health and social inclusion.
Green corridors Walking, cycling or horse riding, whether for leisure purposes or travel and opportunities for wildlife migration.
Cemeteries/churchyards Quiet contemplation and burial of the dead, often linked to the promotion of wildlife conservation and biodiversity
Civic spaces Providing a setting for civic buildings, public demonstrations and community events.
NB: The assessment and improvement strategy for typology ‘Provision for children and young people’ (areas
designed primarily for play and social interaction involving children and young people such as equipped play areas, ball courts, skateboard areas and teenage shelters) can be found in the Play Area Strategy.
This document analyses the assessment of quantity, quality and value and accessibility of the
above typologies on a settlement basis with cross references to neighbourhood areas and sets out the planning policy approach to securing future provision and how to make improvements to health and wellbeing of residents within Chorley Borough. The study focuses on the settlement hierarchy within the Core Strategy. It assesses open space provision within the following locations:
Key Service Centre – Chorley Town.
Urban Local Service Centre’s – Adlington, Clayton Brook/Green, Clayton-le-Woods, Coppull, Euxton and Whittle-le-Woods.
Rural Local Service Centre’s – Brinscall/Withnell and Eccleston. In accordance with national guidance a size threshold of 0.2 hectares was applied to amenity
greenspaces and natural/semi-natural greenspaces as it is considered that sites below this size have less recreational value to residents. Only sites identified as being of significance below this threshold were included. The Study recommends that all sites below the threshold and not included in the Study continue to be protected as they provide valuable visual amenity but they will not be included in the quantity and accessibility standards.
Public footpath networks were also not assessed in the original study but have been highlighted
going forward.
3
1.3 Executive Summary
General Summary
In total there are 235 sites identified in Chorley as open space provision. This is an equivalent of over 850 hectares across the area.
Most typologies are set as having an accessibility standard of 10 minute walk time. The typologies of allotments, parks and gardens and natural and semi-natural greenspace also have a drive time catchment applied.
The majority of typologies are perceived as having a good level of availability, with the exception of allotments. In particular.
Nearly two thirds of all open spaces score high for quality. More natural and semi-natural sites score low for quality compared to any other typology. This is due to sites of this type being outside of the typical open space classifications (i.e. woodland buffer zones). General maintenance of open spaces is considered to be of a good standard.
The majority of all open spaces are assessed as being of high value. Reflecting the importance of provision; nearly all allotments, cemeteries, parks and provision for children and young people score high for value. All civic spaces are rated as high value. In addition, more amenity greenspace and natural and semi-natural sites are viewed as high for value.
A number of parish councils identify demand for new or improved open spaces.
Summary Table
Typology Number Size Standard ha/1000
population
Quality High/Low
Value High/Low
New provision needed to
meet standard by
2026
Parks and Gardens 16 200.442 1.91 13/3 16/0 17.760
Natural/Semi-natural Greenspace
36 492.547 4.64 32/4 36 /0 41.860
Amenity Greenspace 129 84.051 0.73 112/17 128/1 4.125
Allotments 16 8.609 0.07 16/0 16/0 0.685
Cemeteries/Churchyards 19 44.491 - 18/1 19/0 -
Green Corridors 16 30.577 - 15/1 15/1 -
Civic Space 3 0.978 - 3/0 3/0 -
TOTALS 235 861.695 209/28 233/2 64.430
Identified deficiencies
New allotment provision should be sought at a minimum size of 1.6 hectares in the areas
identified with deficiencies – Adlington, Croston, Euxton and Whittle-le-Woods. Seek to address lack of amenity greenspace provision identified in Eccleston. Explore potential to formalise sites of a different typology in Whittle-le-Woods to address lack
of parks provision. For example, Carr Brook Linear Park (green corridor) or Meadow Lane (amenity greenspace) could be improved to meet the identified deficiency.
4
Summary of the recommendations and key actions of open space study by settlement
Key: √ means there is a deficit of open space
X means there is adequate or surplus open space
ADLINGTON / (SOUTHEAST PARISHES)
BUCKSHAW VILLAGE / (ASTLEY, EUXTON AND BUCKSHAW)
Key Actions
Protect all existing open spaces in Adlington.
Deliver the proposed extension to Adlington cemetery.
Deliver the allocated allotment site at Harrison Road
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace √ √
Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ √ Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
Key Actions
Protect all existing open spaces in Buckshaw Village.
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace x x
Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ √ Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
5
CHORLEY TOWN / (CHORLEY TOWN WEST AND CHORLEY TOWN EAST)
CLAYTON LE WOODS / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE)
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace x x
Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ √ Allotments x √ Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
Key Actions Protect all existing open spaces in Chorley Town.
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace x x
Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace x x Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
Key Actions Protect all existing open spaces in Clayton-le-Woods.
6
CLAYTON BROOK/GREEN / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE)
COPPULL / (SOUTHERN PARISHES)
Key Actions Protect all existing open spaces in Clayton Brook/Green.
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace x x
Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ x Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace √ x
Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ x Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
Key Actions Protect all existing open spaces in Coppull.
7
ECCLESTON
EUXTON
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace √ √
Parks and gardens √ x Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ √ Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
Key Actions Protect all existing open spaces in Eccleston.
Key Actions Protect all existing open spaces in Euxton.
Deliver the new site for allotments at Sylvester’s Farm.
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace √ √
Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace x x Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
8
WHITTLE-LE-WOODS (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE)
WITHNELL AND BRINSCALL (EASTERN PARISHES)
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace x x
Parks and gardens √ √ Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ √ Allotments √ √ Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
Key Actions Protect all existing open spaces in Whittle-le-Woods.
Summary
Typology Deficit in quantity? Deficit in
accessibility?
Amenity greenspace √ √
Parks and gardens √ x Natural/semi-natural greenspace √ x Allotments x x Green corridors N/A N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards N/A N/A
Civic spaces N/A N/A
Key Actions Protect all existing open spaces in Withnell/Brinscall.
9
OTHER VILLAGES
The table below identifies whether there are any deficiencies in quantity in the other defined rural villages in the Borough.
Village
Deficit in quantity?
Amenity greenspace
Parks and gardens
Natural and semi-natural
Allotments
Abbey Village √ √ √ x
Bretherton x √ √ √ Brindle √ √ x √ Brindle - Gregson Lane
√ √ √ √
Charnock Richard √ √ √ √ Croston x √ √ √ Higher Wheelton √ √ √ √ Hoghton √ √ √ √ Hoghton Gib Lane √ √ √ √ Mawdesley √ √ √ √
Wheelton √ √ √ x
The table below identifies whether there are any deficiencies in accessibility in the other defined rural villages in the Borough.
Village
All of settlement within accessibility standard?
Amenity greenspace
Parks and gardens
Natural and semi-natural
Allotments
Abbey Village √ √ x √ Bretherton √ √ x √ Brindle x √ x √ Brindle - Gregson Lane
x √
x √
Charnock Richard x √ √ √ Croston √ √ x √ Higher Wheelton x √ √ √ Hoghton x √ x √ Hoghton Gib Lane √ √ x √ Mawdesley √ √ x x
Wheelton √ √ x √
Key Actions Protect all existing open spaces in other Villages.
Deliver the new site for allotments at Land East of Station Road, Croston.
10
2.0 CONTEXT 2.1 Local Context Chorley is a predominantly rural area, with approximately two thirds of the Borough being open
space and countryside. This defines the Borough’s character and the protection of open space
from future encroachment is important for all residents of Chorley. Chorley has a population of
109,100 (2012 estimate) who have access to 229 sites classed as open space, covering over
850 hectares. Open spaces can vary from a doorstep green, to a town park, allotments, nature
reserve or large playing field. Much of the open space is owned and maintained by Chorley
Council but residents also have permitted use of a range of privately owned spaces, such as
school playing fields and private sports grounds.
Chorley is identified as a growth area in Lancashire with an estimated 6,000 dwellings to be built
by 2026 with a population expected to rise to between 114,200-118,000. New open spaces will
be created as part of this development.
In general, maintenance of greenspace in Chorley is regarded as being good or excellent quality by residents. Examples of high quality sites are Yarrow Valley Country Park (322 hectares), Astley Park (40 hectares) and Coronation Recreation Ground (1.78 hectares). Parks and open spaces also contribute to our sense of civic pride and provide areas for communities to meet, play and hold a wide range of events. The quality of our parks and open spaces is reflected by the award of Green Flag accreditation for five of our sites; Astley Park, Withnell Local Nature Reserve, Yarrow Valley Country Park and Coronation Recreation Ground and Tatton Recreation Ground.
Parks and open spaces are increasingly recognised as a vital component of successful towns,
cities and villages. Research shows that parks and open spaces are some of the most widely
used facilities provided by local authorities. Urban and semi-rural environments in Chorley offer
a diverse range of open space opportunities, along with the close proximity to beautiful
countryside, the Leeds Liverpool Canal and 317 miles of public rights of way. These
opportunities can help contribute to the health and wellbeing of residents, provide visual and
aesthetic quality, opportunities for formal and informal recreation, contact with wild-space,
multiple environmental benefits and a safe refuge for wildlife and natural habitats.
Chorley was granted membership of the UK Healthy Cities Network in 2013. It is well
documented that there are strong links between health, well-being and open space. Natural
open space and green space demonstrate economic, social, environmental and health benefits
within society.
Studies have shown open space provision helps cool the environment and lowers the impact of climate change this is a result from shade from trees and evapo-transpiration from areas of grassland. The need to protect and increase the amount of open space globally has been heightened through climate change as we increasingly have to deal with hotter summers and wetter winters. Open spaces and green infrastructure have an impact on mitigating against surface and storm water runoff and are a vital component of flood mitigation.
11
2.2 Strategic context
The following key documents are relevant to the Chorley context.
National
National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
National Planning Policy Guidance (NPPG)
NI 199 – national indicator for play
Play Strategy for England (2008)
Regional
Central Lancashire Core Strategy
Strategic Framework for play in Lancashire – LCC, 2010
Central Lancashire PPG17 Open Space Study - May 2012
Local
Chorley Council Corporate and Strategic Priorities
A Sustainable Community Strategy for Chorley (2007 – 2025)
Chorley Health Profile 2012
Chorley Community Safety Partnership
Neighbourhood Plans
Chorley Council’s Vision
The Corporate Strategy vision is “An ambitions Council that achieves more by listening
to the whole community and exceeding their needs.”
Key Themes
To have clean, safe and healthy communities.
High quality play areas, parks and open spaces.
A wide range of quality recreational activities.
To involve residents in improving their local area and equality of access for all.
Easy access to high quality public services.
All residents are able to take an active part in their community.
Residents who take pride in where they live and their achievements.
Measures and targets
% of people satisfied with parks and open spaces. Target 75%.
% of people satisfied with their neighbourhood as a place to live. Target 85%.
12
3.0 KEY ISSUES AND OBJECTIVES 3.1 Vision To create and manage a diverse network of quality, sustainable and accessible open spaces to
serve the needs and aspirations of the residents of Chorley.
3.2 Objectives
To consult with the public, local groups and organisations to implement the Open Space
Action Plans and priorities for all 8 Neighbourhood Areas/Settlements.
To protect and allocate open spaces where possible in the Local Plan.
To increase user satisfaction in our parks and open spaces over the next 5 years, as measured by a biannual residents open space survey.
To invest annually to improve open spaces through developer contributions, grants and
capital works.
To retain 4 Green Flag parks and open spaces over the next 5 years.
To increase the amount of allotment sites across the Borough focusing on the areas with
identified deficiencies by 1.6 hectares before the end of 2019.
Focus on identified deficiencies - particularly around quality, quantity and
accessibility – and improve identified open spaces as per action plans.
To increase community involvement in open space management by supporting at least one new group or individual per year over the next 5 years
13
4.0 METHODOLOGY OF OPEN SPACE ASSESSMENT
In total 235 open spaces have been identified, plotted on GIS and assessed to evaluate quality
and value. Each open space is classified based in its primary open space purpose, so that each
type of open space is only counted once.
Quality and value are fundamentally different and can be unrelated. For example, a high quality
space may be in an inaccessible location and, thus, be of little value; while a rundown (poor
quality) space may be the only one in an area and thus be immensely valuable. As a result
quality and value are treated separately in terms of scoring.
This will also allow application of a high and low quality/value matrix to further help determine
prioritisation of investment and to identify sites that may be surplus to a particular open space
typology.
Quantity Standards The Open Space Study recommends quantity standards for the provision of different types of open space per 1,000 population. These standards have been calculated taking into account the current provision, current population, any identified deficiencies and the estimated population in 2026 (the end date of the Core Strategy and Local Plan).
Typology Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Amenity greenspace 0.73
Parks and gardens 1.91
Natural and semi-natural 4.64
Allotments 0.07
Green corridors -
Cemeteries/churchyards -
Civic spaces -
No quantity standards are set for green corridors, churchyards/cemeteries or civic spaces. The
Open Space Study states that it is not appropriate to set provision standards for green corridors
in terms of quantity because of their linear nature and the demand for cemeteries/churchyards is
determined by demand for burial space. Civic spaces are normally provided on an opportunistic
and urban design led basis therefore no quantity standard is set.
Quality Assessment
Data collated from site visits is based upon those derived from the Green Flag Award scheme (a
national standard for parks and green spaces in England and Wales, operated Tidy Britain). This
is utilised to calculate a quality score for each site visited.
The quality criteria used for the open space assessments carried out are summarised in the
following table.
14
Quality criteria for open space site visit (score)
Physical access, e.g. public transport links, directional signposts, Personal security, e.g. site is overlooked, natural surveillance Access, e.g. appropriate minimum entrance widths Parking, e.g. availability, specific, disabled parking Information signage, e.g. presence of up to date site information, notice boards Equipment and facilities, e.g. assessment of both adequacy and maintenance of provision such
as seats, benches, bins, toilets Location value, e.g. proximity of housing, other greenspace Site problems, e.g. presence of vandalism, graffiti Healthy, safe and secure, e.g. fencing, gates, staff on site Maintenance and cleanliness, e.g. condition of general landscape & features Groups that the site meets the needs of, e.g. elderly, young people Site potential
Value Assessment
Using data calculated from the site visits and desk based research a value score for each site is
identified. Value is defined in PPG17 in relation to the following three issues:
Context of the site i.e. its accessibility, scarcity value and historic value. Level and type of use. The wider benefits it generates for people, biodiversity and the wider environment. The value criteria set is derived from PPG17. It is summarised below:
Value criteria for open space site visits (score)
Level of use (observations only), e.g. evidence of different user types (e.g. dog walkers, joggers, children) throughout day, located near school and/or community facility
Context of site in relation to other open spaces Structural and landscape benefits, e.g. well located, high quality defining the identity and
character of the area Ecological benefits, e.g. supports/promotes biodiversity & wildlife habitats Educational benefits, e.g. provides learning opportunities on nature/historic landscapes, people &
features Social inclusion and health benefits, e.g. promotes civic pride, community ownership and a sense
of belonging; helping to promote well-being Cultural and heritage benefits, e.g. historic elements/links (e.g. listed building, statues) and high
profile symbols of local area Amenity benefits and a sense of place, e.g. attractive places that are safe and well maintained;
helping to create specific neighbourhoods and landmarks Economic benefits, e.g. enhances property values, promotes economic activity and attracts
people from near and far
Value - non site visit criteria (score)
Designated site such as LNR or SSSI Educational programme in place Historic site Listed building or historical monument on site Registered 'friends of group' to the site
15
Quality and Value Scores A threshold was applied to the results to identify whether the site is of high or low quality/value. Green indicates high quality/value (above 40% and 20% respectively), red indicates low quality/value (below 40% and 20% respectively). The Open Space Study recommends what action to take based on the quality and value ratings of a site as follows:
High quality/High value Site should be protected. High quality/Low value Preferred policy approach should be to enhance its value.
If this is not possible the next best policy approach is to consider whether it might be of high value if converted to a different type of open space. If this is also impossible, only then is it acceptable to consider a change of use.
Low quality/High value Preferred policy approach should be to protect site and enhance its quality.
If there is a surplus of sites within that typology, and the site is not needed to remedy a deficiency in another typology, disposal of the site with the lowest value should be considered.
Low quality/Low value If there is an identified shortfall, the policy approach should be to enhance its
quality, provided it is also possible to enhance its value. If there is a surplus of sites within that typology, changing the site to another typology should be considered. If there is no shortfall in other typologies, the open space may be surplus to requirements and a change of use should be considered.
Accessibility Assessment
The Open Space Study sets accessibility standards for the different typologies of open space in order to identify areas that are not currently served by existing facilities. They are based on distances residents would be willing to travel to access different types of open spaces. The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology. It must be noted that accessibility must be looked at on a site by site basis, for example if access to a site means crossing busy roads, railways or waterbodies it may be more appropriate to provide sites on both sides of these transport links to avoid unnecessary threats to site users.
Typology Accessibility Standard
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m)
Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m)
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
Green corridors No standard set.
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set.
Civic spaces No standard set.
No accessibility standards are set for green corridors, churchyards/cemeteries or civic spaces. This is because it is difficult to assess green corridors against catchment areas due to their linear nature and usage. Provision of cemeteries/churchyards should be determined by demand for burial space therefore it is not appropriate to set an accessibility standard. The companion guide to PPG17 states that there is no realistic requirement to set catchments for civic spaces as the provision will not be appropriate in every environment and cannot be easily influenced through planning policy.
16
5.0 ASSESSMENT FINDINGS
5.1 Full assessment and recommendations of open space study by settlement /neighbourhood area
ADLINGTON / (SOUTHEAST PARISHES)
Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Adlington and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 3.967 2.245 -1.722
Parks and gardens 1.91 10.381 0.112 -10.269
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 25.218 0.625 -24.593
Allotments 0.07 0.380 0 -0.380
Green corridors - - 0.885 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 3.106 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
As can be seen from the table above, there is a deficit in provision of all typologies in Adlington.
Quality and Value Assessment The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Adlington is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1298 Rear of Chester Place/ Croston Avenue Amenity greenspace 0.275
1510 Waterford Close Playground Amenity greenspace 0.088 3
1831 Adjacent Fairview Community Centre Amenity greenspace 0.722 3
1967 Jubilee Fields, Station Road Amenity greenspace 0.660 3
1968 Rear of Chapel Street/ Park Road Amenity greenspace 0.146
2013 Adjacent Fairview Drive Amenity greenspace 0.157
2014 Adjacent Meadow View Amenity greenspace 0.187
1702 St Joseph’s Church, Bolton Road Cemeteries/churchyards 0.279
1716 St Paul's Church, Railway Road Cemeteries/churchyards 1.209
1717 Adlington Cemetery, Chapel Street Cemeteries/churchyards 1.618
2012 Rear of Fairview Drive Green Corridor 0.885
1852 Rear of Outterside Street Natural/semi-natural greenspace
0.625
1744 War Memorial Garden, Railway Road Parks and Gardens 0.073 3 3
2018 Leonard Fairclough Memorial Garden, Chapel Street Parks and Gardens 0.039
17
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Adlington.
Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) A small area to the east of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace.
Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m)
An area to the north of the settlement and an area to the south west of the settlement are not within 10 minutes’ walk of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
The northern half of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive time of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that most residents within Adlington are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace and parks and gardens. Deficiencies are identified in relation to access to natural/semi-natural greenspaces and allotments as there are currently none within
the settlement.
18
BUCKSHAW VILLAGE / (ASTLEY, EUXTON AND BUCKSHAW) Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Buckshaw Village and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 1.897 3.012 +1.115
Parks and gardens 1.91 4.964 0 -4.964
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 12.059 0 -12.059
Allotments 0.07 0.182 0 -0.182
Green corridors - - 1.921 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
As can be seen from the table above, there is a surplus of provision of amenity greenspace and a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Buckshaw Village.
Quality and Value Assessment
The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Buckshaw Village is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1963 Guernsey Avenue Amenity greenspace 0.663 3 3
1971 Rear of Community Centre, Unity Place Amenity greenspace 1.038 3
2007 Maltby Square Amenity greenspace 0.579
2009 Shannon Close Amenity greenspace 0.732
1965 Between Perthshire Grove/Grenadier Walk Green corridors 0.426
1966 Between Guernsey Avenue/ Buckinghamshire Place Green corridors 0.209
1972 Liverpool Walk Green corridors 0.729
2008 Between Unity Place/Maltby Square Green corridors 0.557
Consultants to check what new open spaces have been created since study was completed and include new provision in strategy 2020 - 2015.
19
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Buckshaw Village.
Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace.
Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m)
None of the settlement is within 12 minutes’ walk of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
Only areas to the north and west of the settlement are within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that all residents within Buckshaw Village are within the accessibility standard for amenity greenspace. Deficiencies are identified in relation to walking time to parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural green spaces and allotments.
20
CHORLEY TOWN / (CHORLEY TOWN WEST AND CHORLEY TOWN EAST)
Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Chorley and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 24.911 41.746 +16.835
Parks and gardens 1.91 65.177 39.388 -25.789
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 158.335 22.289 -136.046
Allotments 0.07 2.389 3.633 +1.244
Green corridors - - 3.947 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 23.768 -
Civic spaces - - 0.978 -
As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of provision of amenity greenspace and a small surplus of provision of allotments but a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Chorley.
Quality and Value Assessment
The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Chorley is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1326.2 Rangletts Allotments Allotments 0.490
1640 Allotments off Crosse Hall Lane Allotments 1.023
1642 Allotments off Dunscar Drive Allotments 1.074
1643 Hallwood Road/ Moor Road Allotments Allotments 0.277
1645 Sandringham Road Allotments Allotments 0.727
1646 Allotments rear of Worthy Street Allotments 0.042
1314 Coronation Recreation Ground, Devonshire Road Amenity greenspace 1.617
1315 Between 6 and 8 Dorking Road, Great Knowley Amenity greenspace 0.341
1316 Opposite 155 Draperfield, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.085
1326 Rangletts Recreation Ground, Brindle Street Amenity greenspace 1.631
1330 Tatton Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace 1.498
1436 Adjacent 94 Deerfold Amenity greenspace 0.345
1437 Adjacent Buckshaw Primary School, Chancery Road Amenity greenspace 0.661
1439 Adjacent Derian House, Chancery Road Amenity greenspace 2.593
1459 Adjacent Cottage Fields Amenity greenspace 0.737
1520 Adjacent 26 and 36 Redwood Drive Amenity greenspace 0.208
1521 Adjacent 77 Redwood Drive Amenity greenspace 0.720
1528 Rear of Amber Drive Amenity greenspace 0.202
1532 Opposite 26-29 The Bowers Amenity greenspace 0.031
1540 Between Chancery Road/ Hallgate Amenity greenspace 0.295
21
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1542 Between Heather Close and Eaves Lane Amenity greenspace 0.286
1543 Adjacent 57 Cowling Brow/ Rear of Ridge Road Amenity greenspace 0.845
1545 Fell View Park, Cowling Brow Amenity greenspace 3.408
1546 Mayflower Gardens, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.252
1547 Rear of Fir Tree Close, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 1.496
1549 Between Lower Burgh Way/ Draperfield, Eaves
Green Amenity greenspace 0.636
1550 Adjacent Lower Burgh Way, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.681
1554 Adjacent Weldbank House, Weldbank Lane Amenity greenspace 0.314
1556 Clematis Close Play Area, Off Euxton Lane Amenity greenspace 0.095
1558 Playground rear of 36 Foxcote Amenity greenspace 0.421
1678 Adjacent 53 Broadfields Amenity greenspace 0.269
1687 Adjacent Chancery Road/ Wymundsley/ The
Farthings Amenity greenspace 7.379
1688 Adjacent Chancery Road Amenity greenspace 1.180
1718 Adjacent Millennium Way/ Preston Temple Amenity greenspace 0.221
1719 Adjacent Millennium Way/ M61 Junction Amenity greenspace 0.387
1760 Gillibrand, Off Burgh Wood Way Amenity greenspace 1.350
1769 Gillibrand, Keepers Wood Way/ Lakeland Gardens Amenity greenspace 3.103
1770 Gillibrand, Yarrow Valley Way Play Area, Adjacent
Woodchat Drive Amenity greenspace 0.435
1771 Gillibrand, Adjacent Walletts Wood Court Amenity greenspace 0.568
1903 Opposite 208-234 Preston Road Amenity greenspace 0.410
1921 Adjacent Northgate Amenity greenspace 0.100
1928 Adjacent 10 Oakwood View Amenity greenspace 0.237
1940 Rear of 19-21 Sutton Grove, Great Knowley Amenity greenspace 0.213
1941 Adjacent 26 Primrose Street Amenity greenspace 0.085
1957 Buttermere Avenue Play Area Amenity greenspace 2.318
1958 Adjacent Minstrel Pub, Lower Burgh Way, Eaves
Green Amenity greenspace 1.046
1959 Rear of 27-30 The Cedars, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.486
1960 Adjacent 60 The Cedars, Eaves Green Amenity greenspace 0.672
1974 Spurrier Square Amenity greenspace 0.286
2011 Harpers Lane Recreation Ground Amenity greenspace 1.400
2016 Rosewood Close Amenity greenspace 0.203
1720 Chorley Cemetery, Southport Road Cemeteries/churchyards 9.732
1735 Preston Temple, Temple Way Cemeteries/churchyards 10.642
1746 St Gregory's RC Church, Weldbank Lane Cemeteries/churchyards 3.394
1435.3 Astley Park War Memorial Civic spaces 0.048
1993 Flat Iron Car Park Civic spaces 0.871
1995 Magistrates Court Square Civic spaces 0.059
1686 Between Chancery Road/ Westway Green corridors 2.253
1723 Opposite Railway Road Green corridors 1.217
22
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1724 Former Railway Line, Harpers Lane Green corridors 0.477
1336 Adjacent Chorley North Industrial Park and
Laburnum Road
Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 3.414
1683 Between Broadfields/ Euxton Lane Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.217
1725 Between St Gregory's Place/ Burgh Meadows Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.820
1762 Gillibrand, Nightingale Way Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.182
1764 Gillibrand, Adjacent Little Wood Close Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.142
1827 Plock Wood, Lower Burgh Way, Eaves Green Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 11.479
1828 Copper Works Wood, Stansted Road Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 2.822
1829 Adjacent Yarrow Valley Way Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 3.213
1435 Astley Park Parks and gardens 39.388
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Chorley.
Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace.
Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m)
The southern and northern parts of the settlement are not within 12 minutes’ walk of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
Central and eastern parts of the settlement are not within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
The northern part of the settlement and a small area to the south-east are not within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that all residents within Chorley are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace. Small deficiencies are identified in relation to walking time to parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural greenspaces and allotments.
23
CLAYTON BROOK/GREEN / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE) Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Clayton Brook/Green and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 7.574 13.073 +5.499
Parks and gardens 1.91 19.816 0 -19.816
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 48.140 5.299 -42.841
Allotments 0.07 0.726 0.374 -0.352
Green corridors - - 7.524 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.922 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of provision of amenity greenspace but a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Clayton Brook/Green.
Quality and Value Assessment
The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Clayton Brook/Green is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
2010 Manor Road Allotments Allotments 0.374
1339 Playing Field, Great Greens Lane Amenity greenspace 2.727
1346 Between Oakcroft/ Manor Road Amenity greenspace 0.388
1348 Off Clayton Green Road Amenity greenspace 2.048
1504 Off Wilderswood Amenity greenspace 0.264
1506 Off Radburn Brow Amenity greenspace 0.206
1507 Adjacent Near Meadow, Sandy Lane Amenity greenspace 0.447
1512 Meadow Lane, Off Preston Road Amenity greenspace 0.696
1515 Adjacent Gardenia Close Amenity greenspace 0.364
1631 Land off Meadow Lane Amenity greenspace 1.325
1705 Between Wood End Road/ Bearswood Croft Amenity greenspace 0.412
1706 Adjacent 19 Holly Close Amenity greenspace 0.441
1709 Adjacent 37 Sheep Hill Lane Amenity greenspace 0.218
1710 Off Back Lane Amenity greenspace 0.428
1711 Off Wood End Road, adjacent to reservoir Amenity greenspace 0.192
1778 Adjacent 44 Long Acre Amenity greenspace 0.211
1785 Adjacent 9 Brow Hey Amenity greenspace 0.026
1786 Between Carr Meadow/ Carr Barn Brow Amenity greenspace 0.996
1788 Adjacent 87 Daisy Meadow Amenity greenspace 0.224
24
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1793 Rear of 86-89 Greenwood Amenity greenspace 0.063
1798 Between Forsythia Drive/Homestead Amenity greenspace 0.293
1872 Adjacent Clayton Green Road Amenity greenspace 0.433
1873 Adjacent 454 Preston Road Amenity greenspace 0.434
1951 Opposite 4-6 Burghley Close Amenity greenspace 0.237
2023 Clayton Brook Village Centre Amenity greenspace 0.17
1703 Clayton Brook Community Church, Great Greens Lane Cemeteries/churchyards 0.414
1731 St Bede's Church, Preston Road Cemeteries/churchyards 0.508
1368 Carr Brook Linear Park, Adjacent Birch Field/Clover
Field Green corridors 4.785
1505 Carr Brook Linear Park, Westwood Road Green corridors 1.252
1509 Carr Brook Linear Park, Clayton Brook Road Green corridors 1.487
1704 Rear of Wilderswood Close Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 1.839
1855 Rear of 41-44 Woodfield Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.222
2028 Wilderswood Pond Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.01
1857 Opposite 34-37 Brow Hey Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.225
1858 Opposite 16-44 Carr Meadow Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.300
1861 Rear of School Field Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.223
1875 Rear of 16-28 Bearswood Croft Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.431
1876 Adjacent Blackthorn Croft Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.346
1952 Between Osborne Drive/ Chorley Old Road Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 1.437
1953 Between Wood End Road/ Rown Croft Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.276
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Clayton Brook/Green.
Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace.
Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m)
None of the settlement is within 12 minutes’ walk of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
Some of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that all residents within Clayton Brook/Green are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace and natural/semi-natural greenspaces. Deficiencies are identified in relation to access to parks and gardens and walking time to allotments.
25
CLAYTON-LE-WOODS / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE) Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Clayton-le-Woods and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 2.882 4.210 +1.328
Parks and gardens 1.91 7.541 0 -7.541
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 18.319 104.759 +86.440
Allotments 0.07 0.276 0 -0.276
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of provision of amenity greenspace and natural/semi-natural greenspaces. The amount of natural/semi-natural greenspace identified for the settlement includes Cuerden Valley Park which is why there is a large surplus although only a small amount of the park falls within the settlement boundary. There is a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Clayton-le-Woods. Quality and Value Assessment
The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Clayton-le-Woods is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha) Quality rating
Value rating
2029 Kem Mill Lane Allotments Allotments 0.65
1349 Clayton Hall, Spring Meadow Amenity greenspace 0.503
1350 Cunnery Park, Cunnery Meadow Amenity greenspace 0.602
1352 Between 107and 108 Mendip Road Amenity greenspace 0.061
1354 Between 113 and 152 Mendip Road Amenity greenspace 0.080
1356 Between 164 and 172 Mendip Road Amenity greenspace 0.032
1461 Off Higher Meadow Amenity greenspace 1.938
1954 Off Cypress Close Amenity greenspace 0.984
1712 Off Spring Meadow Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.382
1714 Between Higher Meadow/ Cunnery Meadow Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.279
1810 Cuerden Valley Park Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 103.770
26
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Clayton-le-Woods.
Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace.
Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m)
Only a small part to the east of the settlement is within 12 minutes’ walk of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that all residents within Clayton-le-Woods are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace and natural/semi-natural greenspaces. Deficiencies are identified in relation to access to parks and gardens and walking time to allotments.
27
COPPULL / (SOUTHERN PARISHES)
Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Coppull and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 4.999 3.101 -1.898
Parks and gardens 1.91 13.079 0.193 -12.886
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 31.775 11.118 -20.657
Allotments 0.07 0.479 0.470 -0.009
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
As can be seen from the table above, there is a deficit in provision of all typologies in Coppull.
Quality and Value Assessment
The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Coppull is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
2019 Tansley Avenue Allotments Allotments 0.470
1360 Brookside play area Amenity greenspace 0.247
1363 Longfield Avenue play area Amenity greenspace 0.341
1369 Hurst Brook play area Amenity greenspace 0.362
1370 Burwell Avenue play area Amenity greenspace 0.613
1373 Byron Crescent play area Amenity greenspace 0.504
1473 Between Chapel Lane/ Poplar Drive Amenity greenspace 0.181
1884 Clancutt Lane Amenity greenspace 0.497
1955 Between Spendmore Lane/ Station Road Amenity greenspace 0.249
1979 Tanyard Garden Amenity greenspace 0.107
1372 St Oswalds Church Tansley Avenue.
‘Off Tanyard Close’
Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.282
1468 End of Blainscough Road Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 1.983
1728 Reservoir, Mill Lane Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 1.109
1975 Hic Bibi LNR Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 7.744
1978 Coppull Memorial Garden Parks and gardens 0.069
2020 Berry Garden, Chapel Lane Parks and gardens 0.124
28
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Coppull.
Typology Accessibility
Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace.
Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m)
All of the settlement is within 12 minutes’ walk of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
A small part to the east of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that all residents within Coppull are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace, parks and gardens and natural/semi-natural greenspaces. A small deficiency is identified in relation to walking time to allotments.
29
ECCLESTON / (WESTERN PARISHES) Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Eccleston and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 3.078 0.577 -2.501
Parks and gardens 1.91 8.054 6.905 -1.149
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 19.567 0 -19.567
Allotments 0.07 0.295 0 -0.295
Green corridors - - 4.419 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 1.470 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
As can be seen from the table above there is a deficit in provision of all typologies in Eccleston.
Quality and Value Assessment
The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Eccleston is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1388 Rear of 42 The Hawthorns Amenity greenspace 0.140
1499 Adjacent 275 The Green Amenity greenspace 0.039
1533 Middlewood Close Play Area Amenity greenspace 0.110
1670 Opposite 19 Bannister Lane Amenity greenspace 0.208
2015 Cortland Avenue Amenity greenspace 0.080
1668 Church of the Blessed Virgin Mary, Towngate Cemeteries/churchyards 1.470
1669 Rear of Larkfield Green corridors 4.419
1386 Millennium Green, Red House Lane Parks and gardens 1.363
1803 Jubilee & Bradley Lane Fields Parks and gardens 5.542
30
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Eccleston.
Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace.
Parks and gardens 15 minute drive time All of the settlement is within 15 minutes’ drive of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that all residents in Eccleston are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace and parks and gardens. Deficiencies are identified in relation to access to natural/semi-natural greenspaces and walking time to allotments.
31
EUXTON
Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Euxton and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 5.791 2.837 -2.954
Parks and gardens 1.91 15.152 3.295 -11.857
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 36.809 330.670 +293.861
Allotments 0.07 0.555 0 -0.555
Green corridors - - 0.526 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of natural/semi-natural greenspace. The amount of natural/semi-natural greenspace identified for the settlement includes Yarrow Valley Country Park although only a small amount of the park falls within the settlement boundary. It also has a catchment well beyond Euxton. There is a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Euxton.
Quality and Value Assessment
The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Euxton is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
NEW Silvester’s Farm / Pear Tree Lane Allotments TBC
1394 Rear of 60 Hawkshead Avenue Amenity greenspace 0.149
1494 Balshaw Villa, Balshaw House Amenity greenspace 0.421
1495 The Cherries Play Area Amenity greenspace 0.294
1815 Adjacent 92 Mile Stone Meadow Amenity greenspace 1.294
1817 Adjacent 16 Gleneagles Drive Amenity greenspace 0.385
1818 Opposite 58-66 Wentworth Drive Amenity greenspace 0.294
1892 Adjacent Meadowcroft Green corridors 0.526
1696 Rear of Firbank Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 2.170
1697 Adjacent Euxton Hall Gardens Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.469
1730 Chapel Brook West Valley Park Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 3.265
1804 Adjacent 80 Princess Way Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 1.612
1807 Yarrow Valley Country Park Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 322.730
1897 Rear of 21-41 Empress Way Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 0.424
1613 Euxton Hall Park, Euxton Parks and Gardens 3.295
32
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Euxton.
Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) A small area to the west of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace.
Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m)
The northern half of the settlement is not within 12 minutes’ walk of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
None of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that all residents within Euxton are within the accessibility standards for natural/semi-natural greenspaces. Small deficiencies are identified in relation to access to amenity greenspace with more significant deficiencies in relation to access to parks and gardens and walking time to allotments.
33
WHITTLE-LE-WOODS / (CLAYTON AND WHITTLE) Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Whittle-le-Woods and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 3.278 4.745 +1.467
Parks and gardens 1.91 8.578 0 -8.578
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 20.838 0 -20.838
Allotments 0.07 0.314 0.856 +0.542
Green corridors - - 1.355 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.491 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
As can be seen from the table above, there is a significant surplus of provision of amenity greenspace but a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Whittle-le-Woods. Quality and Value Assessment
The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Whittle-le-Woods is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1648 Allotments rear of Bay Horse Hotel, Preston Road Allotments 0.206
1422 Opposite 43-73 Hillside Crescent Amenity greenspace 0.998
1428 Orchard Drive Play Area Amenity greenspace 1.749
1432 End of Foxglove Drive Amenity greenspace 0.544
1535 Rear of Delph Way/ Cross Keys Drive Amenity greenspace 0.219
1537 Dunham Drive Amenity greenspace 0.051
1659 Between Preston Road and Church Hill Amenity greenspace 0.277
1660 Adjacent Heather Hill Cottage, Hill Top Lane Amenity greenspace 0.422
1734 Between Preston Road and Watkin Road Amenity greenspace 0.485
1733 St John The Evangelist Church, Preston Road Cemeteries/churchyards 0.491
1423 Whittle Canal Basin, Mill Lane/ Chorley Old Road Green corridors 1.355
34
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Whittle-le-Woods.
Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace.
Parks and gardens 12 minute walk time (1000m)
None of the settlement is within 12 minutes’ walk of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
The southern half of the settlement is not within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
Small areas to the north and south of the settlement are not within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. All of the settlement is within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that all residents within Whittle-le-Woods are within the accessibility standards for amenity greenspace. Small deficiencies are identified in relation to walking distance to allotments with more significant deficiencies in relation to access to parks and gardens and natural/semi-natural greenspaces.
35
WITHNELL AND BRINSCALL / (EASTERN PARISHES) Quantity Assessment
The table below shows the recommended provision of each typology in Withnell/Brinscall and the hectares that will be needed to meet the recommended quantity standard. This is then compared to the current provision to identify whether there is a surplus or deficit in provision (green indicates surplus, red indicates deficit).
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Recommended Provision up to
2026 (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 1.739 0.403 -1.336
Parks and gardens 1.91 4.549 0 -4.549
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 11.052 4.595 -6.457
Allotments 0.07 0.167 0.511 +0.344
Green corridors - - 10.000 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.785 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
As can be seen from the table above, there is a surplus of provision of allotments but a deficit in provision of all other typologies in Withnell/Brinscall.
Quality and Value Assessment
The qualitative and value rating of all open spaces in Withnell/Brinscall is set out in the table below.
KKP ref
Site name PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1637 Rear of 70-90 School Lane Allotments 0.060
1639 Rear of Pleasant View Allotments 0.451
1902 End of Pleasant View Amenity greenspace 0.403
1741 St Paul's Church, Bury Lane Cemeteries/churchyards 0.785
1692 Withnell Local Nature Reserve, off Bury Lane Green corridor 4.423
1693 Railway Park, rear of Railway Road Green corridor 5.577
1627 Railway Park, Off Withnell Fold Old Road Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 1.931
1694 Lodge Bank Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 2.664
36
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards for each typology and whether there are any deficiencies in provision in Withnell/Brinscall.
Typology Accessibility Standard Deficiencies?
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m) All of Withnell is within 10 minutes’ walk of an amenity greenspace but none of Brinscall is.
Parks and gardens 15 minute drive time Both settlements are within 15 minutes’ drive of a park or garden.
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
Both settlements are within 10 minutes’ walk of a natural/semi-natural greenspace.
Allotments 10 minute walk time (800m) 10 minute drive time
Both settlements are within 10 minutes’ walk of an allotment. Both settlements are within 10 minutes’ drive of an allotment.
Green corridors No standard set. N/A
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. N/A
Civic spaces No standard set. N/A
The table above shows that all residents within Withnell and Brinscall are within the accessibility standards for parks and gardens, natural/semi-natural greenspaces and allotments. Small deficiencies are identified in relation to access to amenity greenspace in Brinscall.
37
OTHER VILLAGES
Quantity Assessment
The Open Space Study does not provide an analysis of quantity in rural settlements not defined as Rural Local Service Centres as they are not identified as areas of growth in the Core Strategy. Although significant housing development will not take place in these settlements, there is likely to be some small scale housing development which will be expected to contribute towards open space provision. In order to give an indication of whether there are any deficiencies in these settlements the current amount of open space has been calculated and then compared to the amount that would be required to meet the identified deficit.
Abbey Village
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.172 0.087 -0.085
Parks and gardens 1.91 0.450 0 -0.450
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 1.095 0 -1.095
Allotments 0.07 0.017 0.720 +0.703
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
Bretherton
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.493 0.245 -0.248
Parks and gardens 1.91 1.291 0 -1.291
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 3.137 0 -3.137
Allotments 0.07 0.047 0 -0.047
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.454 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
Brindle
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.455 0 -0.455
Parks and gardens 1.91 1.190 0 -1.190
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 2.891 3.066 +0.175
Allotments 0.07 0.044 0 -0.044
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.388 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
38
Charnock Richard
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.864 0 -0.864
Parks and gardens 1.91 2.261 0.263 -1.998
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 5.494 0 -5.494
Allotments 0.07 0.829 0 -0.829
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 12.036 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
Croston
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 1.791 3.151 +1.360
Parks and gardens 1.91 4.687 0.08 -4.607
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 11.387 0 -11.387
Allotments 0.07 0.172 0 -0.172
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
Gib Lane
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.223 0.192 -0.031
Parks and gardens 1.91 0.583 0 -0.583
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 1.415 0 -1.415
Allotments 0.07 0.021 0 -0.021
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
Gregson Lane
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.297 0 -0.297
Parks and gardens 1.91 0.777 0 -0.777
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 1.888 0 -1.888
Allotments 0.07 0.028 0 -0.028
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
Higher Wheelton
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.182 0 -0.182
Parks and gardens 1.91 0.476 0 -0.476
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 1.155 0 -1.155
Allotments 0.07 0.017 0 -0.017
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
39
Hoghton
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.430 0 -0.430
Parks and gardens 1.91 1.125 0 -1.125
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 2.733 0 -2.733
Allotments 0.07 0.041 0 -0.041
Green corridors - - 0.361 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
Mawdesley
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.682 0.082 -0.600
Parks and gardens 1.91 1.784 1.511 -0.273
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 4.334 0 -4.334
Allotments 0.07 0.065 0 -0.065
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
Wheelton
Typology
Recommended Standard (ha/1000
population)
Provision Needed to Meet standard (ha)
Current Provision (ha)
Projected Surplus/ Deficit
by 2026 (ha)
Amenity greenspace 0.73 0.596 0.209 -0.387
Parks and gardens 1.91 1.560 0 -1.560
Natural and semi-natural 4.64 3.791 0 -3.791
Allotments 0.07 0.057 1.070 +1.013
Green corridors - - 0 -
Cemeteries/churchyards - - 0.451 -
Civic spaces - - 0 -
Quality and Value Assessment
The table below identifies the quality and value ratings of all open spaces falling within the rural settlements identified above.
KKP ref
Site name Settlement PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1636 Rear of 41-73 Bolton Road Abbey Village Allotments 0.480
1650 Rear of Park View Terrace Abbey Village Allotments 0.240
1283 Adjacent Abbey Mill, Bolton Road Abbey Village Amenity greenspace 0.087
1739 The Apiary, Adjacent Bretherton
Parish Institute, South Road Bretherton Amenity greenspace 0.245
1736 Church of St John the Evangelist,
South Road Bretherton Cemeteries/churchyards 0.176
1737 The Methodist Chapel, South
Road Bretherton Cemeteries/churchyards 0.278
2026 Bank Hall Bretherton Amenity greenspace 4.96
1700 St James Parish Church, Water
Street Brindle Cemeteries/churchyards 0.388
1701 Denham Hill Quarry, Holt Lane Brindle Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 3.066
40
KKP ref
Site name Settlement PPG17 Typology Size (ha)
Quality rating
Value rating
1768 Charnock Richard Crematorium,
Preston Road Charnock Richard Cemeteries/churchyards 11.418
1844 Christ Church, Church Lane Charnock Richard Cemeteries/churchyards 0.618
2017 Orchard Garden Charnock Richard Parks and Gardens 0.263
1483 Jubilee Way Play Area Croston Amenity greenspace 0.118
1485 Between 3 and 33 Riverside
Crescent Croston Amenity greenspace 0.049
1487 Croston Walls, Castle Walk Croston Amenity greenspace 0.635
1609 Between 20 and 26 Riverside
Crescent Croston Amenity greenspace 0.139
2027 Village Green, Adj Out Lane and
Town Road Croston Parks and gardens 0.08
2016 Croft Field Croston Amenity Greenspace 2.12
1490 Opposite the Paddock Gib Lane Amenity greenspace 0.192
1742 Church of the Holy Trinity, Chorley
Old Road Hoghton Cemeteries/churchyards 0.361
1412 Tarnbeck Drive Play Area Mawdesley Amenity greenspace 0.082
1610
Millennium Green, Hurst Green Mawdesley Parks and gardens 1.511
1649 Rear of Maybank and Oakdene,
Withnell Fold
Outside defined
settlement Allotments 0.325
1402 Walmsley’s Farm, Town Lane,
Heskin
Outside defined
settlement Amenity greenspace 0.806
1478 Adjacent 9 Kittiwake Road,
Heapey
Outside defined
settlement Amenity greenspace 0.277
1481 Adjacent 3 Flag Lane, Heath
Charnock
Outside defined
settlement Amenity greenspace 0.504
1743 Rivington Parish Church, Horrobin
Lane, Rivington
Outside defined
settlement Cemeteries/churchyards 0.259
1691 Adjacent Leeds/Liverpool Canal,
Off March Lane, Withnell Fold
Outside defined
settlement Natural/semi-natural
greenspace 5.607
1416 Wymott Park Play Area, Ulnes
Walton
Outside defined
settlement Parks and gardens 0.865
1625 Millennium Green, Withnell Fold Outside defined
settlement Parks and gardens 0.810
1689 Bothy Garden, Withnell Fold Outside defined
settlement Parks and gardens 0.074
1690 Memorial Garden, Withnell Fold Outside defined
settlement Parks and gardens 0.313
1750 Lever Park, Rivington Outside defined
settlement Parks and gardens 146.633
1992 Copthurst Lane Allotments Wheelton Allotments 1.070
1420 Meadow St Play Area Wheelton Amenity greenspace 0.209
1806 St Chads RC Church, Town Lane Wheelton Cemeteries/churchyards 0.451
41
Accessibility Assessment
The table below identifies the accessibility standards of each typology.
Typology Accessibility Standard
Amenity greenspace 10 minute walk time (800m)
Parks and gardens 15 minute drive time
Natural and semi-natural 10 minute walk time (800m)
Allotments 10 minute drive time
Green corridors No standard set.
Cemeteries/churchyards No standard set. Civic spaces No standard set.
The table below identifies whether there are any deficiencies in accessibility in the other defined rural villages in the Borough.
Village All of settlement within accessibility standard?
Amenity greenspace
Parks and gardens
Natural and semi-natural
Allotments
Abbey Village √ √ x √ Bretherton √ √ x √ Brindle x √ x √ Brindle - Gregson Lane
x √
x √
Charnock Richard x √ √ √ Croston √ √ x √ Higher Wheelton x √ √ √ Hoghton x √ x √ Hoghton Gib Lane √ √ x √ Mawdesley √ √ x x
Wheelton √ √ x √
42
5.2 Assessment and Recommendations of Open Space by Typology
Parks and Gardens
There are 16 Parks and Gardens in Chorley covering 200.442 hectares. It must be pointed out
that residents consider Yarrow Valley Country Park to be in this typology because it provides a
similar function and facilities but it is classed as Natural and Semi natural greenspace.
Quality
13 sites scored high for quality including Astley Park, this site has a green flag award and
friends group. Four sites scored low for quality, these are Bothy Garden, and Memorial Garden
in Withnell Fold, Wymott Park in Ulnes Walton and Orchard Garden in Charnock Richard.
Value
All sites are considered to be high value and should be protected. They have high social
inclusion, health benefits, ecological value and sense of place. This is often a result of their role
in providing a range of events which appeal to a variety of users and their level of condition.
Accessibility
All sites are accessible for the catchment standard of 15 minutes’ drive time but gaps in the 12
minute walk time are noted to the South of Chorley and in the Whittle-le-Woods/Clayton-le-
Woods area. The Council should consider addressing these gaps, however South Chorley is
well served by sites such as Yarrow Valley Country Park and Whittle-le-Woods and Clayton-le-
Woods have good access to Cuerden Valley Park and have sufficient provision of amenity
greenspace sites which could be formalised in order to meet gaps.
Natural and Semi Natural Greenspace
There are 36 Natural and Semi Natural Green spaces in Chorley covering 488.028 hectares.
Many are also designated as Biological Heritage Sites for their value to nature conservation and
biodiversity.
Yarrow Valley Covers over 322 hectares and Cuerden Valley Country Park covers over 103
hectares. Chorley has two Local Nature Reserves (LNR’s), Hic Bibi in Coppull and Withnell
Nature Reserve, with Blainscough Nature Reserve proposed to be designated to address the
deficit of LNR provision across Central Lancashire. Chorley Council Ranger Service (team of 3
staff) manages Council sites following ecological management plans and carrying out practical
conservation work. They also facilitate local conservation groups and volunteer groups who help
in the high task of maintaining such a large geographical area of land.
Withnell Local Nature Reserve, Yarrow Valley Country Park and Cuerden Valley Country Park
have a Green Flag Award.
Quality
4 sites score low quality and 32 high quality. Some sites tend to score low for personal security
given their isolated location and not being overlooked. Many sites purposefully have little on-
going management in order to provide specific habitats. It must be noted that the highest quality
site in Central Lancashire was Yarrow Valley Country Park - a reflection of facilities, features
and ranger team.
43
Value
All sites are high value. They are valuable as wildlife habitat and buffer zones for motorways and
between urban areas.
Accessibility
All sites are covered by a 10 minutes’ drive time catchment. There are gaps identified in the 10
minutes’ walk time catchment. An area to the east of Chorley Town and the Rural Local Service
Centre of Eccleston are identified as not being covered by walk time catchment. Eccleston has
sufficient access to the surrounding countryside and continued access should be ensured. The
area to the east of Chorley is restricted by the M61. However, similar to Eccleston, the area is
also served by general countryside
Amenity Greenspace
There are 129 amenity greenspaces in Chorley covering 81.562 hectares. Most of these sites
are found in housing estates and function as informal recreation spaces or open spaces along
highways that provide a visual amenity. Sizes vary and more amenity greenspaces tend to be
present in urban areas as rural areas are served by countryside. They have a multi-purpose
function, offering opportunities for a variety of leisure and recreational activities and improving
the visual aesthetics of residential areas.
Most sites are maintained by Chorley Council, providing a fortnightly visit to sites.
Quality
111 sites score high for quality and 18 low for quality. Sites score high for the range of facilities
available as well as the high standard of appearance and maintenance. The lowest scoring
amenity greenspaces sites are: Adj Brow Hey, Clayton Brook and Bannister Lane, Eccleston.
This was due to lack of natural surveillance and safe entrances. Sites have restricted access
due to lack of maintenance and footpaths, litter was also an issue. They have potential to be of
high value to the community.
Harpers Lane Recreation Ground is classed as amenity greenspace and scores high for quality
with an overall good standard of maintenance. This site could be taken forward for Green Flag
but it may be beneficial to establish an associated ‘friends of group’ to assist with the award
process.
Value
The majority of amenity greenspaces are rated as being high value. Sites score low because
they have no ancillary features or use, mainly in areas acting as buffer zones. E
Accessibility
Areas of greater population density have good access to provision within a 10 minute walk time.
There are minor gaps identified in the settlements of Eccleston and Brinscall.
44
Allotments
There are 16 allotment sites in Chorley covering 7.959 hectares. 7 of these sites are owned and managed by Chorley Council, the rest are private sites. Crosse Hall and Windsor allotments are significant contributors of plots and half plots. Sites at Moor Road are not all strictly used for allotment gardening but as garden space for adjacent terrace housing. The National Society of Allotment and Leisure Gardeners (NSALG) suggests a national
standard of 20 allotments per 1,000 households (i.e. 20 allotments per 2,000 people based on 2
people per house) or 1 allotment per 200 people. This equates to 0.250 hectares per 1,000
population based on an average plot-size of 250 metres squared.
Based on the current population of 109,100 (2012 mid-term estimates), Chorley does not meet
the NSALG standard. Chorley has been allocated its own standard of 0.07 ha per 1000
population. Using the suggested Chorley standard, the minimum amount of allotment provision
for Chorley is 7.994 hectares. The existing provision means we are 0.035 hectares short. The
proposed allotments in Euxton will take this deficit to a surplus per 1000 population.
Chorley Council also has an allotment waiting list of 225 with an estimated 3 year waiting time to
be allocated a plot.
Chorley Council recognised this shortfall in provision and have been working hard to find new
sites. Manor Road was created in 2012 providing an extra 19 plots, St Oswalds Church in
Coppull in 2014 providing 30 plots and Rangletts in 2015 providing 30 plots. Other sites have
been identified and are being investigated.
Chorley has an Allotment Society and Chorley Council operates an Allotment Advisory Group to
help keep sites secure and well maintained, strengthen communication and prioritise areas of
action. Allotments in Chorley are well used by community groups. Community Food Growing
also plays an important part in social inclusion, health benefits, amenity value and sense of
place.
Quality
All allotment sites score high for quality.
Value
All allotment sites score high for value.
Accessibility
The 10 minute walk and drive time standard has been applied. All sites are covered by drive
time but a number of gaps are noted against the walk time standard. The areas of Euxton,
Croston and Adlington are identified as being deficient from the catchment mapping. A total of
1.2 hectares is recommended, an equivalent of 0.4 hectares for each gap. New allotment sites
have been allocated in the Local Plan in these settlements to address the deficiency.
45
Cemeteries and Churchyards
There are 19 cemeteries and churchyards in Chorley covering 44.491 hectares. Clayton Brook Community Church was identified but does not have any form of burial space. Provision of burial space is not a statutory requirement of Councils. However Chorley Council
manage and maintain active cemetery provision at Adlington Cemetery and Chorley Cemetery is
noted as having an onsite maintenance team. Adlington Cemetery is visited at a similar rate to
other types of open space. On average this is every two weeks.
In terms of burial capacity, the two sites managed by Chorley Council are both identified as
having remaining interment space for the next 50 years. This follows recent expansion works to
both sites. Additional land for further expansion is also identified at Chorley and Adlington
Cemeteries for potential future use. The Council recognises that further burial capacity could be
provided if the ratio of cremations continues to increase.
Quality
The majority of cemeteries in Chorley are rated as being high quality. Only 3 sites score below
the threshold; St Joseph’s Church Chorley, The Methodist Chapel Chorley and Rivington Parish
Church. This was due to lack of ancillary features such as seating and litter bins and low
personal security.
In general, the safety of memorial statues and loose headstones is highlighted through officer
consultation as a major concern. Chorley Council specifically identifies this as a common
problem throughout the Borough. Chorley Cemetery also suffers from drainage issues due to
being built on clay sub soil, a new pond has created a wildlife habitat and serves to resolve
some of the issues.
Chorley Cemetery is identified as having the potential to achieve Green Flag Status given its
quality score of 65%.
Value All sites were assessed to be of high value reflecting the role they provide. Sites such as Chorley Cemetery add value and importance to communities through catering for multi religion burials. i.e. Muslim burials. Accessibility There is no accessibility standard set. Instead provision should be based on burial demand.
46
Civic Space
There are 3 Civic Spaces in Chorley covering 0.978 hectares. Civic Spaces in Chorley include
the Flat Iron Car Park, War Memorial (Cenotaph) in Astley Park and the Magistrates Court
Square. There are also other sites that function as a secondary role in civic space provision, for
example Adlington War Memorial is used as civic space but is classed as amenity greenspace.
Quality All civic spaces are high quality. They have good general maintenance and are well served by public transport. The highest scoring site across Central Lancashire, with 84%, is the Flat Iron Car Park. It scores highly due to its high level of use and location in the heart of the Town. The site is also noted as having heritage provision through a memorial statue and being used to host a weekly market. Value All sites are assessed as high value reflecting that provision has cultural/heritage value whilst also providing a sense of place to the local community. Civic Spaces are attractive shopping and event spaces. Accessibility There is no accessibility standard set.
Green Corridors
There are 16 Green Corridors in Chorley covering 30.577 hectares. However, there is significantly more provision to be found in Central Lancashire through the Public Rights of Way Network (PROW). Lancashire has a total network of 3,716 miles of PROW, including 240 miles of Bridleways.
Quality
Most sites score high for quality. The highest scoring sites with a score of 54% are Former
Railway Line Harpers Lane and Between Perthshire Grove/Grenadier Walk Buckshaw Village.
Both sites receive a high score for their general appearance and maintenance as well as the
level of personal security and disabled access.
The lowest scoring site is the Rear of Larkfield, Eccleston, with a score of 29%. Its low quality
score is a reflection of the poor level of drainage observed at the time of the site visit. The site
was also observed as having a low level of personal security and provision of paths that could
be improved..
Value
The majority of green corridors are assessed to be of high value. Withnell Nature Reserve Park
receives the highest value score of 36%; a reflection of the sites designation as a local nature
reserve (LNR). The site’s value is further demonstrated by it being awarded Green Flag status.
One site scores low for value at the Rear of Larkfield Eccleston. The importance of green
corridors is highlighted in linking open space, sport and recreation facilities together. The sites
themselves provide recreational opportunities for activities such as walking and jogging and
wildlife havens.
Accessibility There is no accessibility standard set due to their linear nature. The footpath network contributes to accessibility.
47
5.3 Quality and value matrix
Assessing the quality and value of open spaces is used to identify those sites which should be
given the highest level of protection by the planning system, those which require enhancement
in some way and those which may be redundant in terms of their present purpose.
Allotments
Quality
High Low
Va
lue High
1326.2 - Rangletts Allotments, Chorley
1636 - Rear of 41-73 Bolton Road, Abbey Village
1637 - Rear of 70-90 School Lane, Brinscall
1639 - Rear of Pleasant View, Withnell
1640 - Allotments off Crosse Hall Lane, Chorley
1642 - Allotments off Dunscar Drive, Chorley
1643 - Hallwood Road/ Moor Road Allotments, Chorley
1645 - Sandringham Road Allotments, Chorley
1646 - Allotments rear of Worthy Street, Chorley
1648 - Allotments rear of Bay Horse, Preston Road, Whittle-le-Woods
1649 - Rear of Maybank and Oakdene, Withnell Fold
1650 - Rear of Park View Terrace, Abbey Village
1992 - Cophurst Lane Allotments, Wheelton
2010 - Manor Road Allotments, Clayton Brook/Green
2019 - Tansley Avenue Allotments, Coppull
2029 – Kem Mill Lane Allotments, Whittle-le-Woods
Low
48
Amenity greenspace
Quality
High Low V
alu
e
High
1283 - Adjacent Abbey Mill, Bolton Road, Abbey Village
1298 - Rear of Chester Place/ Croston Avenue, Adlington
1314 - Coronation Recreation Ground, Devonshire Road, Chorley
1326 - Rangletts Recreation Ground, Brindle Street, Chorley
1330 - Tatton Recreation Ground, Chorley
1339 - Playing Field, Great Greens Lane, Clayton Brook/Green
1346 - Between Oakcroft/ Manor Road, Clayton Brook/Green
1348 - Off Clayton Green Road, Clayton Brook/Green
1350 - Cunnery Park, Cunnery Meadow, Clayton-le-Woods
1360 - Brookside play area, Coppul
1369 - Hurst Brook play area, Coppull
1370 - Burwell Avenue play area, Coppull
1373 - Byron Crescent play area, Coppull
1402 - Walmsley's Farm Play Area, Town Lane, Heskin
1422 - Opposite 43-73 Hillside Crescent, Whittle-le-Woods
1432 - End of Foxglove Drive, Whittle-le-Woods
1437 - Adjacent Buckshaw Primary School, Chancery Road, Astley Village, Chorley
1478 - Adjacent 9 Kittiwake Road, Heapey
1494 - Balshaw Villa, Euxton
1520 - Adjacent 26 and 36 Redwood Drive, Chorley
1687 - Adjacent Chancery Road/ Wymundsley/ The Farthings, Astley Village, Chorley
1709 - Adjacent 37 Sheep Hill Lane, Clayton Brook/Green
1710 - Off Back Lane, Clayton Brook/Green
1718 - Adjacent Millennium Way/ Preston Temple, Chorley
1817 - Adjacent 16 Gleneagles Drive, Euxton
1818 - Opposite 58-66 Wentworth Drive, Euxton
1872 - Adjacent Clayton Green Road, Clayton Brook/Green
1873 - Adjacent 454 Preston Road, Clayton Brook/Green
1903 - Opposite 208-234 Preston Road, Chorley
1955 - Between Spendmore Lane/ Station Road, Coppull
1941 - Adjacent 26 Primrose Street, Chorley
1461 - Off Higher Meadow, Clayton-le-Woods
1473 - Between Chapel Lane/ Poplar
1363 - Longfield Avenue play area, Coppull
1388 - Rear of 42 The Hawthorns, Eccleston
1412 - Tarnbeck Drive Play Area, Mawdesley
1420 - Meadow St Play Area, Wheelton
1428 - Orchard Drive Play Area, Whittle-le-Woods
1507 - Adjacent Near Meadow, Sandy Lane,
Clayton Brook/Green
1547 - Rear of Fir Tree Close, Eaves Green, Chorley
1549 - Between Lower Burgh Way/
Draperfield, Eaves Green, Chorley
1660 - Adjacent Heather Hill Cottage, Hill
Top Lane, Whittle-le-Woods
1670 - Opposite 19 Bannister Lane,
Eccleston
1902 - End of Pleasant View, Whittle-le-
Woods
1940 - Rear of 19-21 Sutton Grove, Great
Knowley, Chorley
1960 - Adjacent 60 The Cedars, Eaves
Green, Chorley
2023 – Clayton Brook Village Centre
2025 - Croft Field, Croston
2026 - Bank Hall, Bretherton
49
Amenity greenspace
Quality
High Low
Drive, Coppull
1483 - Jubilee Way Play Area, Croston
1495 - The Cherries Play Area, Euxton
1506 - Off Radburn Brow, Clayton Brook/Green
1510 - Waterford Close Playground, Adlington
1515 - Adjacent Gardenia Close, Clayton Brook/Green
1521 - Adjacent 77 Redwood Drive, Chorley
1528 - Rear of Amber Drive, Chorley
1554 - Adjacent Weldbank House, Weldbank Lane, Chorley
1556 - Clematis Close Play Area, Off Euxton Lane, Chorley
1609 - Between 20 and 26 Riverside Crescent, Croston
1631 - Land off Meadow Lane, Clayton Brook/Green
1315 - Between 6 and 8 Dorking Road,
Great Knowley, Chorley
1316 - Opposite 155 Draperfield, Eaves Green, Chorley
1349 - Clayton Hall, Spring Meadow, Clayton-le-Woods
1352 - Between 107and 108 Mendip Road, Clayton-le-Woods
1354 - Between 113 and 152 Mendip Road, Clayton-le-Woods
1356 - Between 164 and 172 Mendip Road, Clayton-le-Woods
1436 - Adjacent 94 Deerfold, Astley Village, Chorley
1481 - Adjacent 3 Flag Lane, Heath Charnock
1485 - Between 3 and 33 Riverside Crescent, Croston
1504 - Off Wilderswood, Clayton Brook/Green
1535 - Rear of Delph Way/ Cross Keys Drive, Whittle-le-Woods
1543 - Adjacent 57 Cowling Brow/ Rear of Ridge Road, Chorley
1711 - Off Wood End Road, adjacent to reservoir, Clayton Brook/Green
1719 - Adjacent Millennium Way/ M61 Junction, Chorley
1739 - The Apiary, Adjacent Bretherton Parish Institute, South Road, Bretherton
1760 - Gillibrand, Off Burgh Wood Way, Chorley
1769 - Gillibrand, Keepers Wood Way/ Lakeland Gardens, Chorley
1771 - Gillibrand, Adjacent Walletts Wood Court, Chorley
1705 - Between Wood End Road/ Bearswood Croft, Clayton Brook/Green
1793 - Rear of 86-89 Greenwood, Clayton Brook/Green
1798 - Between Forsythia Drive/Homestead, Clayton
50
Amenity greenspace
Quality
High Low
Brook/Green
1831 - Adjacent Fairview Community Centre, Adlington
1957 - Buttermere Avenue Play Area, Chorley
1439 - Adjacent Derian House, Chancery Road, Chorley
1459 - Adjacent Cottage Fields, Chorley
1487 - Croston Walls, Castle Walk, Croston
1490 - Opposite the Paddock, Gib Lane
1499 – Adjacent 275 The Green, Eccleston
1512 - Meadow Lane, Off Preston Road, Clayton Brook/Green
1532 - Opposite 26-29 The Bowers, Chorley
1533 - Middlewood Close Play Area, Eccleston
1540 - Between Chancery Road/
Hallgate, Astley Village, Chorley
1542 - Between Heather Close and
Eaves Lane, Chorley
1545 - Fell View Park, Cowling Brow, Chorley
1546 - Mayflower Gardens, Eaves
Green, Chorley
1550 - Adjacent Lower Burgh Way,
Eaves Green, Chorley
1558 - Playground rear of 36 Foxcote,
Astley Village, Chorley
1659 - Between Preston Road and Church Hill, Whittle-le-Woods
1678 - Adjacent 53 Broadfields, Chorley
1688 - Adjacent Chancery Road,
Astley Village, Chorley
1706 - Adjacent 19 Holly Close, Clayton Brook/Green
1734 - Between Preston Road and Watkin Road, Whittle-le-Woods
1770 - Gillibrand, Yarrow Valley Way
Play Area, Adjacent Woodchat Drive, Chorley
1778 - Adjacent 44 Long Acre, Clayton Brook/Green
1786 - Between Carr Meadow/ Carr Barn Brow, Clayton Brook/Green
1788 - Adjacent 87 Daisy Meadow, Clayton Brook/Green
1815 - Adjacent 92 Mile Stone Meadow, Euxton
1884 - Clancutt Lane, Coppull
1921 - Adjacent Northgate, Chorley
1928 - Adjacent 10 Oakwood View, Chorley
1951 - Opposite 4-6 Burghley Close, Clayton Brook/Green
1954 - Off Cypress Close, Clayton-le-Woods
1974 - Spurrier Square, Chorley
1958 - Adjacent Minstrel Pub, Lower
51
Amenity greenspace
Quality
High Low
Burgh Way, Eaves Green, Chorley
1959 - Rear of 27-30 The Cedars,
Eaves Green, Chorley
1963 - Guernsey Avenue, Buckshaw Village
1967 - Jubilee Fields, Station Road, Adlington
1968 - Rear of Chapel Street/ Park Road, Adlington
1971 - Rear of Community Centre, Unity Place, Buckshaw Village
1979 - Tanyard Garden, Coppull
2007 - Maltby Square, Buckshaw Village
2009 - Shannon Close, Buckshaw Village
2011 - Harpers Lane Recreation Ground, Chorley
2013 - Adjacent Fairview Drive, Adlington
2014 - Adjacent Meadow View, Adlington
2015 - Cortland Avenue, Eccleston
2016 - Rosewood Close, Chorley
2024.1 – Barrow Nook Grove, Adlington
Low 1394 - Rear of 60 Hawkshead Avenue,
Euxton
1785 - Adjacent 9 Brow Hey, Clayton Brook/Green
Green Corridors
Quality
High Low
Va
lue High
1686 - Between Chancery Road/ Westway
1692 - Withnell Linear Park, off Bury Lane
1693 - Withnell Linear Park, rear of Railway Road
1723 - Opposite Railway Road
1724 - Former Railway Line, Harpers Lane
1892 - Adjacent Meadowcroft
1965 - Between Perthshire Grove/Grenadier Walk
1966 - Between Guernsey Avenue/Buckinghamshire Place
1972 - Liverpool Walk
2008 - Between Unity Place/Maltby Square
2012 - Rear of Fairview Drive
1669 - Rear of Larkfield
Low
52
Parks and gardens
Quality
High Low V
alu
e High
1386 - Millennium Green, Red House Lane, Eccleston
1435 - Astley Park, Chorley 1610 - Millennium Green, Hurst
Green, Mawdesley 1613 - Euxton Hall Park, Euxton 1625 - Millennium Green, Withnell
Fold 1744 - War Memorial Garden,
Railway Road, Adlington 1750 - Lever Park, Rivington 1803 - Jubilee & Bradley Lane
Fields, Eccleston 1978 - Coppull Memorial Garden,
Coppull 2018 - Leonard Fairclough
Memorial Garden, Adlington 2020 - Berry Garden, Chapel
Lane, Coppull 2027 – Village Green, Jct Out
Lane and Town Road, Croston.
1416 - Wymott Park Play Area, Ulnes
Walton
1689 - Bothy Garden, Withnell Fold 1690 - Memorial Garden, Withnell Fold 2017 – Orchard Garden, Charnock
Richard
Low
53
Natural and semi-natural greenspace
Quality
V
alu
e
1336 - Adjacent Chorley North Industrial Park and Laburnum Road, Chorley
1468 - End of Blainscough Road, Coppull
1683 - Between Broadfields/ Euxton Lane, Chorley
1691 - Adjacent Leeds Liverpool Canal, Off Marsh Lane, Withnell Fold
1694 - Lodge Bank, Brinscall 1701 - Denham Hill Quarry, Holt
Lane, Brindle 1704 - Rear of Wilderswood Close,
Clayton Brook/Green 1714 - Between Higher Meadow/
Cunnery Meadow, Clayton-le-Woods 1712 - Off Spring Meadow, Clayton-
le-Woods
1728 - Reservoir, Mill Lane, Coppull
1730 - Chapel Brook West Valley Park, Coppull
1762 - Gillibrand, Nightingale Way,
Chorley
1828 - Copper Works Wood,
Stansted Road, Chorley
1857 - Opposite 34-37 Brow Hey,
Clayton Brook/Green
1858 - Opposite 16-44 Carr Meadow,
Clayton Brook/Green
1804 - Adjacent 80 Princess Way, Euxton
1807 - Yarrow Valley Country Park, Chorley/Euxton
1810 - Cuerden Valley Park, Clayton-le-Woods
1829 - Adjacent Yarrow Valley Way, Chorley
1875 - Rear of 16-28 Bearswood Croft, Clayton Brook/Green
1897 - Rear of 21-41 Empress Way, Euxton
1975 - Hic Bibi LNR, Coppull 1372 - Off Tanyard Close, Coppull 1627 - Off Withnell Fold Old Road,
Withnell 1697 - Adjacent Euxton Hall
Gardens, Euxton 1725 - Between St Gregory's Place/
Burgh Meadows, Chorley 1764 - Gillibrand, Adjacent Little
Wood Close, Chorley 1855 - Rear of 41-44 Woodfield,
Clayton Brook/Green 1861 - Rear of School Field, Clayton
Brook/Green 1876 - Adjacent Blackthorn Croft,
1696 - Rear of Firbank, Euxton 1827 - Plock Wood, Lower Burgh
Way, Eaves Green, Chorley 1852 - Rear of Outterside Avenue,
Adlington
54
Natural and semi-natural greenspace
Quality
Clayton Brook/Green 1952 - Between Osborne Drive/
Chorley Old Road, Clayton Brook/Green
1953 - Between Wood End Road/ Rowan Croft, Clayton Brook/Green
2028 – Wilderswood Pond
55
6.0 FUTURE PROVISION
6.1 Delivery of the Deficiencies and Key Recommendations
Management and Development
The following issues should be considered when undertaking site development or enhancement:
Financial viability. Security of tenure. Planning permission requirements and any foreseen difficulties in securing permission. Gaining revenue funding from planning contributions in order to maintain existing sites. Gaining planning contributions to assist with the creation of new provision where need has
been identified. Analysis of the possibility of shared site management opportunities. The availability of opportunities to lease site to external organisations. Options to assist community groups/parish councils to gain funding to enhance existing
provision. Negotiation with landowners to increase access to private strategic sites.
Funding Sources
Outside of developer contributions there are also a number of potential funding
sources1available to community and voluntary groups. Each scheme is different and is designed
to serve a different purpose. In order for any bid to be successful consideration to the schemes
criteria and the applicant’s objectives is needed. Below is a list of funding sources that are
relevant for community improvement projects involving parks, open spaces and nature
conservation.
BIG Lottery Fund Awards for All Access to Nature (only eligible to existing Access to Nature projects) Heritage Lottery Fund Community Development Foundation Landfill Communities Fund Esmee Fairbairn Foundation Lloyds TSB Foundation Co-Operative Group Community Fund Forestry Commission – English Woodland Grant Scheme Biffa Awards Lancashire Environment Fund (LEF)
There will be other sources of funding available in addition to those listed above. Sources for
funding applications are continuously changing and regular checking of funding providers should
be undertaken.
1 Source: Potential funding for community green spaces, DCLG
56
How Provision is to be made to Address Deficiencies
New housing developments in the Borough are required to contribute towards open space
provision. The requirements vary according to the type of open space to be provided. Collecting
contributions from developers will be undertaken through the following process.
Seeking developer contributions
The Open Space and Playing Pitch Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) was adopted on
the 17th September 2013. It sets out the Council’s approach to securing open space provision
and improvements through new housing development. The guidance forms the basis for
negotiation with developers to secure contributions for the provision or improvements of
appropriate facilities and their long term maintenance. Section 106 contributions can also be
used to improve the condition and maintenance regimes of playing pitches. A number of
management objectives will be implemented to enable the above to be delivered:
Continue to ensure that where sites are lost, through development or closure, that facilities of the same or improved standard are provided to meet the continued needs of residents.
Consider ring-fencing capital receipts from disposals of open spaces specifically for investment into other open spaces.
Planning consent should include appropriate conditions and/or be subject to a Section 106 Agreement. Where developer contributions are applicable, a Section 106 Agreement must be completed specifying the amount and timing of sums to be paid.
A ‘central pot’ for developer contributions across each authority should be established to invest in open space provision and maintenance.
Where significant new open spaces are provided, car parking should also be incorporated to service the site.
Determining contributions
Establishing whether open space provision is required and whether it should be provided on site
is detailed in the SPD. Elements to consider when determining this include:
the total amount of open space provision within the locality and whether the amount of provision will be above the quantity standards set for each typology following completion of the development
whether the locality is within the accessibility catchment standards as set for each open space typology
whether enhancement of existing provision is required if either or both the quantity and accessibility standards are sufficiently met.
In development areas where open space provision is identified as being sufficient in terms of
quantity, provision of new open space is not deemed necessary. It may be more suitable to seek
contributions for quality improvements.
Off-site contributions
In instances where it is not realistic for new provision to be provided on site or if there is a
surplus in the quantity of provision it may be more appropriate to seek to enhance the existing
quality of provision and/or improve access to sites. Standard costs for the enhancement of
existing open space and provision of new open spaces are clearly identified in the SPD and will
be revised on a regular basis by each local authority. A financial contribution should be, for
57
example, required principally but not exclusively for the following typologies; subject to the
appropriate authority providing and managing the following forms of open space provision:
Parks and gardens Allotments Amenity greenspace Provision for children/young people Natural/semi-natural greenspace
The wider benefits of open space sites and features regardless of size should be recognised as
a key design principle for any new development. Particularly in instances where it is not deemed
appropriate for new onsite provision or for contributions towards the enhancement of offsite
provision. The SPD sets out that appropriate provision of open space features (e.g. trees,
hedging, gaps in the built form) should be sought. These features and elements can help to
contribute to the perception of open space provision in an area whilst also ensuring an
aesthetically pleasing landscape providing social and health benefits.
The figure below sets out the processes needing to be considered when determining developer
contributions towards open space, sport and recreation provision.
58
Determining developer contributions
Decide if the number of dwellings proposed is required
to provide open space and the types of open space,
sport and recreation facilities required.
Determine whether, after the development, there will be a sufficient
amount of open spaces within the accessibility catchments of the
development site, including on site, to meet the needs of existing and new
populations based on the proposed local standards.
Does the quality of open spaces within the
accessibility catchments match the quality
thresholds in the Assessment?
Work out the requirement for each
applicable type of open space
Determine whether the open space
can/should be provided on site
No developer contribution
towards new or
enhancing open space
provision is normally
required
The developer will be
required to contribute to the
enhancement of offsite
provision within the
accessibility standards set
Determine whether
the open space
can/should be
provided on a
different site
Determine whether
the open space will
be designed and built
by the Council
No further action
Calculate the recommended contribution for
enhancing existing provision.
Calculate the developer
contribution for new
provision
Work out the
developer
contribution for
new provision
The developer should
design and build
provision onsite
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes Yes
No
No
No
No
No
No
59
Maintenance contributions
There is a requirement on developers to demonstrate that where onsite provision is to be
provided it will be managed and maintained accordingly. In some instances the site may be
adopted by the Council, which will require the developer to pay a sum of money in order to pay
the costs of the sites future maintenance. Often the procedure for Councils adopting new sites
includes:
The developer being responsible for maintenance of the site for 12 months or a different agreed time period.
Sums to cover the maintenance costs of a site (once transferred to the Council) should be intended to cover a period of 10 years.
The maintenance contributions required are set out in the SPD and are based on current
maintenance costs.
Calculating onsite contributions
The requirement for open spaces should be based upon the number of persons generated from
the net increase in dwellings in the proposed scheme, using the average household occupancy
rate of 2.4 persons per dwelling as derived from the Census 2001.
The next stage is to calculate the open space requirement by typology per dwelling. This is
calculated by multiplying the number of persons generated from the development by the quantity
standard for that typology (ha per 1,000 population). Using amenity greenspace in Chorley as an
example, the recommended standard is 0.73 ha per 1,000 population.
This figure is then divided by 1,000 to identify the amount of provision to be made as the
standards are set out as hectares per 1,000 population.
60
7.0 STRATEGY REVIEW
This report analyses and summarises the findings of the Open Space Study. It identifies where there are deficiencies and where further provision is required. It also identifies where improvements are needed to existing sites. The majority of sites are being protected through the Local Plan and improvements being made to the quality and/or value of these sites. The majority of deficiencies can be addressed by securing new provision from housing developments either on-site or by way of a financial contribution towards off-site provision. The Open Space Strategy does recommend allocating some sites to meet identified deficiencies. It recommends new allotment provision in Adlington, Croston and Euxton, sites have been allocated in the Local Plan.
As recommendations and deficiencies are addressed it is important to continually update the baseline data.
61
Appendix A
Maps Showing Typologies within Settlements
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
Appendix B
Total Open Space Provision by Settlement and Ward
Current provision by settlement (updated August 2017)
Settlement
Parks and Gardens -
current provision
Parks and Gardens -
surplus/deficit
Natural/ Semi-Natural - current
provision
Natural/ Semi-Natural -
surplus/deficit
Amenity Greenspace -
current provision
Amenity Greenspace -
surplus/deficit
Provision for Children/Young People - current
provision
Provision for Children/Young
People - surplus/deficit
Allotments - current
provision
Allotments - surplus/deficit
Abbey Village 0 -0.450 0 -1.095 0.087 -0.085 0.131 +0.112 0.720 +0.703
Adlington 0.112 -10.269 0.625 -24.593 2.465 -1.502 0.466 +0.031 0 -0.380
Bretherton 0 -1.291 0 -3.137 0.245 -0.248 0.125 +0.071 0 -0.047
Brindle 0 -1.190 3.066 +0.175 0 -0.455 0 -0.050 0 -0.044
Buckshaw Village 0 -4.964 0 -12.059 3.012 +1.115 0.488 +0.280 0 -0.182
Charnock Richard 0.263 -1.998 0 -5.494 0 -0.864 0.102 +0.007 0 -0.829
Chorley Town 39.388 -25.789 22.289 -136.046 41.460 +16.549 3.500 +0.671 3.633 +1.244
Clayton Brook/Green 0 -19.816 5.399 -42.741 13.243 +5.669 0.307 -0.523 0.374 -0.352
Clayton-le-Woods 0 -7.541 104.759 +86.440 4.210 +1.328 0.285 -0.031 0 -0.276
Coppull 0.193 -12.886 11.118 -20.657 2.796 -2.176 3.226 +2.678 0.470 -0.009
Croston 0.080 -4.607 0 -11.387 3.151 +1.360 0.111 -0.085 0 -0.172
Eccleston 6.905 -1.149 4.419 -15.148 0.577 -2.501 0.637 +0.300 0 -0.295
Euxton 3.295 -11.857 330.670 +293.861 2.837 -2.954 0.569 -0.066 0 -0.555
Gib Lane 0 -0.583 0 -1.415 0.192 -0.031 0 -0.024 0 -0.021
Gregson Lane 0 -0.777 0 -1.888 0 -0.297 0 -0.033 0 -0.028
Higher Wheelton 0 -0.476 0 -1.155 0 -0.182 0 -0.020 0 -0.017
Hoghton 0 -1.125 0 -2.733 0 -0.430 0 -0.047 0 -0.041
Mawdesley 1.511 -0.273 0 -4.334 0.082 -0.600 0.190 +0.115 0 -0.065
Wheelton 0 -1.560 0 -3.791 0.209 -0.387 0.042 -0.023 1.070 +1.013
Whittle-le-Woods 0 -8.578 0 -20.838 4.745 +1.467 0.439 +0.080 0.856 +0.542
Withnell/Brinscall 0 -4.549 4.595 -6.457 0.403 -1.336 0.158 -0.033 0.511 +0.344
72
Current provision by ward (updated August 2017)
Ward
Parks and Gardens -
current provision
Parks and Gardens -
surplus/deficit
Natural/ Semi-Natural
- current provision
Natural/ Semi-Natural -
surplus/deficit
Amenity Greenspace -
current provision
Amenity Greenspace -
surplus/deficit
Provision for Children/
Young People - current provision
Provision for Children/
Young People - surplus/deficit
Allotments - current
provision
Allotments - surplus/deficit
Adlington and Anderton 0.112 -13.271 0.625 -31.887 2.377 -2.738 0.455 -0.105 0 -0.490
Astley Village and Buckshaw 0 -6.989 3.482 -13.496 15.881 +13.210 0.396 +0.103 0 -0.256
Brindle and Hoghton 0 -4.177 8.673 -1.475 0.192 -1.404 0 -0.175 0 -0.153
Chisnall 0.263 -7.546 2.265 -16.708 1.419 -1.566 3.064 +2.737 0.470 +0.184
Chorley East 0 -12.509 0 -30.387 6.324 +1.543 0.677 +0.153 1.065 +0.607
Chorley North East 0 -14.037 3.414 -30.685 3.072 -2.293 0.250 -0.338 1.074 +0.560
Chorley North West 39.388 +28.224 2.822 -24.299 1.617 -2.650 0.810 +0.342 0.727 +0.318
Chorley South East 0 -11.915 0 -28.944 3.107 -1.447 0.873 +0.374 0.490 +0.053
Chorley South West 0 -15.311 338.566 +301.372 14.102 +8.250 0.453 -0.188 0.277 -0.284
Clayton-le-Woods and Whittle-le-Woods 0 -13.603 4.429 -28.617 6.188 +0.989 0.679 +0.110 1.880 +1.204
Clayton-le-Woods North 0 -12.782 0.970 -30.081 10.663 +5.778 0.187 -0.348 0 -0.468
Clayton-le-Woods West and Cuerden 0 -8.381 104.759 +84.399 4.210 +1.007 0.285 -0.066 0 -0.307
Coppull 0.193 -12.025 8.853 -20.829 2.183 -2.486 0.695 +0.183 0 -0.448
Eccleston and Mawdesley 8.416 -0.352 4.419 -23.440 0.659 -3.724 0.820 +0.340 0 -0.420
Euxton North 0 -8.643 2.170 -18.826 1.973 -1.330 0.244 -0.118 0 -0.317
Euxton South 3.295 -4.383 2.505 -16.148 0.570 -2.365 0.315 -0.007 0 -0.281
Heath Charnock and Rivington 146.633 +142.452 0 -10.157 0.592 -1.006 0.011 -0.164 0 -0.153
Lostock 0.945 -10.702 0 -28.295 6.146 +1.695 0.272 -0.216 0 -0.427
Pennine 0 -4.393 0 -10.672 2.077 +0.398 0.048 -0.136 1.070 +0.782
Wheelton and Withnell 1.197 -6.655 4.595 -14.480 0.699 -2.302 0.331 +0.002 1.556 +1.393