An Analysis of Accessible Natural Spaces

8/10/2019 An Analysis of Accessible Natural Spaces

1/63

An analysis of accessible natural

greenspace provision in the South EastPatrick McKernan, Forestry Commission and Matthew Grose, High Weald AONB Unit


2/63

A study produced for theSouth East AONBs Woodlands Programme,the Forestry Commission, and Natural England

An analysis of accessible naturalgreenspace provision in the South East

February 2007

Patrick McKernan, Forestry Commissionand Matthew Grose, High Weald AONB Unit

Front cover photograph: Devils Kneading Trough, Wye Downs, in the Kent Downs AONBAll photographs in report Patrick McKernan


3/63

1 An analysis of accessible natural greenspace provision in the Sout h East

Contents

Forewords ............. ............... ............... .............. ............... .............. .......... 2

Summary .............. ............... ............... .............. ............... .............. .......... 3

1.0 Introduction ............. ............... .............. ............... .............. .......... 4

2.0 Methodology .............. ............... ............... .............. ............... ....... 10

3.0 Results .............. .............. ............... .............. ............... ............... .. 18

4.0 Further analysis ............. .............. ............... ............... .............. ..... 37

5.0 Using the analysis to target access provision .............. .............. ............... ............... .............. ..... 43

6.0 Discussion ............. ............... ............... .............. ............... ............ 45

7.0 Recommendations .............. .............. ............... ............... .............. 52

Acknowledgements .................................................................................. 53

References and glossary ............. .............. ............... ............... .............. ..... 54

Appendices.............................................................................................. 55


4/63

An analysis of accessible natural greenspace provision in the Sout h East 2

Natural England welcomes this report. Its findingsmake a major contribution to our understanding ofaccessible natural greenspace in the South East. Byclearly setting out current levels of provision, the studyhas provided a firm evidence base for developing the

strategic direction of future access work in the region.

With high population levels and planned housinggrowth, access and recreation opportunities are keyissues in the South East. This study provides the firstin-depth and thorough overview of the existing levelsof accessible natural greenspace, and a framework forassessing the need for additional greenspace in areasof access deficiency, as well as areas where growingpopulation levels may indicate the need for increasedprovision.

Natural England promotes the benefits that wildlife,countryside and all our natural greenspaces can bringto peoples lives. The undertaking of this study inpartnership with the Forestry Commission and theprotected landscapes of the South East reflects NaturalEnglands commitment to working closely with keystakeholders to encourage greater use and enjoymentof the countryside.

Our aim is to increase the number of people enjoying,understanding and acting to improve the naturalenvironment. This report, by highlighting thedisparity in levels of provision in different parts ofthe region, provides both Natural England and ourpartners with a starting point for how we address thischallenge.

Alan LawSouth East Regional DirectorNatural England

The Forestry Commission is pleased to welcomethis report, which provides the first, region-wideassessment of accessible natural greenspace.

In the heavily wooded South East, woodlands makean important contribution to our quality of life, notleast as areas for access and recreation. This studyunderlines their role, revealing that woodlands makeup over half of all accessible natural greenspace, andhighlighting the significant role of woodland accessgrants and Forestry Commission-managed land inproviding access opportunities.

The Forestry Commission believes that greenspaceareas are a vital part of the quality of the localenvironment. Encouraging greater access togreenspace can address many agendas, not least thecontribution this can make to peoples health. Using

woodlands for walking or for other forms of recreationsuch as cycling or riding has many benefits - just beingin the presence of trees and woodland can reducestress and improve well being.

One of the Forestry Commissions key aims is to

provide more and better-quality access to woodlands,particularly in areas with the greatest need. Thisreport has demonstrated the differences in greenspaceprovision, and through its strategic overview of theSouth East, has helped identify the means for targetingaccess improvements.

Building on the findings in this report, the ForestryCommission will continue to work closely withothers in the region to improve access provision, andpromote the value of woodlands for all.

Alan BettsConservatorSouth East England ConservancyForestry Commission

Forewords


5/63


Summary

This report provides details of a study into theprovision of accessible natural greenspace in the SouthEast. It is aimed at those working professionally inthe areas of access and greenspace provision, greeninfrastructure analysis, and those undertaking similarstudies.

The study was undertaken as part of the South EastAreas of Outstanding Natural Beauty (AONBs)Woodlands Programme. Although the work focusedon protected landscapes and the contribution of

woodland to greenspace provision, it was considerednecessary to undertake a strategic analysis of accessiblenatural greenspace across the South East, to providethe widest possible context for the analysis. The studyalso included the entirety of the Chilterns and North

Wessex Downs AONBs, both of which extend beyondthe South East.

The main part of the analysis was based on theAccessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt),originally developed by English Nature, now partof Natural England. Using the ANGSt model, thestudy has identified levels of provision and areasof deficiency, as well as the area, distribution, andcomposition of accessible natural greenspace. Thestudy has shown, for instance, that 57% of allaccessible natural greenspace in the South East is

woodland, but that this only represents 30% of theregions woodland area.

The report shows how new access opportunitiescan be provided for through targeting areas such as

woodlands which currently fall outside the definitionof accessible greenspace, and the effect this will haveon levels of greenspace provision.

The report describes the rationale for the study, as wellas the methods used to collate and analyse the data.The results are followed by a discussion of the studysfindings, and recommendations for future research inthis area. ANGSt results are provided for all districts,

unitary authorities, counties, and protected landscapesin the South East. For the region as a whole, the studyhas revealed that:

20% of all households in the region have access toa site of at least two hectares within 300 metres

66% of all households in the region have access toa site of at least 20 hectares within 2 kilometres



10% of all households in the region do not haveaccess to accessible natural greenspace within the

definitions of the ANGSt model

The report also considers the limitations of theANGSt model, principally that a large populationcould have its requirements met by a small numberof sites, leading to potentially high visitor pressureon these areas. To help address this issue, the studyexamined the potential population pressure on sites,as well as the level of choice of accessible naturalgreenspace available to people in the South East.

This additional information further refines the use ofthe analysis for identifying key areas where access to

greenspace could be increased. An example is givenwhere a woodland, occurring in an area of accessdeficiency, is targeted to provide access, illustratinghow the effects of adding new greenspace can bemeasured in terms of additional households meetingthe ANGSt requirements.

This is the first time such an analysis has beenundertaken for an entire region, and the results of thestudy can now be used to help set strategic priorities,identify key areas to focus resources on, and providean evidence base upon which decisions can be madefor increasing access to natural greenspace. Thestudy is being taken forward by Natural England andthe Forestry Commission, to enable its findings andrecommendations to be acted upon, and to encouragepartnerships with other key stakeholders that willenhance the contribution accessible natural greenspacemakes to people in the South East.


6/63


Introduction

1.0 Introduction

The project to map and analyse accessible greenspacein the South East came out of a pilot study initiatedby the South East AONBs Woodlands Programme.This three year Programme, running from 2003 to2006, arose out of a joint accord in 2001 between theNational Association for Areas of Outstanding NaturalBeauty and the Forestry Commission.

The South East AONBs Woodlands Programme was

set up to work in partnership with the High Weald,Kent Downs, Surrey Hills, East Hampshire and SussexDowns AONBs. It also came to work closely with asecond AONB Woodlands Programme in the region,focusing on the Chilterns and North Wessex Downs

AONBs. The Steering Group for the Programmeincluded representatives from the AONBs, theForestry Commission, the Countryside Agency, andEnglish Nature (these latter two organisations are nowpart of Natural England).

As well as focusing on issues concerning natureconservation, landscape quality, and renewableresources, the Programme sought to identify priorityareas for enhancing woodland access opportunities

within these heavily wooded AONBs. In November2003, a report was produced by the then South East

AONBs Woodlands Officer, Patrick McKernan,setting out the rationale and methodology for ananalysis of natural greenspace both within and beyond

the AONBs covered by the Programme (McKernan,2003).

Following this, and an initial pilot study, the decisionwas taken to carry out an analysis of accessible naturalgreenspace provision across the South East, as well asfor the entirety of the Chilterns and North WessexDowns AONBs, both of which fall partly outside theregion. This study, undertaken by Patrick McKernan(now working for the Forestry Commission), andMatthew Grose (High Weald AONB Unit), was

started in August 2005 and completed in June 2006,and is the focus of this report.

1.1 Audience for this report

Although this report has a particular focus onprotected landscapes and woodland within theSouth East, its results are not limited to these areas.The analysis includes, for instance, all of the mainadministrative areas in the region. The report willbe of interest to, and is aimed at, all those workingprofessionally in the areas of access and greenspaceprovision, green infrastructure analysis, and thoseundertaking similar ANGSt studies.

Relevant organisations in these areas includegovernment agencies, AONBs and National Parks,local authorities, academic institutions, and bodiesrepresenting a range of stakeholders, such as localaccess forums. The initial findings from this

study have already been presented to a number oforganisations and local access forums in the region,and this report aims to provide a complete summaryof the work and its results.

The report assumes a reasonable knowledge of theSouth East region, including its administrative areas,centres of population, diverse landscapes, and landuse patterns. The boundaries and locations of featuresare shown in the maps wherever possible, but not allfeatures are included in detail on every map.

1.2 Protected landscapes in the South East

The analysis detailed in this report, although coveringthe entire region, was undertaken primarily on behalfof the AONBs in the South East. Of these, the SussexDowns and East Hampshire AONBs now fall withinthe designated but not yet confirmed boundary ofthe South Downs National Park. Map 1, on thenext page, shows the location of protected landscapes

wholly or partly within the region.

1.2.1 Area of AONBs and National Parks

The area of each AONB and National Park whollyor partly within the South East is shown in Table 1(on page 6). This table also gives the area of eachprotected landscape that occurs wholly within theregion.


7/63


1.2.2 The role of woodlands

The South East is Englands most wooded region, withits woodland cover of 15% being twice the nationalaverage (Forestry Commission, 2005). AONBs inthe South East are also amongst the most heavily

wooded in the country. In the Chilterns, for instance,woodland accounts for 21% of the AONB, with thisfigure rising to 25% in the High Weald, and 40% inthe Surrey Hills.

With woodlands being such an important componentof these protected landscapes, they were consideredlikely to make a significant contribution to theoverall area of accessible natural greenspace. Inaddition, woodlands which fall outside the definitionof accessible natural greenspace may well providean opportunity for increasing access in areas of lowgreenspace provision.

However, the initial report on accessible greenspaceproduced for the South East AONBs WoodlandsProgramme (McKernan, 2003) considered thatalthough woodlands play an important role inrecreation and access provision, they are only oneaspect of natural greenspace in the South East. Theresearch for the report found no clear evidence that

woodland was sought after more than any other typeof greenspace for recreation and access activities. Thereport concluded, therefore, that an understandingof the contribution of woodlands to access and

recreation provision would require an analysis thattook into account all types of natural greenspace in thecountryside.

A model was therefore required which could provide

an analysis of all natural greenspace in the South East.A key requirement was that the model would needto provide a suitable method that could be applied todigital mapping analysis specifically, that it shouldinclude size and distance criteria, i.e. a definition of

Map 1. Location of protected landscapes wholly or partly within the South East

Oxfordshire

Buckinghamshire

Hampshire

Surrey

West

SussexEastSussex

Kent

Map derived from Ordnance Survey digital data. Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Natural En gland licence no. 100046223 (2007)

ChilternsCotswolds

Chichester Harbour

Cranbourne Chase &West Wiltshire Downs

High Weald

Isle of Wight

Kent DownsNorth Wessex DownsSurrey Hills

South Downs National Park(designated but not yet confirmed)

Counties in the SouthEast (simplified)

AONBs

Legend

New Forest National Park

South East region

N


8/63


different size classes of greenspace, and the relevantdistance they should be from a given population.

1.3 Use of the ANGSt model for analysingaccessible greenspace provision

Following a review of relevant literature, andconsultation with the steering group members, it wasdecided that the most suitable model for this study

was the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard. Thestandard is included as a model in the companionguide to Planning Policy Guidance 17 (PPG17)(Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2002a, b) , andin 2005, a report on green infrastructure produced onbehalf of a range of regional and national organisationsconsidered that The English Nature Greenspacestandard is regarded as having the best fit to GreenInfrastructure Planning (Davies, C., et al., 2005).

The ANGSt model states:

That no person should live more than300m from their nearest area of natural

greenspace of at least 2ha in size

That there should be at least one

accessible 20ha site within 2km of home

That there should be one accessible

100ha site within 5km of home

That there should be one accessible

500ha site within 10km of home

Note: The 300 metre distance in the ANGSt model reflects anacceptable walking distance, as suggested by research undertaken forthe standard. This was considered to be approximately 100-400metres, or a five minute walk (Handley, et al., 2003).

Although this model was designed primarily for theurban context, its areas of search (up to 10 kilometres)

will extend from towns and cities into rural areas.The ANGSt model can therefore be used to assess therole of natural greenspace at the local level, as well asenable an analysis of how natural greenspace in the

wider countryside contributes to open space provisionfor both urban and rural populations.

Protected landscape Total area (ha) Area whollywithin the SouthEast region (ha)

Area within theSouth East as a% of the region

Cranbourne Chase & West Wiltshire Downs AONB 98,593 6,743 0.3

Chichester Harbour AONB 7,308 7,308 0.4

Chilterns AONB 83,828 65,554 3.4

Cotswolds AONB 204,142 24,876 1.3

High Weald AONB 146,171 146,171 7.5

Isle of Wight AONB 19,103 19,103 1.0

Kent Downs AONB 87,885 87,580 4.5

North Wessex Downs AONB 173,104 97,702 5.0

Surrey Hills AONB 42,210 42,210 2.2

New Forest National Park 57,096 54,049 2.8

South Downs National Park 164,126 164,126 8.5

Totals: 1,083,566 715,422 36.9

Table 1. The area of each AONB and National Park wholly or partly within the South East (the area of the region is 1,941,285 hectares)


9/63


1.4 A model of natural greenspace

It should be noted that the ANGSt model was devisedby a nature conservation organisation. The standardtherefore refers to natural greenspace, i.e. accessibleareas that also provide potential wildlife habitat. Thelower size limit of two hectares reflects the assumptionthat a site smaller than this would not be sufficientlylarge to accommodate both public access and wildlife-rich habitats. In practice, most greenspace areasgreater than two hectares, particularly in the wider

countryside, tend to meet the natural criteria set outbelow, so the definition of natural greenspace was notfound to be a bar to including most greenspace sites inboth urban and rural areas in this study.

1.5 Definition of accessible natural greenspace

English Nature, in devising the Accessible NaturalGreenspace Standard, defined natural greenspaceas areas naturally colonised by plants and animals(Handley, et al., 2003). Some local authorities trialingthe ANGSt model reported difficulty in identifyingnatural greenspace from this definition, withManchester City Council adopting the alternativedefinition of Sites where natural processes (growth,reproduction and mortality) are allowed to dominate(ibid., 2003). The problem of natural greenspacedefinition is perhaps less of a problem in the widercountryside, where the naturalness of the open spaceis easier to identify. In PPG17, a distinction is made

between two main sub-sets of open space: greenspace,which is normally vegetated, and civic space, which ispredominantly hard-surfaced. The companion guideto PPG17 suggests that planning authorities use thetypology of open spaces proposed by the Urban GreenSpaces Taskforce, or a variation of it (Office of theDeputy Prime Minister, 2002b).

From these information sources, the followingdefinitions were used in this study for areas ofaccessible natural greenspace:

Natural and semi-natural greenspaces- including woodlands, urban forestry,scrub, grasslands (e.g. downland,commons and meadows), and wetlands

Green corridors - including river andcanal banks

Country parks

The specific decisions taken in relation to theinclusion of linear greenspace (such as the coast,canals, and disused railways), and water bodies such asreservoirs, are discussed in sections 1.7 and 1.8, below.

1.6 Access through public rights of way

This study does not include access solely throughpublic rights of way (PRoW) as one of its definitions

for accessible natural greenspace. There are twomain reasons for this: the quality and accessibility ofrights of way, and the degree to which a visitor feelswelcome in a site.

Public rights of way clearly provide an importantmeans for people to access the countryside. However,the condition of rights of way, and poor or absentsignposting, can deter visitors, particularly those whoare less familiar with the footpath network. In thelast national survey of the condition of rights of way

in England, it was found that walkers could expectto encounter serious problems on a path every twokilometres (Countryside Agency, 2001).

Problems with path condition and signage can alsooccur in areas of accessible natural greenspace, butvisitors will at least be certain that they are welcomeacross the site. The Woodland Trust, considering


10/63


this issue in its Space forPeople report, argued that

while problems are inevitableon all woodland paths, itseems fair to suggest thatowners and managers willbe more likely to addressthem in woods in which theyhave invited people to walk(Woodland Trust, 2004). The Walkers Welcomefunding available through the Forestry Commissions

English Woodland Grant Scheme (EWGS) - nowsuperseded in the South East by the new WoodlandWelcome grant - can provide assistance with pathmaintenance and other site improvements. The veryname of this grant underlines the belief that being

welcome is a major factor influencing peoples use ofthe countryside.

The authors consider that the feeling of beingwelcome in a site is an important difference betweenaccessible greenspace, and those sites only accessiblethrough the public rights of way network. Forexample, a woodland with keep out or private signsat frequent intervals is unlikely to be as encouraging asa site where visitors know they are allowed to roam at

will, even though they may well stick to the obviouspaths. Not all visitors will feel the same experienced

walkers are unlikely to be deterred by the problemsassociated with rights of way. Rights of way are alsolikely to provide local access to the countryside for

those living in rural areas. However, for town andcity populations, and those unused to being in thecountryside, rights of way alone are perhaps unlikelyto provide enough incentive for people to visit sitesbeyond urban greenspace areas.

There remains the problem, of course, that an areaof greenspace may only be accessible by using a rightof way to get to it - for many, an important measureof accessibility may be the ability to park at a site.

A visitor survey carried out for the Sussex Downs

Conservation Board in the mid-1990s, for instance,found that 84.2 per cent of all visitors to the Downstravelled by car, with only a few visitors using anyother form of transport (Osborne, 1995). Whilst anarea of accessible greenspace within walking distanceof a settlement is likely to be highly valued by localresidents, a site with good advertising, clear signagefrom roads, and sufficient car parking is likely toattract a large number of visitors from a wide area.

What is clearly needed is a range of access options,with the principles of sustainability alone underliningthe need for access that isnt dependent on the car.

1.7 Other linear accessible greenspace

Although sites only accessible by public rights ofway were excluded from the definitions of accessiblenatural greenspace used for this study, there was stillthe question of linear areas of natural greenspace, suchas disused railways, canals, and the coast.

Such areas may provide an experience that is similarto other areas of natural greenspace. An exampleis the Cuckoo Trail, a former railway line in EastSussex, which is jointly owned by two local authoritiesin the area. This 16 kilometre, surfaced path offersopportunities for both walking and cycling, is well-advertised and has frequent car parks. Such sitesmeet the criteria of being welcome to visitors. It wastherefore decided to include all such disused railwaylines and other promoted routes with similar attributesacross the study area. It was also considered that

canals can provide a similar experience, and needed tobe included as linear natural greenspace.

Lastly, it was decided to include the accessibleareas of the coast. The argument was that if a largepopulation by the coast had no other greenspaceavailable, to exclude this feature would not providean accurate reflection of the actual level of availablenatural greenspace. There are arguments against this,as accessibility to the coastline is varied. Although inprinciple there is access to the foreshore around theentire coastline, the reality is that many areas are notaccessible at all. Nevertheless, in the absence of a cleardefinition of accessible areas around the coast, it wasdecided to include the entire coastline of the region.

It was considered, however, that the coast could not beincluded in the primary mapping of accessible naturalgreenspace, as this would have overstated the role ofa fairly crude dataset. It was also difficult to assign


11/63


an ANGSt size class to linear greenspace. The totalsize of a very long, narrow site may measure in thehundreds of hectares, but would it provide the samelevel of experience as a 500 hectare site?

To suggest, for instance, that a walk along a canalmight provide the same experience as a 500 hectaresite did not seem valid. Conversely, to define all linearsites as only providing the equivalent of a two hectaresite also seemed invalid. The question was how largetheir area of influence should be, i.e. the distance

from the feature within which they would be seen asproviding accessible greenspace.

It was decided that a reasonable compromise wasto treat all linear greenspace over two hectares asproviding an experience equivalent to a 20 hectaresite in the ANGSt model, i.e. having an influenceextending to two kilometres. It is recognised that this

was an entirely subjective approach, but it is one thatacknowledges the special nature of linear greenspace,

whilst ensuring that its inclusion works within theparameters of the ANGSt model.

The difficulties associated with linear greenspace led tothe decision to keep these areas as a separate dataset,in order to see what effect they would have on levels ofgreenspace provision once the model had been run onthe primary dataset.

1.8 Water bodies

For accessible natural greenspace sites withconsiderable areas of water (for the most partreservoirs), it was decided that the water elementprovides part of the semi-natural environment, andthus affects the perception of the size of the site by avisitor. Therefore, where a water body was part of asite, its area was also included. This made a significantdifference on reservoir sites if only the accessibleland surrounding a water body had been considered,

the site would have been included as a considerablysmaller area than its actual size.

1.9 Assumptions about types of naturalgreenspace to be included in the analysis

An assumption made for all natural greenspace areasin this analysis was that the public should be freelyable to access each site on foot across its entirety.Natural greenspace areas were also included even ifaccess to them might be restricted in certain areas and/or at certain times to only part of the site (althoughsites were excluded if clearly defined as inaccessible).

A further definition adopted for the analysis was thataccess to the sites should be free. Sites with a carpark charge were included if the site was otherwiseaccessible, but sites were excluded where entry wasdependent on a car parking fee being paid (as far asthis information was known).

In summary, the assumptions about which types ofnatural greenspace should be included were:

Only sites greater than two hectares should beincluded.

Sites should be included where visitors arewelcome, even if access may be restricted incertain areas and/or certain times to only

part of the site. This should not includepermanently excluded areas.

Sites should be excluded which charge foraccess. Sites with car park charges wereincluded if the site was otherwise accessible.

Sites should be excluded which are onlyaccessible by PRoW, i.e. where a visitor

does not perceive the whole site as welcoming.

A site being welcome to visitors is a keydifference between the studys definition ofaccessible natural greenspace, and land onlyaccessible via the PRoW network.

Linear accessible natural greenspace, i.e.disused railways and similar promoted routes,canals, and the coast should be included as aseparate dataset.


12/63


2.0 Methodology

A detailed account of the methodology forundertaking an ANGSt analysis is provided in atoolkit report produced in 2003 by English Nature(Handley, et al., 2003). In summary, the processinvolves identifying the study area and the relevantsources of data, filtering the data to meet the studycriteria, and building an inventory of accessible naturalgreenspace. The mapping work is undertaken using aGeographic Information System (GIS). The ANGSt

model is then applied to the inventory, with the resultsillustrating, for instance, areas of accessible naturalgreenspace provision and deficiency. The process usedin this study is shown in the flowchart in Figure 1.

As the work developed, it was also decided to extendthe analysis beyond the ANGSt model, to providea greater examination of the relationship betweengreenspace provision and population in the region.This included analysis of the choice of sites availableto households, and the potential population pressureon sites. This work is described in more detail insection 4.0.

2.1 The study area

The aim of the study was to produce an analysis forthe South East, and this was the primary area forgathering natural greenspace data. However, theanalysis also had to take account of greenspace outside

of the region, but which was available to peoplewithin the region (see section 2.8 for more detail).Additional greenspace data were therefore gatheredwithin (and intersecting) a buffer of 10 kilometres

around the region, representing the maximumdistance of the ANGSt model. This 10 kilometrebuffer was only used where it extended across land, soit did not include areas north of the Thames Estuary(see Map 2, overleaf).

Of the protected landscapes not wholly within theregion, a greenspace analysis was undertaken for theentire area of the Chilterns and North Wessex Downs

AONBs, as at least 50% of their area lies within theSouth East. Analysis was also undertaken for the

entire area of the Kent Downs AONB and the NewForest National Park, both of which fall partly outsidethe region. For the Chilterns and North WessexDowns AONBs, an additional 10 kilometre buffer

was created for each of their respective boundarieswhich extend beyond the region, to enable the ANGStanalysis for the entire area of these AONBs to beundertaken. The resulting study area is shown inMap 2, on the next page.

2.2 Data gathering and building the accessiblenatural greenspace dataset

The primary aim of the data gathering and mappingexercise was to build an inventory of accessible naturalgreenspace to which the ANGSt standard could beapplied. This would comprise both the individualgreenspace areas, and the amalgamation of theseareas, where they overlapped, into aggregated naturalgreenspace areas. These could then be divided into

2. Gather data

from identified

sources

3. Filter data to meetaccessible natural

greenspace criteria

4. Produce final (GIS)inventory of accessiblenatural greenspace for

stud area

5. Produce map ofaccessible natural

greenspace provision

6. Produce mapof areas ofdeficiency

Exclude 'non-natural' sites

Exclude sites that

are not accessible

Apply ANGStmodel to final

dataset

Identifyareas of

deficiency

1. Inception

7. Produce finalreport and

recommendations

Identify studyarea and

sources of data

Figure 1. Flowchart showing South East access study ANGStanalysis process (adapted from Handley, et al., 2003)

Methodology


13/63

11 An analysis of accessible natural greenspace provision in the South East

the different size classes required by the model (seesection 2.7 for more detail). A separate dataset wascompiled for linear greenspace.

2.2.1 Natural greenspace data collected

Taking into account the adopted definitions set outabove, the following types of natural greenspace werecollated and mapped for this analysis:

Accessible land managed by the Forestry

Commission. Areas mapped as access land under theCountryside and Rights of Way (CRoW) Act2000.

Land owned by utilities and other statutoryundertakers providing public access.

Land providing access under CountrysideStewardship, Environmentally Sensitive Areasand Environmental Stewardship schemes.

Woodland providing access under theForestry Commissions English WoodlandGrant Scheme (known as Walkers Welcomeat the time of this study).

Local Nature Reserves. Local authority-owned natural greenspace. National Nature Reserves. National Trust land providing access. Private Trusts with land providing access. Wildlife Trust Reserves. Woodland Trust woodlands.

Most datasets were received in digital format (i.e. as aGIS layer). Where the attributes of the data received

were explicitly stated, either through accompanyinginformation, or else incorporated into the dataset, this

was taken as a sufficient level of information. Where

there was doubt, the status of sites was confirmed(where possible) with the data provider. If the datastill had uncertain status, decisions were taken on asite-by-site basis.

Map 2. Access analysis study area

MiltonKeynes

Aylesbury

Slough

Reading

GuildfordBasingstokeMaidstone

Ashford

Brighton

Winchester

Southampton

Newbury

Oxford

Crawley

Map derived from Ordnance Survey digital data. Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Natural England licence no. 100046223 (2007)

Chichester Harbour

Chilterns

High Weald

Isle of Wight

Kent Downs

North Wessex Downs

Surrey Hills

Access study boundary

Access study boundary + 10km

South Downs National Park(designated but not yet confirmed)

New Forest National Park

Legend

Counties in the SouthEast (simplified)

N

AONBs relevant to the study


14/63

An analysis of accessible natural greenspace provision in the South East 12

The main additional data verification source was theInternet. By looking at an organisations website (e.g.Wildlife Trusts, local authorities) it was often possibleto verify whether sites should be included or excluded.Such information could also be used to modify asites boundaries to ensure it fulfilled the criteria moreaccurately. Other web-based information sourcesincluded a range of user groups or organisations thathave an interest in a site. Alternatively, a site couldbe identified through the combined use of aerialphotography and Ordnance Survey digital base maps.

From these, a judgement could be made on both thecomposition of a site (its semi-natural characteristic)and its likely accessibility. In a few cases, sites couldbe confirmed through a local authoritys developmentplan (many of which were available on-line). Wheresufficient doubt existed over a site it was removedfrom the dataset.

2.2.2 Cut-off date for data validity

All data collected was from the most up-to-dateversion available. Section 2.4 provides the relevantdate for each dataset used in the analysis. Any otherrelevant dates are included in the text.

For areas provided through a grant scheme, a cut-off date for the validity of the data had to be used,as the land is only accessible for the life time of anagreement. To allow time for the analysis to be

completed by the end of the project in June 2006,a date of 31 March 2006 was set as the cut-offpoint for access agreements on private land. Anyagreement on private land which had ended by 31March 2006 was therefore not included in the finaldataset. Agreements on land in public ownership wereincluded with no restriction on their grant end-date.

All greenspace areas included in the final analysistherefore represent a frozen dataset, though inpractice, the area of accessible natural greenspace

(other than access agreement areas on private land) isunlikely to change significantly over at least a shortto medium timescale, given that much of it is ownedand managed by public bodies to provide access, orfalls within the definition of accessible land under theCRoW Act.

2.3 Data providers

The natural greenspace data defined above weresourced from the organisations listed below. Datafrom the majority of these bodies were alreadyavailable in digital format. Not all local authoritiescould provide digital maps of sites, and wherenecessary, site boundaries were digitized by theauthors from paper maps supplied by the authority.Once received, the data were filtered to meet therequirements of the study.

2.3.1 Accessible natural greenspace data providers

Countryside Agency- CRoW Act access land.Defra areas providing access under the CountrysideStewardship, Environmentally Sensitive Areas andEnvironmental Stewardship schemes.English Nature- Local Nature Reserves and NationalNature Reserves.Forestry Commission land managed by theForestry Commission providing public access, andareas providing access under EWGS grants.

The National TrustOther public bodies- accessible land owned/managed by Local Authorities, the Crown Estate, andthe Ministry of Defence.Private Trusts

Water companiesWildlife TrustsThe Woodland Trust

2.4 Data descriptions and criteria for inclusion

This section provides details of the datasets includedin the study, and the filtering rules applied to them.The relevant date of each dataset is shown after itstitle.


15/63


2.4.1 National datasets

Access land under the CRoW Act(August December 2005)

The areas of accessible land mapped by theCountryside Agency (now part of Natural England)to fulfil the obligations of the CRoW Act include thecategories Open Country and Registered CommonLand. From these, an Access Layer was created bythe Agency, consisting of all conclusive open countryand registered common land. This layer includedany modifications determined by the PlanningInspectorate as a result of appeals. It also excludedsome areas of excepted land, these being Section 28land (for national security or defence), military byelawland, racecourses, and aerodromes. The conclusive

Access Layer was therefore included in the accessiblenatural greenspace dataset.

Land that had been dedicated for open access underSection 16 of the CRoW Act was also included, withthe data accurate up to December 2005.

Defra - grant scheme areas data(Agreements signed 1994-2004)

These data comprised access areas within agreementboundaries under Countryside Stewardship,Environmentally Sensitive Areas and EnvironmentalStewardship schemes.

The data were filtered to only includes agreements onprivate land which had not expired as at 31 March2006. Agreements on land in public ownership wereincluded with no restriction on their grant end-date.

Forestry Commission - land managementand grant scheme data(Managed land - 2005; EWGS data as at Dec 2005)

Land managed by the Forestry Commission (bothleasehold and freehold) was filtered to exclude sites

where access across the site is not permitted (it maybe available on excluded sites solely via the PRoWnetwork). This was often due to shooting rights beingretained across the excluded area. The effect of thison the dataset was minimal, with 97.5% of the landmanaged by the Forestry Commission being includedin the analysis.

Accessible land provided under a Woodland GrantScheme was filtered to only include agreements onprivate land which had not expired as at 31 March2006. Agreements on land in public ownership wereincluded with no restriction on their grant end-date.

Local Nature Reserves(July 2005)

A national dataset produced by English Nature (nowpart of Natural England) was used to verify thelocation of Local Nature Reserves (LNRs). All sites

were assumed to be accessible as this is one of the site

selection criteria for LNRs.

National Nature Reserves(July 2005)

A national dataset produced by English Nature wasused for the location of National Nature Reserves.The data were filtered to exclude sites/ areas defined byEnglish Nature as having permanent access exclusions.

National Trust - land ownership data (2004)

The National Trust has digitally mapped its estateas either publicly accessible all the time - withoutconstraints - or accessible with constraint (cost,access times). The areas shown as being withoutconstraints were used in the study, primarily becausethe National Trust had already made the distinctionexplicit.


16/63


17/63


2, 20, 100, or 500 hectares). As each individualsite met the criteria for accessible naturalgreenspace, overlapping or adjacent sites wereassumed to be equally accessible for the purposesof the analysis. Adjacent sites (not separated byseverance factors - see 2.7.1, below) were thusconsidered to be accessible across their boundaries.Once all sites had been aggregated, those whichfell below two hectares were deleted from the finaldataset.

Map 3 illustrates a range of different sites beforeaggregation, and the considerable degree of overlapbetween them. It can be seen in this map, forinstance, that an area of land may be owned by apublic body, as well as falling within a conservationdesignation, or an area providing access undera grant scheme. Map 4 shows these same areasaggregated, and classified into ANGSt size classes.

2.7.1 Severance factors

The size class of an aggregated site was also

determined by severance factors - physical barriersto the accessibility of a site. For this study, theprincipal severance factors taken into account weremotorways, primary roads (e.g. A2, A3) and other

A-class roads, and railways. An area of accessiblenatural greenspace divided by such features

was divided into separate sites either side of theseverance factor. The effect of this was particularly

Legend

CRoW Act access land

Forestry Commission-managed land

Local authorities

Local Nature Reserves

Ministry of Defence land providingaccessible natural greenspace

National Nature Reserves

National Trust

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

Access provided through ForestryCommission Walkers Welcome grant

Wildlife TrustsPrimary roads

Map 3. Accessible natural greenspace mapping example of greenspace sites. Notethat one greenspace site may obscure another one underneath.

Map 4. Accessible natural greenspace mapping, showing the greenspacesites aggregated and classified into ANGSt size classes.

2ha aggregated site

20ha aggregated site



Legend

Maps derived from Ordnance Survey digital data.

Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. NaturalEngland licence no. 100046223 (2007)

N

N

Other A-class roads


18/63


noticeable for large sites such as Ashdown Forest andthe New Forest, although on very extensive sites suchas these it made no difference in practical terms to theoverall size class assigned to the site.

2.7.2 Final combined layers

From this data aggregation process, a final layer ofcombined greenspace areas, split into the different

ANGSt size classes, was produced for the SouthEast, as well as for the 10 kilometre buffer extendingbeyond the region. A similar layer was also producedfor linear greenspace. These datasets provided the baselayer of information for the study analysis.

2.8 Measuring population use of AddressPoint data

The main analysis for this study, the use of theANGSt model, examined how the population in theSouth East is served by the area of accessible naturalgreenspace. This required an accurate measure ofpopulation which could be used in the GIS analysis.

This was done using AddressPoint data (for 2005)created by the Ordnance Survey. This dataset is madeup of individual points, where each point represents aseparate address within the region.

As AddressPoint data covers all addresses, the datasetincludes business as well as residential locations. Toavoid double-counting people (i.e. both their home

and work locations), and thus obtain an accuratemeasure of the actual population, the data werefiltered to remove all commercial, industrial andother non-residential addresses. Farm addresses

were retained, however, unless it was clear that thesewere solely business locations. The resultant datasetrepresented all residential households within the studyarea.

Although the data represented households, the actualpopulation could be ascertained by multiplying eachhousehold by the average household size. For theregion-wide statistics, the average household size fromthe 2001 census was used for this purpose. For theSouth East, this was 2.38. The average householdsize can be adjusted as required for other, sub-regionaladministrative areas, such as counties and districts,using National Statistics data (all census data is Crowncopyright, sourced on-line from the Office of NationalStatistics at www.statistics.gov.uk).

It should be noted that there may be a discrepancywhen comparing a 2001 census average household size

with household data (AddressPoint) from 2005. Forthis reason, population levels in the ANGSt results

were mostly expressed as percentages, rather thanspecific numbers of people.

2.8.1 Applying the AddressPoint data to thegreenspace areas

To measure the number of people served by accessiblenatural greenspace in a given area, each different(aggregated) greenspace size class had a buffer createdaround it, using GIS, which represented the distance(or area of influence) for each greenspace size classgiven in the ANGSt model. Thus, a site of at leasttwo hectares was given a 300 metre buffer, a site of atleast 20 hectares a two kilometre buffer, and so on.

However, it is important to note that a 20 hectare sitealso has a 300 metre buffer associated with it, as it isutilised in principle in the same way as a two hectaresite for those people who live within 300 metres.Similarly, a 100 hectare site, in addition to its fivekilometre buffer, also has 300 metre and two kilometrebuffers associated with it, and a 500 hectare site has allfour buffers. So, for instance, if the nearest greenspacesite within 300 metres of a home is over 500 hectares,it would still count as a two hectare site, as well asa 20, 100, and 500 hectare site. The number of

households within each buffers was measured byclipping (or cutting) the AddressPoint data to thebuffer. The resulting number of households wasthen expressed as a percentage of the total populationserved by this size class of greenspace. The numberof households or actual population meeting the

ANGSt standard could therefore be measured for anyprotected landscape or administrative area.


19/63


The linear greenspace dataset was also usedto identify households only served by thesefeatures, to illustrate the effect these areas mayhave where the main types of accessible naturalgreenspace identified in this study are absent. Atwo kilometre buffer was used for these areas, asthey were defined in the study as representing a 20hectare size class in the ANGSt model.

To provide meaningful outputs for the entireregion, it was necessary to include all greenspaceareas available to people living near the boundaryof the South East, i.e. the greenspace they couldalso access outside the region. Greenspace sites

were therefore mapped for a distance of up to10 kilometres from the regions boundary, as thisrepresents the maximum distance in the ANGStmodel. This approach was also applied to theentirety of the Chilterns and North Wessex Downs

AONBs (see Section 2.1).

Maps 5 and 6 provide an example of the ANGStanalysis for 20 hectare sites both within and

outside the South East. Map 5 shows aggregatedaccessible natural greenspace areas of at least20 hectares, with two kilometre buffers createdaround each of these sites. Map 6 shows the

AddressPoint household data clipped to each ofthese buffers. Note that the population is onlymeasured within the region, but that the buffers ofsites outside the region extend into it.

Map 5. Example of aggregated accessible natural greenspace sites of at least 20 hectares with 2 kilometre buffers.

Map 6. Example of accessible natural greenspace sites of at least 20 hectares with AddressPoint data clipped to the2 kilometre buffers. The population is only measured within the South East.

Maps derived from Ordnance Survey digital data. Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. NaturalEngland licence no. 100046223 (2007)

Legend for both maps

Accessible natural greenspacesites of at least 20ha

2km buffers

Households in the South Eastwithin the 2km buffers

South East region

N


20/63

An analysis of accessible natural greenspace provision in the Sou th East 18

3.0 Results

The results from the ANGSt analysis presentedin this report are divided into three sections. Thefirst provides details of the area, distribution, andcomposition of accessible natural greenspace. Thesecond focuses on the results from applying the

ANGSt model to the greenspace datasets. Lastly,the third section provides summary maps of theareas of accessible natural greenspace provisionand deficiency, and examines how these relate topopulation levels in the region.

The statistics and findings are reported for protectedlandscapes, and at a number of administrative levels.For administrative areas, the results are restricted tothe South East. This is because the region providesa meaningful administrative outer boundary for thestudys results, and also because it was often onlynecessary to gather data for part of a local authorityarea falling outside of the South East. Results aregiven therefore for all county, district, and unitaryauthorities within the region. Results are also shown

for AONBs and National Parks in the South East,including the North Wessex Downs and Chilterns

AONBs, both of which extend beyond the region.

3.1 Area, distribution, and composition ofaccessible natural greenspace

Map 7 shows all aggregated accessible natural

greenspace areas mapped across the entire study area,together with the boundaries of protected landscapes.This shows, for instance, the greenspace areas outsideof the region which are accessible to people within the

South East (this being defined by the maximumdistance given in the ANGSt model, i.e. up to 10kilometres).

Map 7. All accessible natural greenspace within 10 kilometres of the study area

Map derived from Ordnance Survey digital data. Crown Copyright. All rights reserved. Natural England licence n o. 100046223 (2007)

Results

Legend

All accessible natural greenspace

All protected landscapes clipped to the study area


Access study boundary + 10km

Counties in the South East (simplified)

N


21/63

19 An analysis of accessible natural greenspace provision in the Sou th East


N

2ha+

Legend

All protected landscapes clipped to the South East

South East region

Accessible natural greenspace size classes

S ize class Area (ha)

% of all accessiblenatural greenspace

in the South East

20 ha+

100 ha+

500 ha+

12,937

28,091

48,427

49,615

9

20

35

36

Totals: 139,070 100

Note that the + symbol after each greenspace size classindicates that the site is at least of that size.


Map 8. All accessible natural greenspace in theSouth East divided into ANGSt size classes


22/63


3.1.1 Area of all accessible natural greenspace inthe South East

Map 8, on the previous page, shows all aggregated

accessible natural greenspace clipped to the South Eastand divided into ANGSt size classes, with the legendproviding the areas and percentage cover of each sizeclass. Table 2 provides the overall results for the area

of accessible natural greenspace in the South East.This amounts to 139,070 hectares, covering 7% of theland area of the region. Of this, 63% falls within thearea of protected landscapes (AONBs and NationalParks) inside the region. Together, the protectedlandscapes represent 37% of the South East, so theyare clearly providing a substantial proportion of theregions greenspace beyond their contribution in termsof actual land area.

Table 3 provides the area of accessible naturalgreenspace for each county in the South East, together

with the number of households. As can be seen,Kent County has the highest number of households,but greenspace only covers 5% of the countysarea. Hampshire, with the second highest numberof households, has the greatest area of greenspace,covering 13% of the county.

3.1.2 Accessible natural greenspace and protectedlandscapes

Table 4, on the next page, summarises the results

for each protected landscape analysed in the study.This table includes the total area of each protectedlandscape, including the entire area of the North

Wessex Downs and Chilterns AONBs. This showsthat the New Forest National Park has the largest areaof accessible natural greenspace of all the protectedlandscapes, and the greatest percentage of greenspaceas land cover. The largest AONB, the North Wessex

Area (ha) Area (ha) ofaccessible natural

greenspace

% of the region % of accessible naturalgreenspace in the region

South East region 1,941,285 139,070 7

All protected landscapesclipped to the South East

715,422 86,962 37 63

Table 2. Area of accessible natural greenspace in the South East and in all protected landscapes (clipped to the region)

County/ Unitary authority County area

(ha)

Area (ha) of

accessible naturalgreenspace

Greenspace as %

of the county

Number of households

Buckinghamshire County 156,495 6,272 4 199,178

East Sussex County 172,533 13,855 8 229,317

Hampshire County 373,913 47,200 13 535,602

Kent County 363,906 18,357 5 592,257

Oxfordshire County 260,595 5,623 2 257,521

Surrey County 167,005 18,355 11 456,525

West Sussex County 203,024 13,983 7 344,018

Totals: 1,697,470 123,645 2,614,418

Table 3. Area of accessible natural greenspace in counties in the South East


23/63


Downs, has the smallest percentage of greenspace asland cover. Woodland is an important contributor togreenspace in the protected landscapes, but in eacharea there is a considerable area of woodland falling

outside the definition of accessible natural greenspace.

3.1.3 Providers of accessible natural greenspace

Table 5, on the next page, provides details of the databefore the greenspace sites were aggregated into their

ANGSt size classes, showing the total amount ofaccessible natural greenspace provided by the different

organisations, land owners, and land managers.

There is considerable overlap in this table between thecategories - a conservation organisations land may,

for instance, be under an access agreement, as well asbeing included as access land under the CRoW Act.So, although CRoW access land is the single largestcategory of accessible natural greenspace, with 42%of the total overlapping area, it only represents some12% of the area of greenspace, when the overlap is nottaken into account. As this table includes overlappingsites, the total, overlapping land area is greater than

the total area of aggregated greenspace. Genericfigures are provided for each group of greenspaceproviders, so that, for instance, there is only one figurefor land owned or managed by all local authorities.

Of the land managers, the Forestry Commissionhas the greatest area, providing some 35% of allaccessible natural greenspace in the South East. Whenthe overlap with other categories is not taken intoaccount, the Commissions land is the single largestcontributor.

Protected landscape Protectedlandscape area

(incl. outside theSouth East)

Area ofaccessible

naturalgreenspace

% of the protectedlandscape covered by

accessible naturalgreenspace

Area of allwoodland

>2ha

Area of accessiblenatural greenspace

that is woodland

% of accessiblenatural greenspace

that is woodland

Area ofwoodland

outsidegreenspace

% of all woodland in theprotected landscape not

providing accessiblenatural greenspace

Chichester Harbour AONB 7,308 1,750 24 141 21 1 120 85

Chilterns AONB 83,828 8,225 10 17,587 6,085 74 11,502 65

High Weald AONB 146,171 10,495 7 35,905 7,431 71 28,474 79

Isle Of Wight AONB 19,103 2,064 11 2,764 1,010 49 1,755 64

Kent Downs AONB 87,885 6,787 8 15,254 4,257 63 10,998 72

North Wessex Downs AONB 173,104 7,118 4 17,428 4,183 59 13,245 76

Surrey Hills AONB 42,210 9,150 22 16,410 7,343 80 9,067 55

New Forest National Park 57,096 30,769 54 20,958 14,218 46 6,740 32

South Downs National Park 164,126 17,100 10 33,306 9,803 57 23,503 71

Totals: 780,831 93,458 159,753 54,351 105,404

Table 4. Accessible natural greenspace within protected landscapes analysed in the study (all areas in hectares)


24/63


Accessible natural greenspace providers in theSouth East

Total area(ha)

% of all overlappingaccessible naturalgreenspace in the

South East

Area (ha) notoverlapping any other

accessible naturalgreenspace provider

Non-overlapping areaas % of accessible

natural greenspaceprovider's total area

Non-overlapping areaas % of all accessiblenatural greenspace in

the South East

CRoW Act access land (incl. S16 Dedicated Land) 58,749 42.2 16,577 28.2 11.9

Forestry Commission-managed land (19% of whichwas S16 Dedicated Land under the CRoW Act as atDecember 2005)

48,099 34.6 23,165 48.2 16.7

Local authorities 28,368 20.4 12,053 42.5 8.7

Forestry Commission Walkers Welcome (EWGS)agreements

25,520 18.4 11,881 46.6 8.5

National Trust 9,889 7.1 1,849 18.7 1.3

Local Nature Reserves 9,042 6.5 1,727 19.1 1.2

Wildlife Trusts 7,893 5.7 4,376 55.4 3.1

National Nature Reserves 4,125 3.0 2,905 70.4 2.1

Woodland Trust 2,411 1.7 513 21.3 0.4

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds 1,870 1.3 1,125 60.2 0.8

Defra Stewardship agreements providing access 1,854 1.3 1,570 84.7 1.1

Water companies 1,619 1.2 1,417 87.5 1.0

Ministry of Defence 823 0.6 646 78.5 0.5

Total overlapping area: 200,262

All accessible natural greenspace cut to the region: 139,070

Table 5. Accessible natural greenspace providers in the South East


25/63


As more of the Forestry Commissions land isdedicated under Section 16 of the CRoW Act, thearea of CRoW access land will rise - at the time thesedata were collected (December 2005, when the data

were last available within the study time period) 19%of the Forestry Commission area was Dedicated Land.The Ministry of Defence figure is lower than mightbe expected, as some of its land was excluded fromthe final conclusive area of CRoW access land. Theseexcluded areas may retain elements of accessibility, butthey fall outside the definitions used in this study.

3.1.4 Accessible natural greenspace withindesignated land

Table 6 examines the area of all accessible naturalgreenspace falling within the designations of Siteof Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), and SpecialProtection Area (SPA). SPAs, notified for thehabitat and populations of important bird species,

were included due to the particular sensitivity ofthese internationally important sites to disturbance.The table shows that 50% of all accessible natural

greenspace falls within SSSIs, and 32% within SPAs(which are also, by definition in this country, SSSIs).

3.1.5 Woodland and accessible natural greenspace

The final aggregated layer of accessible naturalgreenspace could also be used to measure the areaof woodland which fell within it. The National

Inventory of Woodland and Trees (Smith, 2000) wasused as it provided a digital dataset of all woodlandgreater than two hectares. Table 7, and Map 9 (on thenext page) show the results of clipping the NationalInventory of Woodland and Trees to the aggregatedaccessible natural greenspace layer. This shows that57% of all accessible natural greenspace in the South

East is woodland, an area of 79,820 hectares. Thisarea, however, only represents 30% of the regions

woodlands. In other words, 70% of the South Eastswoodlands fall outside the definition of accessiblenatural greenspace used in this study. This additional

woodland area is shown for comparison in Map 10(on page 25).

Area (ha) % of greenspace % of SSSIs

All SSSIs in the South East 133,986 100

Area of all accessible natural greenspace 139,070 100

Greenspace within SSSIs in the region 70,008 50 52

Greenspace within SPAs in the region 44,591 32 33

Table 6. Designated land (SSSIs and SPAs) within accessible natural greenspace. Note that SPAs are also by definition SSSIs in this country.

Area (ha) % of all accessiblenatural greenspace

% of all woodlandin the region

Area of all accessible natural greenspace 139,070 100

All woodland >2ha in the South East* 267,757 100

Area of woodland in accessible natural greenspace 79,820 57 30

* Derived from the Forestry Commissions National Inventory of Woodland & Trees (Smith, 2000)

Table 7. Woodland and accessible natural greenspace in the South East


26/63



All woodland in accessible natural greenspace

All other accessible natural greenspace

Legend


South East regionAll protected landscapes clipped to the South East

NMap 9. Woodlandin accessible natural

greenspace in theSouth East


27/63



Map 10. Woodland inaccessible natural greenspaceand all other woodland inthe South East

N

All woodland in accessible natural greenspace

All other accessible natural greenspace

All other woodland >2ha in the South East

Legend


South East region



28/63


3.2 Results from the ANGSt analysis

As described in the methodology section, allaggregated accessible natural greenspace areas werebuffered according to the size classes and distances inthe ANGSt model. The buffers for each size class werecombined and the number of households within eachcombined buffer area calculated using AddressPointdata. The combined buffers for the study area,overlain on top of each other, are shown in Map 11.Using these buffers, the number of householdsmeeting the ANGSt requirements could be calculated

for any given administrative area.

This analysis took into account accessible naturalgreenspace sites up to 10 kilometres from theboundary of the administrative area or protectedlandscape being examined, but only measured thenumber of households served within that area.

3.2.1 Results for the South East

Table 8, on the next page, shows the results of this

analysis for the South East. The total number ofhouseholds is based on the AddressPoint data for2005. When the total number of households ismultiplied by the mean household size derivedfrom the 2001 census (2.38), the total populationis 8,338,880. For comparison, the total populationfor the South East in the 2001 census was 8,000,645(source: www.statistics.gov.uk/census).

Map 11. All combined buffers for all accessible natural greenspace size classes within the study area.Note that the + symbol after each greenspace size class indicates that the site is at least of that size.


Legend

Access study boundaryAccess study boundary + 10km

300m buffers around 2ha+ accessible natural greenspace

2km buffers around 20ha+ accessible natural greenspace



Areas with no accessible natural greenspace provision

South East county boundaries (simplified)shown as white lines

N


29/63


Table 8 provides figures for households, population,and the percentage of the population meeting the

ANGSt requirements within the region. These figuresdo not take into account people who are only servedby linear greenspace (as defined in the methodology),this figure being given in the last row of the table.Therefore, those falling into this category also fall intothe none category in the main ANGSt results.

The table shows that, taking the region as a whole,

46% of households have access to a site of at least 500hectares, 77% of households have access to a site of at

least 100 hectares, and 66% of households have accessto a site of at least 20 hectares. However, only 20% ofhouseholds have access to a site within 300 metres, orin other words, 80% of the regions households do nothave an area of accessible natural greenspace within

walking distance.

Also included in the table are the total number of

households which have all their ANGSt requirementsmet, and the total number which have none of theirANGSt requirements fulfilled. The table shows thatsome 10% of households in the region fall into thenone category. The location of areas in the SouthEast where households have all and none of their

ANGSt requirements met is shown in the maps inAppendix 2.

3.2.2 Results for local authorities in the South East

Table 9, on the next page, provides the ANGSt resultsfor all counties and unitary authorities in the SouthEast. Overall, areas north of the Thames fareworst interms of accessible natural greenspace provision. Thiscan be judged in terms of the column showing thepercentage of households meeting none of the ANGStrequirements. This shows, for instance, that some48% of Oxfordshires households do not have accessto greenspace within the definitions of the ANGStmodel, amounting to over 124,000 households.Oxfordshire is also the only county with none of its

households meeting all of the ANGSt requirements.

At the other end of the spectrum, the column in Table 9which gives the percentage of households with accessto all categories of greenspace shows that Hampshireand Surrey (with the second and third largest numberof households, respectively) have the highest levels ofpopulation fulfilled by the ANGSt requirements.

ANGSt requirements Number ofhouseholds*

% of allhouseholds

Number of people**

All households in the South East 3,503,731 8,338,880

Access to site of at least 2ha within 300m 704,093 20 1,675,741

Access to site of at least 20ha within 2km 2,310,969 66 5,500,106



All of the ANGSt requirements met 291,899 8 694,720

None of the ANGSt requirements met 358,356 10 852,887

Served only by linear greenspace*** 128,091 4 304,857

* Estimate from using 2005 AddressPoint data** Total population based on 2001 census South East average household size of 2.38

*** Such as disused railway lines, other promoted routes with similar attributes, canals, and the coast

Table 8. ANGSt analysis results for the South East


30/63


% of householdsCounty/ Unitary authority Number ofhouseholds*

within 300mof a 2ha+ site

within 2km ofa 20ha+ site

within 5km ofa 100ha+ site

within 10km of a500ha+ site

meeting allANGSt

requirements

meeting none ofthe ANGSt

requirements

served only bylinear

greenspace

Buckinghamshire County 199,178 18 58 68 18 2 24 11

East Sussex County 229,317 20 74 79 61 6 3 3

Hampshire County 535,602 25 74 88 63 15 4 0

Kent County 592,257 15 57 69 44 3 8 1

Oxfordshire County 257,521 13 36 41 0 0 48 10

Surrey County 456,525 23 82 90 76 17 2 0

West Sussex County 344,018 14 58 75 28 2 12 9

Bracknell Forest Unitary 44,816 38 86 98 100 34 0 0

Brighton and Hove Unitary 110,872 21 68 99 0 0 1 1

Isle of Wight Unitary 63,657 13 53 98 0 0 1 1

Medway Unitary 106,252 26 88 46 1 0 0 0

Milton Keynes Unitary 93,366 28 94 96 28 7 1 0

Portsmouth Unitary 83,623 14 70 76 88 13 10 10

Reading Unitary 62,648 22 0 25 0 0 58 35

Slough Unitary 48,688 13 54 100 100 11 0 0

Southampton Unitary 95,646 46 99 99 100 44 0 0

West Berkshire Unitary 61,243 17 68 67 60 8 16 6

Windsor and Maidenhead Unitary 58,936 19 82 100 63 8 0 0

Wokingham Unitary 59,566 20 49 98 44 5 2 0

Total number of households: 3,503,731

* Estimate from using 2005 AddressPoint data

Table 9. ANGSt analysis results for all counties and unitary authorities in the South East. Note that the + symbol after each greenspace size class indicates that the site is at least of that size.


31/63


Of the unitary authorities, Reading has the leastprovision, with 58% of its households falling intothe none category. If linear greenspace areas aretaken into account, 35% of Readings populationis dependent on these features for accessible naturalgreenspace provision. It is important, of course, tolook at all results across the different types of ANGStprovision. Brighton unitary authority, for instance,has none of its households meeting all of the ANGStrequirements, but 99% of its households have accessto a site of at least 100 hectares within five kilometres.

Map 12, on the next page, shows the number ofhouseholds in each county and unitary authority inthe region meeting none of the ANGSt requirements(excluding the effect of linear greenspace). The

ANGSt analysis results for all districts (and unitaryauthorities) in the South East are given in Appendix 1.

3.2.3 Results for protected landscapes

Table 10 provides the ANGSt results for householdswithin the protected landscapes analysed in the

study, including the entire area of the Chilterns, KentDowns, and North Wessex Downs AONBs, and theNew Forest National Park (all of which have areasoutside of the region). As with the county results,the protected landscapes falling within Hampshireand Surrey (the majority of the New Forest, and theSurrey Hills AONB, respectively), have the greatestpercentage of their households meeting all of the

ANGSt requirements, whilst the North WessexDowns AONB has by the far the greatest number ofhouseholds without any provision.

Table 10. ANGSt analysis results for protected landscapes. Note that the + symbol after each greenspace size class indicates that the site is at least of that size.

% of householdsProtected landscape Number ofhouseholds*

within 300m of a2ha+ site




meeting allANGSt

requirements

meeting none ofthe ANGSt

requirements

served only bylinear

greenspace

Chichester Harbour AONB 4,119 32 100 100 100 32 0 0

Chilterns AONB 32,701 32 82 83 18 5 2 0

High Weald AONB 48,953 15 68 83 75 11 4 0

Isle of Wight AONB 5,325 24 87 88 0 0 2 1

Kent Downs AONB 29,218 21 77 81 23 2 6 1

North Wessex Downs AONB 39,709 15 59 44 53 7 23 1

Surrey Hills AONB 15,526 44 97 99 96 42 0 0

South Downs National Park 51,842 27 89 95 20 6 2 0

New Forest National Park 14,990 59 98 100 100 59 0 0

* Estimate from using 2005 AddressPoint data


32/63


124,150

48,015

1,3319,763

20,517

42,030

8,667

714

6,974

49,740

451

664

0

0

0

36,184

8,0601,096

0

Legend

Bracknell Forest

Unitary authorities inthe South East

Brighton and HoveCity of PortsmouthCity of Southampton

Isle of WightMedwayMilton KeynesReadingSloughWest BerkshireWindsor and MaidenheadWokingham

Areas with no accessible naturalgreenspace provision

Counties in the South East

South East region

N


Map 12. Numbersof households incounties and unitaryauthorities in theSouth East meetingnone of the ANGStrequirements

(excluding the effectof linear greenspace)


33/63


and northern Buckinghamshire, but also in other hotspot areas in Kent, West Sussex, and Hampshire.3.3.2 Areas of high accessible natural greenspace

provision

As was shown in Table 3 (page 20), Hampshire andSurrey have the highest levels of accessible naturalgreenspace provision of the regions counties, withcorrespondingly high numbers of their householdsmeeting all of the ANGSt requirements. Table 2(page 20) showed that 63% of all greenspace

occurs in AONBs and National Parks, and thestrong relationship between many of the protectedlandscapes and households meeting all of the ANGStrequirements is demonstrated in Map 13, and themore detailed maps in Appendix 2.

3.3.3 Accessible natural greenspace provision andpopulation

Although Hampshire and Surrey, with highpopulation levels, also have high levels of accessible

natural greenspace provision, the county with thehighest population, Kent, has one of the lowest levelsof greenspace as a percentage of a county in theregion (5% - see Table 3, page 20). Kent also hasonly 3% of its households meeting all of the ANGStrequirements, compared to 15% in Hampshire, and17% in Surrey (see Table 9, page 28).

The relationship between population levels andaccessible natural greenspace is perhaps mostimportant in areas with no provision. Do these areas,for instance, represent a significant proportion of agiven population? The ANGSt analysis for protectedlandscapes and administrative areas provides theresults for the entirety of these areas, but does notshow the relative population levels of those meeting ornot meeting the ANGSt requirements.

3.3 Summary maps of the areas of accessiblenatural greenspace provision and deficiency

The previous section, through summarising theamount of accessible natural greenspace available topeople within the study area, provides details of thekey output of the ANGSt analysis the identificationof areas of greenspace provision and deficiency. By itsnature, this data is often easier to summarise in mapform. This final section of the results shows maps thatattempt to summarise the overall results for the region.

3.3.1 Areas lacking accessible natural greenspaceprovision

In terms of overall levels of provision and deficiency,the simplest way to summarise this information is tolook at the distribution of households with either all,or none of their ANGSt requirements met. Map 13,on the next page, shows households across the regionfalling into these two categories. Also shown arethose households which are only served by the lineargreenspace areas identified in this study. Map 14

shows these results for the entire area of the Chilternsand North Wessex Downs AONBs, up to a distanceof 10 kilometres from the parts of these AONBs thatextend beyond the region.

These maps, and the results in Table 9 (page 28)highlight the overall lack of accessible naturalgreenspace provision in the counties of Oxfordshire


34/63



Map 13. Householdsin the South Eastmeeting all andnone of the ANGStrequirements, andthose only served bylinear greenspace

Households with ALL of their ANGSt requirements met

Legend


Households with NONE of their ANGSt requirements met

Households only served by linear greenspace

All districts and unitary authoritiesin the South East

N

Counties in the South East

South East region

N


35/63


Map 14. Householdsmeeting all and none of the

ANGSt requirements, andthose only served by linear

greenspace, focusing on theChilterns and North WessexDowns AONBs

N

Households with ALL of theirANGSt requirements met

Legend

Chilterns AONB

Households with NONE of theirANGSt requirements met

Households only served bylinear greenspace


North Wessex Downs AONB

Map derived from Ordnance Survey digital data. Crown Copyright.

All rights reserved. Natural England licence no. 100046223 (2007)


10km buffer for the area of theChilterns and North WessexDowns AONBs extending beyondthe region


36/63


One way of showing this is to link the areas in whichthe ANGSt requirements are not met to a visualrepresentation of population levels. The not meetingareas can be identified as those which fall outside thebuffers surrounding all accessible natural greenspace.These areas are shown in yellow in Map 11 (page 26).Population levels are best shown for this purposeat the ward level, as this provides a more localisedrepresentation of where concentrations of people arethan larger administrative areas.

Map 15, on the next page, links together these

two information sources, showing the number ofhouseholds in wards classified into five categories, andoverlain by areas with no accessible natural greenspaceprovision. As can be seen, some wards fall wholly

within areas without provision, but most do so onlypartly.

Although this map is intended only as a visualguide, it does indicate that some of the wards withthe highest populations fall into areas deficient inaccessible natural greenspace provision, particularly in

Kent, West Sussex and Buckinghamshire.

Map 16 shows this information in a different way,by classifying wards in the region by the number ofhouseholds with no accessible natural greenspaceprovision. The wards are classified into sevencategories, with the wards in the darkest red colourhaving the most households without accessible natural

greenspace provision, and the wards in the darkestgreen having the least number of households withoutgreenspace provision.

AONB and National Park boundaries have beenadded to this map, showing not only these results

within their boundaries, but also the close proximityof areas without accessible natural greenspaceprovision to protected landscapes. In this context,protected landscapes can be seen as potentiallyproviding an important source of accessible naturalgreenspace for populations outside of their boundaries.


37/63

N


38/63



Map 16. Wards in theSouth East classified bynumber of householdswith no accessiblenatural greenspace

provision

Legend

South East region

Number of households(in wards) with noaccessible naturalgreenspace provision

South East county boundaries(simplified) shown as white lines

All protected landscapesclipped to the South East

2,600 to 4,700

1,400 to 2,600

800 to 1,400

300 to 800

200 to 300

100 to 200

to0 100


39/63


4.0 Further analysis beyond the ANGSt modelThis section provides details of two areas of additionalaccessible natural greenspace analysis devised byMatthew Grose at the High Weald AONB Unit. Thefirst examines the amount of choice, or actual levelof greenspace provision available to households inthe study area. The second goes beyond the ANGStmodel to examine the potential population pressureon sites.

4.1 Using buffer counts as a means of

illustrating choice of sites

The ANGSt analysis results in the previous sectionshow levels of provision and greenspace deficiencyacross the study area. However, the results do notshow the degree of choice that each household has,or in other words, the number of sites available to ahousehold in each size class within the ANGSt modeldistances. A household will, for instance, be served byhaving one twenty hectare site within two kilometres,but may actually have several to choose from within

this distance. As described in the methodology, eachsize class of accessible natural greenspace has a bufferzone created around it, according to the parameters ofthe ANGSt model. By intersecting the buffer zonesof each site, it is possible to show how much choiceany household has, by counting the number of buffers

within which the household falls.

It is important to note that the number of sitesavailable, or level of choice, differs from a households

ANGSt requirements being met. In the studymethodology, it was shown that a site can fulfil morethan one of the ANGSt requirements for a household.For example, a 500 hectare site within 300 metres of ahousehold fulfils all four of its ANGSt requirements.However, the household still has only onesite tochoose from.

To analyse the actual degree of choice available toeach household, a layer of intersecting buffers was

built from the exclusive buffer zone of each size classof accessible natural greenspace, e.g. for a 20 hectaresite, only the two kilometre buffer was used, as inthis analysis, this size class does not also provide a300 metre buffer. If this was not done, a 20 hectaresite within 250 metres of a household would havebeen counted twice once for each of its two ANGStmodel buffers. This analysis therefore provided theimportant distinction

Documents

An Analysis of Accessible Natural Spaces