Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment Update

Final Report

Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment Update

Final Report

16/12/11

Notice

This document and its contents have been prepared and are intended solely for London Borough of Enfield’s information and use in relation to the update of the Borough’s Open Space Assessment.

Atkins Ltd assumes no responsibility to any other party in respect of or arising out of or in connection with this document and/or its contents.

Document History

JOB NUMBER: 5101736.1525.001 DOCUMENT REF: Document2

01 Draft Report MS MT RA RA Aug 2011

02 Final Report MS RA RA RA Nov 2011

03 Final Report MS RA RA RA Dec 2011

Revision Purpose Description Originated Checked Reviewed Authorised Date


Final Report 2


Final Report 3

Contents

Section Page

Executive Summary 11

1. Introduction 19

Growth Area Summary 19

Report Structure 20

2. Methodology 21

Introduction 21

Approach to Updating Planning and Open Space Provision 21

Approach to Updating Sports Assessment 26

3. National, Regional and Local Policy Review 29

Introduction 29

National Guidance and Policy 30

Regional Guidance and Policy 37

Local Guidance and Policy 40

4. Assessment of Open Space Needs 51

Introduction 51

Open Space Need Indicators 53

Vision to Address Open Space Needs 55

5. Assessment of Supply 57

Introduction 57

Existing Open Space Provision 57

Accessibility of Public Park Provision 61

Proposed Quantity and Accessibility Standards 66

Opportunities to Alleviate Public Quantity and Access Deficiencies 67

Conclusions and Recommendations 70

6. Assessment of Children’s Play Provision 71

Introduction 71

Approaches to Children‟s Play Provision 71

Access to Children‟s Play Provision 76

Pathfinder Play Sites 77

Approach to standards 79

7. Assessment of Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace 81

Introduction 81

Approach to Natural Greenspace Provision 81

Existing Natural Greenspace Provision 82

Sites of Nature Conservation 84

Quantitative Component 86

Accessibility Component 87

Qualitative Component 87

8. Allotment Needs 89

Introduction 89


Final Report 4

Policy Context 89

Assessing Allotment Needs 91

Quality and Management 98

Towards the Development of an Allotments Strategy 98


Proposed Allotment Standard 100

9. Quality of Supply 103

Introduction 103

Quality Assessment 103


Proposed Quality Standard 109

10. Open Space Value 111

Introduction 111

Recreational Value 112

Structural Role 113

Amenity Role 114

Education 115

Heritage Value 116

Social and Cultural 118

Ecological Role 119

Composite Value Analysis 120

Combining Quality and Value 122

Scope for Change and Improvement 124


11. Provision for Pitch Sports within Enfield 127

Introduction 127

Assessment of Playing Pitch Supply 127

Conclusion 141

12. Analysing Demand for Outdoor Pitch Sports 143

Introduction 143

The Consultants Approach 145

Existing Pitch Demand 147

Identifying Teams / Team Equivalents 147

Assessment of Home Games per Team per Week 150

Pitch Capacities 151

Conclusion 153

13. Latent Demand for Outdoor Sports 155

Introduction 155

Cross Boundary Demand and Supply 155

Suppressed Demand 155

Team Generation Rates 156

Future Pitch Demand 159

Pitch Provision Considering Latent and Future Demand 162

14. Other Outdoor Sports Provision 165

Artificial Turf Pitches 165


Final Report 5

Other Outdoor Sports Provision 167

Demand for Other Outdoor Sports 169

Conclusions 176

15. Meeting Sports Needs within the Borough 177

Introduction 177

Playing Pitch Needs 177

Access to Outdoor Pitch Provision 178

Improving the Quality of Pitches in Secure Community Use 179

Potential Role of Sites with an Outdoor Sports Role 180

16. Applying Standards to Growth Areas 185

Introduction 185

Growth Assumptions 185

Existing Provision 187

Open Space Needs 192

Conclusion 201

17. Conclusion 203

Introduction 203

Policy Framework 204

Policy Recommendations 204

LDF Policies 204

Development Control Decisions 204

Enhancement of Open Spaces 205

Open space needs and priorities 205

Assessment of Supply 206

Quality of Supply 206

Value of Open Space 207

Proposed Standard for Provision of Parks 207

Proposed Standard for Formal Children‟s Play 207

Proposed Standard for Provision of Natural Greenspace 208

Proposed Standard for Allotments 208

Sports Pitch Update 209

Proposed Standard for Provision of Playing Pitches 209

Application of Standards to Growth Areas 209

List of Tables

Table E.1 – GLA Public Park Hierarchy 12

Table 2.1 – GLA Public Park Hierarchy 22 Table 2.2 – Additional Surveyed Sites (2011) 23

Table 2.3 – Other Open Space Provision 24

Table 2.4 – Comparing Public Park Provision (2006 – 2011) 26

Table 2.5 – Approach to Data Collection 28

Table 3.1 – Updated Guidance and Policy Documentation 29

Table 3.2 – Quantity: Playing Pitches 34

Table 3.3 – Quantity: All Outdoor Sport 34

Table 3.4 – Quantity: All Playing Space 35 Table 3.5 – Accessibility Benchmark Standards for Children‟s Playing Space 35

Table 3.6 – Central Leeside AAP, including the Meridian Water Place Shaping Priority Area 45


Final Report 6

Table 3.7 – North East Enfield AAP, including the Ponders End Place Shaping Priority Area 47

Table 3.8 – North Circular AAP, including the New Southgate Place Shaping Priority Area 48 Table 3.9 – Enfield Town Centre AAP, including the Enfield Town Station Place Shaping Priority Area 48

Table 4.1 – Demographic Profile 52

Table 4.2 – Ethnic Group Populations 53

Table 5.1 – Open Space Provision by Type 58 Table 5.2 – Open Space by Ward 59

Table 5.3 – Indicative Park Population Thresholds 60

Table 5.4 – Comparison of Public Park Provision and Indicative Park Population Thresholds 61

Table 5.5 – Comparison of Outer London Borough Park Standards 67

Table 6.1 – Quantity: All Playing Space 71

Table 6.2 – Accessibility Benchmark Standards for Children‟s Playing Space 71

Table 6.3 – Playable Space Typology 72

Table 6.4 – Formal Children‟s Play Provision 73 Table 6.5 – Condition of Children‟s Play Provision 74

Table 6.6 – Formal Play Provision 75

Table 6.7 – Amount of Play Provision by Ward 75

Table 6.8 – Pathfinder Play Sites 78 Table 7.1 – Natural Greenspace Provision identified during Open Space Assessment 82

Table 7.2 – Defined Areas of Natural Greenspace 82

Table 7.3 – GLA Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation 85

Table 7.4 – GLA Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation by Ward 86

Table 8.1 – Principal Allotments Legislation 90

Table 8.2 – Allotment Supply, Capacity and Status 93

Table 8.3 – Allotment Provision by Ward 95 Table 8.4 – Estimated Allotment Needs Arising from Households Lying Outside Catchment Area 96

Table 8.5 – Estimated Allotment Needs Arising from Demographic Change 96

Table 8.6 – Summary of Allotment Requirements 2026 97

Table 8.7 – Approach to Developing Allotment Standard to 2026 98 Table 9.1 – Quality Assessment by Space Type (Overall Average Scores) 106

Table 9.2 – Average Quality Scores by Type of Open Space 108

Table 10.1 – Recreational Role of Open Spaces 112

Table 10.2 – Indications of Informal Use 113 Table 10.3 – Amenity Value of Open Space 115

Table 10.4 – Educational Role of Open Spaces 116

Table 10.5 – Open Spaces Included within the EH Register of Historic Parks and Gardens 117

Table 10.6 – Social and Cultural Roles Performed by Open Spaces 119 Table 10.7 – Composite Value Scores 121

Table 10.8 – Quality / Value Matrix 122

Table 10.9 – Relationship Between Quality and Value 123 Table 10.10 – Scope for Change / Improvement 124

Table 11.1 – All Pitches by Surface 129

Table 11.2 – All Pitches by Status (No. Pitches) 130

Table 11.3 – Pitch Status Summary 131

Table 11.4 – Pitches in Secure Community Use by Type 131

Table 11.5 – Pitches in Secure Community Use by Ownership 132

Table 11.6 – Access to Sites in Secure Community Use 132

Table 11.7 – Local Pitch / Per Person for Individual Sports 133 Table 11.8 – Mode of Transport to Outdoor Playing Pitches 133


Final Report 7

Table 11.9 – Travel Time to Outdoor Playing Pitches 134

Table 11.10 – Location of Club Members by Sport % 135 Table 11.11 – Area of Pitches in Secure Community Use per 1,000 / Population 136

Table 11.12 – Dimensions of Small Sided Pitches 137

Table 11.13 – Quality of Playing Pitches in Secure Community Use 138

Table 11.14 – No. Of Pitches which are Floodlit or Enclosed 139 Table 11.15 – Pitches in SCU with access to changing facilities 140

Table 11.16 – Overall Quality of Changing Facilities by Pitch Type 140

Table 11.17 – Evidence of Vandalism to Changing Facilities by Pitch Type 141

Table 11.18 – Parking Provision at Changing Room Facilities 141

Table 11.19 – Security Provision at Changing Facilities 141

Table 12.1 – Proportion of Clubs where information regarding Team Generation was identified 146

Table 12.2 – No. of Teams by Sport 147

Table 12.3 – Estimated Football Teams by Age Group* 149 Table 12.4 – Home Games per Week* 150

Table 12.5 – Proportion of Games Played on Each Day (%) 150

Table 12.6 – Pitch Requirements for Each Day (no. Games) 151

Table 12.7 – Pitch Capacity and Usage 2011 152 Table 12.8 – Peak Day Capacity 152

Table 13.1 – Membership Trends of Pitch Sports Clubs 155

Table 13.2 – Future Plans for Pitch Sports Clubs 156

Table 13.3 – Team Generation Rates 158

Table 13.4 – Comparative Team Generation Rates – Selected Local Authorities 159

Table 13.5 – Estimated Teams 2026 161

Table 13.6 – Weekly Pitch Demand and Capacity 2026 161 Table 13.7 – Peak Day Demand and Capacity 162

Table 13.8 – Unsatisfied Demand 2026 (including strategic reserve) 163

Table 13.9 – Pitch Space Requirements 2026 164

Table 14.1 – Estimate ATP Needs 166 Table 14.2 – Other Outdoor Sports Facilities 167

Table 14.3 – Floodlighting and Enclosure at Other Facilities 169

Table 14.4 – Other Outdoor Sports Clubs 170

Table 14.5 – Potential Demand for Other Outdoor Sports 171 Table 16.1 - Dwellings 185

Table 16.2 – Population and Households 186

Table 16.3 – Future Population in Growth Areas (2026) 186

Table 16.4 – Potential Child Population Based on Existing Proportion of Children 186 Table 16.5 – Existing Open Space Provision in Central Leeside area 188

Table 16.6 – Existing Open Space Provision in North East Enfield area 189

Table 16.7 – Existing Open Space Provision in Enfield Town AAP* 190 Table 16.8 – Existing Open Space Provision in North Circular AAP 191

Table 16.9 – Existing Open Space Provision in Edmonton Green 192

Table 16.10 – Proportion of Users that are Frequent Users 193

Table 16.11 – Future Open Space Needs in Central Leeside area 196

Table 16.12 –Future Open Space Needs in North East Enfield area 197

Table 16.13 –Future Open Space Needs in Enfield Town AAP 198

Table 16.14 – Future Open Space Needs in North Circular AAP 199

Table 16.15 – Future Open Space Needs in Edmonton Green 200


Final Report 8

List of Figures

Figure 2.1 – Open Space Locations

Figure 2.2 – Open Space Types

Figure 2.3 – Open Space Ownership

Figure 2.4 – Wards and Sub-Area Boundaries

Figure 4.1 – Population Density by Output Area

Figure 4.2 – Dwellings Terraced, Flats or Apartments

Figure 4.3 – Child Densities

Figure 4.4 – Population in Good Health

Figure 4.5 – Deprivation Index Scores

Figure 4.6 – Composite Analysis of Need

Figure 5.1 – Accessibility to Pocket, Small Local and Local Parks

Figure 5.2 – Accessibility to District Parks

Figure 5.3 – Accessibility to Metropolitan Parks

Figure 5.4 – Areas Deficient in Access to Public Parks

Figure 5.5 – Provision of Other Types of Open Space within Deficiency Areas

Figure 6.1 – Accessibility to Children‟s Play Provision

Figure 6.2 – Areas Deficient in Access to Children‟s Play Provision

Figure 7.1 – Natural Greenspace Provision

Figure 7.2 – Deficiencies in Natural Greenspace

Figure 7.3 – Distribution of Ecological Designations

Figure 7.4 – Areas Deficient in Access to Ecological Designations

Figure 8.1 – Allotment Provision

Figure 8.2 – Potential to Meet Existing Allotment Deficiencies

Figure 9.1 – Quality of Open Spaces

Figure 10.1 – Structural Role of Open Spaces

Figure 10.2 – Planning Designations of Open Spaces

Figure 10.3 – Amenity Role of Open Spaces


Final Report 9

Figure 10.4 – Heritage Role of Open Spaces

Figure 10.5 – Total Value Scores

Figure 10.6 – Scope for Enhancing Open Space Value

Figure 10.7 – Value Weightings

Figure 10.8 – Combining Quality and Value Scores

Figure 11.1 – Playing Field Status

Figure 11.2 – Playing Pitch by Type

Figure 11.3 – Playing Field Status Catchment Areas

Figure 14.1 – Distribution of Outdoor Sports Facilities

Figure 15.1 – Potential Role of Open Space

Figure 16.1 – Open Space Located within Growth Areas

Appendices

Appendix A – Proforma 211

Appendix B – Guide to Proforma 219

Appendix C – Typology of Open Space 235

Appendix D – Public Parks by Ward 237

Appendix E – Criteria for NEAP and LEAP 239

Appendix F – Publically Available Children’s Play Facilities 241

Appendix G – Quality Scores 243

Appendix H – Value Assessment Scores 245

Appendix I – Value Scoring System Criteria 247

Appendix J – Relationship between Quality and Value 249

Appendix K – Pitch Assessment 251

Appendix L – Sports Club Questionnaire 253

Appendix M – List of Clubs identified within the Borough 255

Appendix N – Potential Role of Open Space (Pitches) 257

Appendix O – Scope for Change Improvement 259

Appendix P – Tennis Court Provision 261

Appendix Q – Glossary 263


Final Report 10


Final Report 11

Executive Summary

Atkins Ltd were appointed by the London Borough of Enfield in 2011 to prepare an update to the Borough‟s Open Space and Sports Assessment, published in 2006. Atkins Consultants have prepared a comprehensive appraisal of open space and outdoor sports in the Borough. The purpose of the study was to update the Open Space Needs and Sports Assessment (2006) to take account of any change to the provision of open space in the Borough that has occurred since 2006 and to review open space standards and test their applicability on the Boroughs Growth Areas i.e. Meridian Water and to provide recommendations on the priorities for new open space within these growth areas. Atkins Ltd completed a robust update and analysis of different types of urban greenspace across the Borough including outdoor sports fulfilling requirements set out in Planning Policy Guidance 17 „Open Space, Sport and Recreation’, (2002) and Sport England guidance outlined in „Towards a Level Playing Field’, which relates to the assessment of playing pitch needs. Enfield has seen considerable development since the original assessment of open space and sports provision was completed in 2006. The population of the Borough has grown while its characteristics have changed. Cumulatively these changes are likely to have affected both the supply of and demand for open spaces across the Borough. In addition the demand for pitch and other sports facilities will have been affected by changes in pitch participation rates. As a result of these factors there is a recognised need to update both the open space needs and sports assessment to reflect changes in the supply and demand for open space and outdoor sports in the Borough. Due to development pressures in Enfield, particularly within the Borough‟s Growth Areas and in the absence of an up-to-date assessment there is a need to reappraise the quality, accessibility and quantity of open space provision across the Borough. This update will take account of changes to previously assessed open spaces, new open spaces and pitch sports facilities in Enfield.

Approach and Methodology

This study reviews the existing open space typology and public park hierarchy in line with policy guidance to provide a comprehensive basis for assessing the quantity, quality and accessibility of open spaces within the London Borough of Enfield. This assessment was informed by a series of site assessments which included visiting 15 additional sites not included in the Open Space Needs and Sports Assessment (2006) (identified by Enfield Council) and re-assessing 107 outdoor sports sites.

Revised Open Space Typology

During the assessments each open space was classified according to the GLA Public Park hierarchy (revised) (Table E1) and the typology of open space included within the Annex to Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for Open Space Sport Recreation (Table E2). The GLA Public Park Hierarchy (revised) has been adopted to assess the role, function and quality of each public park type as these factors influence the likely recreational value of the park to its catchment community. Other forms of urban greenspace provision within the Borough have been categorised according to nine different types of urban greenspace outlined in the Annex to PPG17.


Final Report 12

Table E.1 – GLA Public Park Hierarchy

Open Space Categorisation

Approx Size of Open Space and Distance from Home

Characteristics

Regional Parks and Open Spaces

400 hectares Large areas and corridors of natural heathland, downland, commons, woodland and parkland also including areas not publically accessible but which contribute to the overall environmental amenity.

(Linked Metropolitan Open Land and Green Belt Corridors)

3.2 - 8km

Weekend and occasional visits by car or public transport

Primarily providing for informal recreation with some non-intrusive active recreation uses, car parking at key locations.

Metropolitan Parks 60 hectares Either natural heathland, downland, commons, woodlands etc, or ii) formal parks providing for both active and passive recreation.


3.2km or more where the park is appreciably larger.

May contain playing fields, but at least 40 hectares for other pursuits. Adequate car parking.

District Park 20 hectares Landscape setting with a variety of natural features providing for a wide range of activities, including outdoor sports facilities and playing fields, children's play for different age groups, and informal recreation pursuits. Should provide some car parking.

Weekend and occasional visits by foot, cycle, car and short bus trips

1.2 km

Local Parks 2 hectares Providing for court games, children's play spaces or other areas of a specialist nature, including nature and conservation areas. Pedestrian Visits 0.4km

Small Local Parks and Open Spaces

0.4 - 2 hectares Gardens, sitting-out areas, children's play spaces or other areas of a specialised nature, including nature and conservation areas. Pedestrian visits

especially by children, particularly valuable in high density areas.

Less than 0.4km

Pocket Parks Under 0.4 hectares Gardens, sitting-out areas, children's play spaces or other areas of a specialised nature, including nature and conservation areas.

Pedestrian visits especially by children.

Less than 0.4km

Linear Open Spaces Variable The Thames, canals, other waterways and associated open spaces and towpaths; paths; disused railways; nature conservation areas; and other routes which provide opportunities for informal recreation.

Pedestrian visits Where feasible Often characterised by features or attractive areas which are not fully accessible to the public but contribute to the enjoyment of the space.

Source: GLA


Final Report 13

Table E.2 – PPG17 – Other Open Space Provision

Type of Open Space Definition

Amenity Green Space Includes informal recreational spaces and housing green spaces. This category would include green spaces in and around housing areas, large landscaped areas, and domestic gardens as well as informal 'kick-about' play areas for children.

Outdoor Sports Facilities / Playing Fields

Those sites which are not located within a public park and which the primary role is for formal recreation. Sites include tennis courts, bowling greens, sports pitches, golf courses, athletics tracks, school playing fields, other institutional playing fields and outdoor sports areas. Categorise by ownership i.e. public/private/education.

Allotments / Community Gardens / Urban Farms

Open spaces where the primary use is allotment gardening or community farming.

Cemeteries and Churchyards

Natural or Semi-Natural Urban Greenspaces

Woodland (coniferous, deciduous, mixed) and scrub, grassland (e.g. Downland, meadow), heath or moor, wetlands (e.g. Marsh, fen), open and running water, wastelands (including disturbed ground), bare rock habitats (e.g. Cliffs, quarries, pits).

Civic spaces / pedestrianised areas

More formally laid out hard surfaced public spaces including squares, pedestrian streets, sitting out areas and space surrounding the docks. These spaces would not normally have a formal recreational function.

Green Spaces within Grounds of Institution

Open space located within the grounds of hospitals, universities and other institutions which are accessible to the general public or some sections of the public. This definition also includes education sites where there is only hard surface and or amenity open space (no pitch sports provision).

Other Other areas of Metropolitan Open Land which may not perform an open space function but which perform a structural or amenity role.

Source: PPG17


Final Report 14

Assessment of Local Open Space Needs

Differential levels of need within the Borough were considered based upon a number of objective demographic and socio-economic indicators which influence the open space needs of individual localities. Each of these indicators has been refreshed for this update to reflect the most up to date information where possible. The following list provides an overview of those objective indicators considered:

demographic profile

ethnicity

population density

housing type

child densities

health

indices of deprivation

composite assessment of local need.

Output areas which have high population and housing densities and high levels of deprivation where identified as the areas with greatest public open space need which may require a special approach to the development of standards or additional provision. It is recommended that open space enhancement is prioritised in these areas due to the lack of access to private gardens and the overall density of development which means that there tend to be fewer amenity spaces, natural and semi-natural areas including urban trees, particularly within the areas of highest density.

Perceptions of Open Space and Sports Need

A telephone survey of 1,000 residents was undertaken for the Open Space Needs and Sports Assessment (2006) to inform usage patterns and explore attitudes towards and perceptions of open space and sports facilities. The findings of this survey have been incorporated into this report to help inform recommendations. Additionally a club survey was also undertaken to help inform the Open Space Needs and Sports Assessment (2006) to inform the demand and supply assessment of playing pitches and sports facilities across the Borough. The findings of this survey have been incorporated into this report to help inform recommendations.

Assessment of Supply

A total of 350 spaces have been identified in the London Borough of Enfield. Enfield has a relatively high quantity of public park provision for an outer London Borough, with some 2.42 ha of public parks per 1,000 / population, although the distribution of public park provision varies significantly between Wards. Those areas of the Borough which are deficient in public open space are illustrated on Figure 5.4. Measures to extend the existing catchments of existing parks will need to be considered in order to reduce deficiencies in access. Measures will be different for each park but could include creating more park gates, „greening‟ of routes and better signposting. The study has identified provision for children‟s play in Enfield (Chapter 6). There are 35 open spaces which have play areas which fully fulfil the criteria associated with a LEAP and only one space fully meets criteria for a NEAP. In addition, ten open spaces with „Other Children‟s play provision‟ fulfil some of the criteria for a LEAP and could be classified as such if minor improvements were made to the play space.


Final Report 15

The assessment identifies the areas deficient in access to formally provided children‟s play provision (Figure 6.2) but also identifies other publically accessible open spaces which may have the potential to incorporate dedicated children‟s play facilities and help reduce the deficiencies.

Quality of Supply

Open space policy has previously been primarily concerned with the quantity and distribution of open space. This study updates this information but also considers the range and condition of facilities within open spaces and the quality of those facilities compared with the Green Flag standard. Chapter 9 identifies that the majority of open spaces are classified as having a „Good‟ or „Very Good‟ quality and range of facilities. The overall findings of the resident‟s survey are consistent with this assessment. A strategy for improving the range and condition of facilities within public parks should be developed to take into account:

the unique character of these parks and the potential to incorporate further facilities;

whether there is a deficiency in the provision of open space in the area;

the proximity of other parks which may have an oversupply of certain facilities; and

local social conditions.

Value of Open Space

The benefits and value of open spaces to local communities extends beyond their active recreational role. Both public and private open spaces perform recreational and non-recreational roles contributing to community and quality of life. An assessment of the value of open spaces has been undertaken which considers the context within which the open space lies, the level and type of use associated with the space and the wider benefits it generates for people, biodiversity and the wider environment. The following types of value have been examined by this study:

the context of the open space including local open space needs, park deficiencies,

site access arrangements and barriers of access to and within the open space;

the recreational function performed by the open space;

the structural role of open space in separating and defining communities;

the amenity value of space;

historical / heritage value of spaces;

the ecological and environmental roles performed by spaces;

the existing and potential educational value of spaces to the community; and

the cultural roles spaces perform (e.g. community venues, performance spaces).

The network of open spaces also provides a valuable ecological resource. There are areas of the Borough which are deficient in accessible natural or semi-natural greenspace provision. 84 spaces within the Borough (22.9%) were identified as representing open spaces of high quality and of high value to the community. Many of the high quality low value spaces represent mono-functional open spaces which only contribute to the community in a limited way, such as amenity spaces. Within areas of identified deficiency (in terms of quantity, quality or access) it is important that such spaces do not under perform in terms of their potential value and multi-functionality and are improved to fulfil their potential


Final Report 16

Local Standards

A series of locally based open space standards have been recommended based upon the findings of the updated assessment of local open space needs. The open space study has considered the supply, quality and value of all types of open space provision within the London Borough of Enfield including levels of demand for playing pitches. Assessing Needs and Opportunities, the Companion Guide to PPG17, recommends that local authorities set local provision standards which incorporate a quantitative, qualitative and accessibility component. Standards of provision have been developed for the following categories of open space where it is important that local needs are provided for on a consistent basis:

provision of parks;

provision of playing pitches;

provision for children and teenagers;

natural or semi-natural greenspace; and

allotment provision.

Within Certain areas of the Borough amenity greenspace and other types of open space form an integral part of the urban fabric and contribute towards local character and distinctiveness. For this reason it is not appropriate to define consistent quantity or access standards relating to such provision. Within areas of deficiency other forms of urban greenspace provision such as other open spaces can be of particular value and represent possible opportunities for meeting local deficiencies. The following is an overview of the recommended standards for the categories outlined above

Proposed Standard for Provision of Parks

Taking into account 2026 population projections, this study recommends a quantity standard of 2.37 ha of public parks per 1,000 / population. This standard is the minimum required to meet the needs of the Borough and reflects the need for an increase in provision of 16 ha. The following access standards are recommended for inclusion within the forthcoming Local Development Framework.

All residents within the Borough should have access to a Metropolitan Park within

3200m from home;

All residents within the Borough should have access to a District Park within 1200m

from home;

All residents within the Borough should have access to a Local Park / Small Local

Park or Pocket Park within 800m from home.

All residents within the Borough should have access to a public park as defined by

the parks hierarchy defined in Table 4.1 within 800m from home.

Public parks within the Borough should be of „Good‟ or „Very Good‟ quality and provide the range of facilities associated with their respective tier of the parks hierarchy. Those public parks identified within Chapter 9 and 10 which either under perform in terms of their value to the local community or their condition should be improved consistent with the guidelines identified.


Final Report 17

Proposed Standard for Formal Children‟s Play

There are variations in the amount of children‟s play provision by ward, whilst some wards have a sufficient level of formal play provision (e.g. Cockfosters) others have very little (e.g. highlands). Children‟s play provision should be of adequate quality and provide the range of facilities associated with the size of the facility. Taking account of the potential 2026 child population there is a need for an additional 10,600 sqm of children‟s play provision. The proposed standard for children‟s play should follow the GLA recommended standard of 10sqm per child, but with the inclusion of an element of provision of formal children‟s play which it is recommended should be 0.48sqm per child which forms part of the 10sqm. The following play space access standards are recommended for inclusion within the forthcoming Local Development Framework.

All residents within the Borough should have access to a formal children‟s play

provision within 400m from home;

Proposed Standard for Provision of Natural Greenspace

The proposed standard for the provision of natural greenspace is 1.0ha of GLA designated Site of Importance for Nature Conservation per 1,000 / population. The natural greenspaces should be capable of being designated as a site of ecological value according to the GLA assessment criteria. The Borough as a whole will meet this target in 2026. However, the distribution of natural greenspace is means that a large linear strip of the Borough, from the north to the south, roughly in line with the A1010 Hertford Road (identified in Figure 7.4) will fall short of this target. The following access standards are recommended for inclusion within the forthcoming Local Development Framework:

All residents within the Borough should have access to a GLA designated Site of

Borough Importance or Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation

within 1km from home.

Where this is not possible, Sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation should

be identified by the Council to alleviate identified access deficiencies.

Assessing Allotment Needs

The revised PPG17 states that in preparing development plans, local authorities should undertake an assessment of the likely demand for allotments and their existing allotment provision, and prepare policies which aim to meet the needs in their area.

Proposed Standard for Allotments

The recommended standard of allotment provision to meet needs up to 2026 is 0.36ha per 1,000 population. In total 32.2 ha of allotment land would need to be brought forward to meet this standard up to 2026. The following access standard is recommended for inclusion within the forthcoming Local Development Framework:

All households should have access to an allotment garden within 800m of home.

Allotment sites should be of adequate quality and support the needs of the local community. Allotment sites which under perform in terms of their value to the local community consistent with the criteria relating to the role of sites identified in Chapter 8 should be improved. Given that allotment sites do not have to be particularly large, allotment provision could be associated with new development in the Borough. Scope may exist within underserved areas to bring forward allotment land through diversification of existing open spaces such as playing fields and development of allotments on infill


Final Report 18

sites. Within other local authorities, school sites have proved good locations where there is sufficient space available as funding can be sought to develop allotments jointly as outdoor classrooms for curriculum use and as a community resource. Opportunities for bringing forward new allotment sites should be investigated within wards where there are the highest levels of latent demand and open space need. At those allotment sites where there is unlikely to be demand even taking account of latent and potential demand then opportunities exist to diversify areas of underutilised plots or disused allotment land for other open space and nature conservation uses. If there is no existing or potential need for any other open space uses then it may be appropriate to consider other possible land uses.

Sports Pitch Update

To provide update of local playing pitch needs, an assessment following the stages of the Sport England Playing Pitch Model was undertaken. It was beyond the scope of this update to carry out an update survey of teams/sports clubs. Playing pitch needs taking account of future population projections were identified. Taking account of existing provision and demand, latent demand and the scale of the strategic reserve, it was established that no additional pitches will be required up to 2026.

Proposed Standard for Provision of Playing Pitches

The proposed playing pitch standard to meet needs up to 2026 is 0.70 ha per 1,000 population It is recommended that the Council prepares a playing pitch strategy and action plan in order to identify solutions to the quantitative and qualitative deficiencies identified within the playing pitch assessment.

Application of Standards to Growth Areas

Chapter 16 identified future open space needs of the Borough‟s four growth areas based on the future population as a result of development, against the open space standards recommended in this report. In considering the future open space needs, the Consultants have taken into account the existing level of open space provision, open space needs and socio-economic indicators, in order to identify priorities for each of the growth areas. In some locations it will not be possible or desirable to seek the full level of provision derived from the recommended standards, given the local needs and socio-economic conditions or existing level of provision. As a result the report sets out the key priorities for each of the growth areas.


Final Report 19

1. Introduction 1.1 Atkins Ltd were appointed by the London Borough of Enfield in 2011 to prepare an update to

the Borough‟s Open Space and Sports Assessment, published in 2006. Atkins Consultants

have prepared a comprehensive appraisal of open space, indoor and outdoor sports in the

Borough. The purpose of the study was to update the open space and sports assessment to

take account of changes to the open space provision in the Borough since 2006 and to

review open space standards, and test their applicability on the Boroughs Growth Areas i.e.

Meridian Water and to provide recommendations on the priorities for new open space within

these growth areas.

1.2 Atkins completed a robust update and analysis of different types of urban greenspaces

across the Borough including outdoor sports fulfilling requirements set out in Planning Policy

Guidance 17 „Open Space, Sport and Recreation’, (2002) and Sport England guidance

outlined in „Towards a Level Playing Field’, which relates to the assessment of playing pitch

needs.

1.3 Enfield has seen considerable development since the original assessment of open space and

sports provision was completed in 2006. The population of the Borough has grown while its

characteristics have changed. Cumulatively these changes are likely to have affected both

the supply of and demand for open spaces across the Borough. In addition the demand for

pitch and other sports facilities will have been affected by changes in pitch participation rates.

1.4 As a result of these factors there is a recognised need to update both the open space needs

and sports assessment to reflect changes in the supply and demand for open space and

outdoor sports in the Borough.

1.5 Due to development pressures in Enfield, particularly within the Borough‟s Growth Areas and

in the absence of an up-to-date assessment there is a need to reappraise the quality,

accessibility and quantity of open space provision across the Borough. This update will take

account of changes to previously assessed open spaces, new open spaces and pitch sports

facilities in Enfield.

Growth Area Summary 1.6 Enfield‟s adopted Core Strategy (November 2010) sets out detailed policies for the strategic

growth areas of Central Leeside, North East Enfield, Enfield Town and the North Circular

area. Within these strategic growth areas, the Council is working with partners and

communities to set place shaping priorities in specific neighbourhoods where the greatest

challenges are faced. The Core Strategy recognises that place shaping includes not only the

physical transformation of places, but also working with partners to improve services, health,

housing, education, employment, safety and prosperity. These place shaping priority areas

are listed below.

Meridian Water within Central Leeside.

Ponders End within North East Enfield.

The area around Enfield Town Rail Station.

New Southgate within the North Circular Road area.


Final Report 20

Report Structure 1.7 This report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2: Methodology – sets out the methodology that the Consultants have

used to update the 2006 assessment.

Chapter 3: National, Regional and Local Policy Framework – sets out the key

national, regional and local policy framework that is relevant to this study.

Chapter 4: Assessment of Open Space Needs – provides an assessment of open

space needs based on a series of indicators.

Chapter 5: Assessment of Supply – provides an assessment of the current supply

of open space in the Borough.

Chapter 6: Assessment of Children’s Play Provision – provides an assessment

of children‟s play provision, including recommendations on a standard for children‟s

play provision.

Chapter 7: Assessment of Natural and Semi-Natural Greenspace - provides an

assessment of natural and semi-natural greenspace provision, including

recommendations on a standard for natural and semi-natural greenspace provision.

Chapter 8: Allotment Needs – provides an assessment of allotment provision,

including recommendations on a standard for allotment provision.

Chapter 9: Quality of Supply – sets out the findings of the Consultants audit of

quality of open space.

Chapter 10: Open Space Value - sets out the findings of the Consultants audit of

value of open space.

Chapter 11: Provision for Pitch Sports Within Enfield - provides a assessment of

the current supply of sports pitches in the Borough

Chapter 12: Analysing Demand for Outdoor Pitch Sports – considers the

demand for pitch sports in the Borough.

Chapter 13: Latent Demand for Outdoor Sports – assesses the level of latent

demand for pitch sports in the Borough.

Chapter 14: Other Outdoor Sports Provision – provides an assessment of the

current supply and demand for other types of outdoor sports.

Chapter 15: Meeting Sports Needs within the Borough – identifies the policy and

management mechanisms necessary to address the sports needs identified within

the report.

Chapter 16: Applying Standards to Growth Areas in Enfield – Considers the

level of development in the four growth areas and considers how open space

standards will be applied in the growth areas.

Chapter 17: Conclusions


Final Report 21

2. Methodology

Introduction 2.1 Existing national policy and guidance PPG17 „Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ alongside

the companion guide „Assessing Needs and Opportunities’ emphasise that local authorities

should derive standards for the provision of sports and recreation facilities for inclusion within

statutory development plans and that these standards should be based on local assessments

of need. Emerging policy as evidenced in the Draft National Planning Policy Framework

(NPPF). The Draft NPPF recognises that „access to good quality open spaces and

opportunities for sport and recreation can make an important contribution to the health and

well-being of communities (Draft NPPF, para 128).

2.2 The objective of this study is to update the current Enfield Open Space and Sports

Assessment (2006). The following methodology outlines the rationale applied to update key

components of the assessment. Additionally, the national, regional and local policy

framework has also been updated to reflect changes in policy and guidance since 2006.

Approach to Updating Planning and Open Space

Provision

Introduction

2.3 PPG17 and The London Plan (2011) both advise local authorities to draw up their own

standards for open space, sports and recreation provision for inclusion within their

Development Plans. It is recommended that these standards are based upon a locally

derived assessment of open space needs. In line with emerging guidance this report will

update the existing Enfield Open Space Needs and Sports Assessment (2006) to account for

15 additional open spaces identified by the London Borough of Enfield (Table 2.2).

Additionally a survey of the quality of outdoor sports provision within the Borough was

completed to refresh the Sports Assessment (2006). This update considers amended open

space boundaries provided by the London Borough of Enfield, changes which reinforce the

need for an up to date assessment of Open Space and Outdoor Sports requirements within

the Borough. Demographic information for the Borough has also been updated to ensure

current need within the Borough is taken into account.

Approaches to Planning and Open Space Provision

2.4 PPG17 recommends that any open space assessment should take into account:

the overall level of supply in Enfield, including the degree to which provision meets

needs from beyond the local authority boundary;

the accessibility of locations;

the level of usage of facilities;

the particular functions which certain facilities may perform , for example as a

meeting place for one age group or community;

the potential for a recreational use to contribute to wider social or regeneration

objectives for Enfield;

the potential for new use, for example by achieving dual use of a facility or by

bringing a private open space into public use; and


Final Report 22

the potential to focus improved recreational provision of a particular site, in

preference to lower level use of less accessible locations.

2.5 The two main approaches used to assess open space needs are outlined by Fields in Trust

(FiT), „Planning and design for outdoor sport and play’ (2008), which updates and

modernises pervious recommendations made in „The Six Acre Standard’.

2.6 Fields in Trust „Planning and design for outdoor sport and play’ (2008) is similar to previous

recommendations in „The Six Acre Standard’. Recommended quantity, quality and

accessibility standards have been prepared by Fields in Trust for playing pitches, all other

outdoor sport as well as outdoor play (see Chapter 3). In addition Fields in Trust have

adopted a hierarchy of provision.

2.7 The Government‟s Companion Guide to PPG17 „Assessing Need’s and Opportunities’

recommends that the hierarchy approach can provide a sound basis on which to develop

local standards. The guide identifies characteristics, size and effective catchment of different

types of open spaces.

2.8 The London Plan (2011) in Policy 7.18, encourages Borough‟s to identify areas of public

open space deficiency, using the Greater London Authority (GLA) open space hierarchy and

to ensure that future open space needs are planned for in areas with the potential for

substantial change such as Growth Areas.

2.9 To assist in the production and preparation of open space strategies, the GLA has produced

best practice guidance entitled „A Guide to Preparing Open Space Strategies’ (2004). This

document recommends that a hierarchy approach is used, but adapts the approach used in

PPG17 to best reflect the types of open space found within London (Table 2.1). An

understanding of the different types of open space will provide a basis for updating the

results of the 2006 site survey and allow for an updated assessment of whether the range

and types of open space functions in the local area meet the needs of local people.

Table 2.1 – GLA Public Park Hierarchy

Open Space Categorisation

Approx Size of Open Space and Distance from Home

Characteristics

Regional Parks and Open Spaces

400 hectares Large areas and corridors of natural heathland, downland, commons, woodland and parkland also including areas not publically accessible but which contribute to the overall environmental amenity.

(Linked Metropolitan Open Land and Green Belt Corridors)

3.2 - 8km


Primarily providing for informal recreation with some non-intrusive active recreation uses, car parking at key locations.

Metropolitan Parks 60 hectares Either natural heathland, downland, commons, woodlands etc, or ii) formal parks providing for both active and passive recreation.


3.2km or more where the park is appreciably larger.

May contain playing fields, but at least 40 hectares for other pursuits. Adequate car parking.

District Park 20 hectares Landscape setting with a variety of natural features providing for a wide range of activities, including outdoor sports facilities and playing fields, children's play for different age groups, and informal recreation pursuits. Should provide some car parking.

Weekend and occasional visits by foot, cycle, car and short bus trips

1.2 km

Local Parks 2 hectares Providing for court games, children's play


Final Report 23

Pedestrian Visits 0.4km spaces or other areas of a specialist nature, including nature and conservation areas.

Small Local Parks and Open Spaces

0.4 - 2 hectares Gardens, sitting-out areas, children's play spaces or other areas of a specialised nature, including nature and conservation areas. Pedestrian visits

especially by children, particularly valuable in high density areas.

Less than 0.4km

Pocket Parks Under 0.4 hectares Gardens, sitting-out areas, children's play spaces or other areas of a specialised nature, including nature and conservation areas.

Pedestrian visits especially by children.

Less than 0.4km

Linear Open Spaces Variable The Thames, canals, other waterways and associated open spaces and towpaths; paths; disused railways; nature conservation areas; and other routes which provide opportunities for informal recreation.

Pedestrian visits Where feasible Often characterised by features or attractive areas which are not fully accessible to the public but contribute to the enjoyment of the space.

Source: GLA

Survey Methodology

2.10 To update the 2006 survey of public, private and educational open space an additional 15

open space sites (Table 2.2) identified by the London Borough of Enfield were assessed in

May 2011 by appropriately qualified planning and landscape consultants. Additional sites

were identified by the London Borough of Enfield as meeting criteria for open space as

outlined in the GLA public park hierarchy (Table 2.1) and PPG17, „Other Outdoor Provision‟

(Table 2.3). It was therefore determined appropriate to include these sites in this updated

assessment of open space and sports requirements.

Table 2.2 – Additional Surveyed Sites (2011)

Site ID Site Name Ward

28 The Green, New Southgate Southgate Green

132 Camlet Way Railway Embankment Cockfosters

259 Lea Valley Leisure Park Jubilee

342 Open Space fronting Green Dragon Lane Winchmore Hill

343 St Johns Preparatory School playing fields Chase

344 St Johns Senior School playing fields Chase

347 Bush Hill Park Bowls, Tennis and Social Club Ltd Bush Hill Park

348 Bowles Green Chase

349 Holmesdale Open Space West Turkey Street

350 Painters Lane Open Space Enfield Lock

351 Royal Small Arms Angling Club Enfield Lock

352 Electric Avenue Open Space Enfield Lock

353 Innova Park Open Space Enfield Lock

354 Enfield Island Village Open Space Enfield Lock

355 Tottenham Hotspur Training Ground Chase

2.11 Additionally, a survey of outdoor sports pitches was completed for sites identified in the 2006

Sports Assessment as being either in „Secure Community Use‟, „No Public Access‟ or

„Casual Use‟. The consultants surveyed 107 sites to provide an up to date assessment of

outdoor sports provision. A seven page survey pro-forma developed for the 2006 assessment


Final Report 24

was used to capture key features and characteristics relating to each of the new sites. This

was important in order to maintain consistency with results from the 2006 site survey. Many

of the questions followed a criteria based approach to assessment informed by a survey

guide to enable a consistent basis of assessment. The pro-forma and explanatory notes are

attached in Appendices A and B.

2.12 The 2011 updated assessment of outdoor sports provision also considers the active

recreational role of the 107 surveyed sites which includes the current provision of both pitch

and other outdoor sports provision

2.13 The range of data collected on site during the 2006 site survey was targeted towards those

functions and characteristics which were necessary in order to fulfil the purposes of the brief

and meet the requirements of national planning policy guidance. The main objectives of the

2011 update are to:

objectively collect new and update existing information on open space and outdoor

sports provision and its distribution across Enfield;

collect sufficient information on the function of each space to allow a classification to

be made on the basis of the open space typology (see Table 2.3) allowing for

appropriate analysis;

collect sufficient information on the condition of facilities and landscape to allow an

informed assessment of the quality and of each open space;

collect sufficient information on the roles and functions performed by each site to

allow an informed assessment of the value of open spaces; and

ensure both the 2006 assessment and this update include all publically accessible

open spaces greater than 0.4ha in size, regardless of ownership, consistent with

GLA guidance. Amenity space provision of less than 0.4ha was also included as part

of the 2006 assessment.

Open Space Typology

2.14 Each of the open spaces has been classified according to the GLA public park hierarchy

(Table 2.1) and PPG17 typologies set out in Table 2.3. The identification of the open space

type has been based on the consideration of size, primary role and function, recreational

value, access arrangements and physical character.

Table 2.3 – Other Open Space Provision

Type of Open Space Definition

Amenity Green Space Includes informal recreational spaces and housing green spaces. This category would include green spaces in and around housing areas, large landscaped areas, and domestic gardens as well as informal 'kick-about' play areas for children.

Outdoor Sports Facilities / Playing Fields

Those sites which are not located within a public park and which the primary role is for formal recreation. Sites include tennis courts, bowling greens, sports pitches, golf courses, athletics tracks, school playing fields, other institutional playing fields and outdoor sports areas. Categorise by ownership i.e. public/private/education.

Allotments / Community Gardens / Urban Farms

Open spaces where the primary use is allotment gardening or community farming.


Final Report 25


Open space where primary use is burial.

Natural or Semi-Natural Urban Greenspaces

Woodland (coniferous, deciduous, mixed) and scrub, grassland (e.g. Downland, meadow), heath or moor, wetlands (e.g. Marsh, fen), open and running water, wastelands (including disturbed ground), bare rock habitats (e.g. Cliffs, quarries, pits).

Civic spaces / pedestrianised areas

More formally laid out hard surfaced public spaces including squares, pedestrian streets, sitting out areas and space surrounding the docks. These spaces would not normally have a formal recreational function.

Green Spaces within Grounds of Institution

Open space located within the grounds of hospitals, universities and other institutions which are accessible to the general public or some sections of the public. This definition also includes education sites where there is only hard surface and or amenity open space (no pitch sports provision).

Other Other areas of Metropolitan Open Land which may not perform an open space function but which perform a structural or amenity role.

Source: PPG17

Approach to Assessing Public Park Provision

2.15 The GLA‟s best practice guidance „Guide to Preparing Open Space Strategies „ (2004),

suggests that the GLA Public Park Hierarchy should be used by London Borough‟s when

preparing open spaces strategies. For the purposes of consistency and cross-boundary

thinking the GLA public park hierarchy has been the basis of public park classification for

both the Open Space Needs and Sports Assessment (2006) and this update.

2.16 The classification of parks within different levels of the public parks hierarchy has been

determined by the size of the space, the degree of public access, usage patterns and

catchment area derived from the resident‟s survey (2006), the range of facilities provided, the

physical character of the park and the recreational value of the space.

2.17 The term „Public Parks‟ used within this updated assessment therefore refers to the seven

types of public park identified within Table 2.1. Figure 2.1 illustrates all open space over 0.4

ha in the Borough while Figure 2.2 identifies the typology of open spaces within Enfield.

Appendix C provides a schedule of the typology of all open spaces within the Borough. All of

the open spaces classified as parks within the public parks hierarchy are publicly owned by

the London Borough of Enfield. The ownership of all open spaces in Enfield is illustrated in

Figure 2.3. Ward boundaries are illustrated in Figure 2.4.

2.18 This study provides an update to locally derived standards as published in the Open Space

Needs and Sports Assessment (2006) for the categories listed below:

public park provision;

provision for children and teenagers;

natural or semi-natural greenspace;

allotment provision; and


Final Report 26

outdoor sports fields and playing field needs.

2.19 Updated standards will incorporate any new information gathered as a result of the site audit

work undertaken in 2011, boundary changes and refreshed demographic information.

2.20 Table 2.4 compares the findings of the 2006 open space needs assessment with those of the

2011 update. The table identifies the number of Metropolitan Parks, District Parks, Local

Parks, Small Local Parks / open space, Pocket Parks and Linear Open Space / Green

Corridors. Due to additional sites being audited in 2011, most types of public park provision

have increased. The exception to the rule has been Small Local Parks, this has been due to

site 132 – „Camlet Way, Railway Embankment‟ being re-appraised by the 2011 audit as a

natural or semi natural greenspace.

Table 2.4 – Comparing Public Park Provision (2006 – 2011)

Open Space Type No. of Sites (2006)

No. of sites

(2011)

Metropolitan Parks 3 3

District Park 10 10

Local Park 17 18

Small Local Park / open space 18 17

Pocket Park 5 6

Linear Open Space / Green Corridors 13 15

Approach to Updating Sports Assessment 2.21 The Companion Guide which accompanies PPG17 „Assessing Needs and Opportunities’

recommends that the Sport England Guidelines „Towards a Level Playing Field’ (2003)

should be used to provide a robust basis for preparing an assessment of the supply and

demand for playing pitches.

2.22 This study follows the approach recommended within „Towards a Level Playing Field’ for

reasons of robustness and to enable comparison with other authorities.

Scope of the Assessment

2.23 The objectives of the playing pitch demand assessment follow.

To assess current playing pitch demand and supply in the London Borough of

Enfield including:

an assessment of the adequacy of existing provision in terms of quantity and quality

of pitches;

to provide information on participation characteristics and trends within the Borough;

to provide an assessment of latent demand for football, cricket, rugby and hockey

within Enfield;

To identify issues associated with pitch ownership and management.

To forecast future playing pitch demand and assess the adequacy of existing

provision to meet this demand.

To derive local standards of outdoor pitch provision.

To identify options to address areas deficient in pitch provision and management

options in areas of the Borough where minimum standards of provision have been

met.


Final Report 27

To provide a tool to support the development control process when evaluating

planning applications associated with outdoor playing pitch sites.

To provide the basis for identifying future priorities for investment and funding bids to

improve local sports provision.

Sport England Playing Pitch Assessment

2.24 To provide an in-depth assessment of local playing pitch needs the Sport England Playing

Pitch Model has been adopted. This approach requires the use of findings from the club

survey (2006). These surveys assessed actual demand for pitches within the Borough.

2.25 The results serve to model the existing demand for playing pitches on the ground and can

also be used to determine the adequacy of existing provision, and predict future demand and

supply scenarios.

2.26 This methodology provides a relatively sophisticated tool for modelling playing pitch demand.

However there are a number of issues and limitations associated with the model which are

described in more detail in chapter 12.

Updating the 2006 Data

2.27 As part of the 2006 assessment, the primary data collected to inform the demand

assessment was derived from surveys of pitch sports clubs, league secretaries, schools and

other facilities providers. The scope of this study did not include an update of the club survey

therefore the 2006 data was supplemented by other relevant data available at the national

level such as the Football Foundation data and Council booking records. Information on the

supply of facilities was gathered through visits to all pitches located in the Borough, which

included a survey of the quantity and quality of pitches by type.

2.28 This update uses a combination of secondary and primary sources to update the data

originally collected. Those sites that include outdoor pitch sports have been surveyed

providing data which updates the total supply of pitches. This was then calibrated with data

from Sport England‟s Active Places database and Council booking records. Secondary

sources such as individual team and national sports governing body websites have also used

to provide an update on the number of teams currently playing in the Borough by sport.

2.29 Table 2.5 provides a summary of the approach to data collection in both the 2006 study and

this update.


Final Report 28

Table 2.5 – Approach to Data Collection

Information Requirement 2006 Study 2011 Update

Information on wider sports participation.

General Household Survey and other market

research.

Sport England Active People Survey 5.

Number of pitches by type. Site assessments as part

of wider open space study.

Site assessments at every pitch site in the

Borough. Active Places and Council Information.

Quality of pitches and supporting facilities.

Site assessments as part of wider open space

study.

Site assessments at every pitch site in the

Borough.

Number of teams that play in Enfield by Sport.

Identification of teams though league handbooks

and league secretaries. Responses to club survey.

Identification of teams through league

handbooks, sport governing bodies websites, Council

information.

Capacity Issues at particular sites. Responses to club

surveys. -

Identifying Clubs

2.30 In order to assess the demand for pitch sports within Enfield, information was analysed from

several sources including information from the regional representatives of the National

Governing Bodies (such as London Football Association), as well as information from the

London Borough of Enfield and the Enfield Open Space Needs and Sports Assessment

(2006). From these sources, a list of clubs based in the Borough was drawn up. Clubs were

incorporated into the survey sample if they were known to play in the Borough (from existing

records of local knowledge, had club names with a geographic association with the places

within the Borough or immediate surrounding areas or played in leagues with a geographic

association with the Borough. From this sample only those teams playing within the Borough

have been considered.


Final Report 29

3. National, Regional and Local Policy

Review

Introduction 3.1 This section presents an updated assessment of both the existing and proposed national,

regional and local planning guidance and policy framework. The following review considers

national and local Government guidance and policy which has been prepared since the

Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006) was published.

3.2 National, regional and local guidance and policy provides a framework within which the

planning and management of open space and sports provision can take place. The provision

and quality of open space, sport and recreation facilities can have a significant impact on

quality of life indicators. Consequently, any complete assessment of open space, sport and

recreation must consider a range of competencies including planning, leisure and recreation,

health, education and crime. Table 3.1 illustrates national, regional and local policy and

guidance which is relevant to this update.

Table 3.1 – Updated Guidance and Policy Documentation

Guidance and Policy Documentation Publication Date

National Guidance and Policy: Cross Cutting Government Initiatives:

World Class places (Department for Communities and Local Government) May-09

Be active, be healthy: A plan for getting the nation moving (Department of Health)

Feb-09

The Play Strategy (Department for children, schools and families) Healthy weight, Healthy Lives: A Cross Cutting Government Strategy for England National Policy Development: Draft National Planning Policy Framework (NPF) (Department for Communities and Local Government) Draft PPS - Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment (Department for Communities and Local Government) Fields in Trust - Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (Fields in Trust) Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for Open Space Sport Recreation

Dec-08 Jan-08

Jul-11

Mar-10

Jan-08

Jul-02

Regional Guidance and Policy:

The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater London Jul-11

Open Space Strategies: Best Practice Guidance: A joint consultation draft by the Mayor of London and CABE Space

Sep-08

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children and Young People's Play and Informal Recreation

Mar-08

The Blue Ribbon Network: The Heart of London

Jan-06

Local Guidance and Policy:

The Enfield Plan: Adopted Core Strategy 2010-2025 Nov-10

London Borough of Enfield Parks and Open Spaces Strategy 2010 - 2020 Jan-10

Central Leeside AAP - Baseline Report Jun-07


Final Report 30

North East Enfield AAP - Baseline Report North Circular AAP – Baseline Report

Jun-07 Jan-07

Enfield Town AAP - Baseline Report Edmonton Green Masterplan DPD Meridian Water Masterplan SPD Ponders End Central Planning Brief SPD

Sep-06 - - -

National Guidance and Policy

Cross Cutting Government Initiatives:

World class places (May 2009)

3.3 The Government strategy on the quality of place; World class places (May 2009) sets out the

Governments approach to improving quality of place – the way the places where we live and

work are planned, designed, developed and maintained. The strategy outlines that bad

planning and design and careless maintenance can contribute to poor health, undermine

community cohesion, deter investment, spoil the environment and, over the long term, incur

significant costs. In short, improving quality of place is vital if the Government is to deliver on

its commitments and make the country a fairer, safer, healthier, more prosperous and

sustainable place.

3.4 The Government recognises that much depends on local government, professional bodies,

private sector businesses, community groups and individuals working together to

successfully improve the quality of place. The key vision for World class places is to:

“Ensure that all places are planned, designed and developed to provide everyone, including

future generations, with a decent quality of life and fair chances”.

3.5 Of the seven strategic objectives outlined two are particularly relevant to improving the quality

of open space at the local authority level (see below).

Encourage local civic leaders and local government to prioritise quality of place.

Actions include improving support and training on quality of place for civic leaders

and planning committee members and developing options for measuring quality of

place and establishing this measure as a local government indicator.

Ensure relevant government policy, guidance and standards consistently promote

quality of place and are user-friendly. Actions include introducing new planning

policy on the historic environment and green infrastructure.

3.6 It is envisaged that these actions combined with the other five will make a real difference to

the quality of places where we live, work and visit, supporting high quality development.

Be active, be healthy: A plan for getting the nation moving

(February 2009)

3.7 Be active, be healthy establishes a new framework for the delivery of physical activity aligned

with sport for the period leading up to the London 2012 Olympic Games and Paralympic

Games and beyond. It also sets out new ideas for local authorities and primary care trusts

(PCTs) to help determine and respond to the needs of their local populations, providing for

and encouraging more physical activity, which it is envisaged will benefit individuals and

communities while delivering overall cost savings.


Final Report 31

3.8 The strategy recognises the once in a lifetime potential the London 2012 Olympic Games and

Paralympic Games presents as part of a „decade of sport‟ to inspire individuals to make a

commitment to activity. A stated objective is to deliver a health legacy for the Games,

contributing to the Government‟s Legacy Action Plan (LAP) target for 2 million more adults

active by 2012. To successfully achieve the Government‟s ambitions for a healthier, fitter

nation by 2012 and beyond the Government, through this strategy, recognises the need for

World-class delivery infrastructure for physical activity, achievable by retaining and

resourcing those elements of existing frameworks which can contribute to the wider delivery

of physical activity while remaining fully aligned with the delivery of sport.

3.9 The British Heart Foundation Health Promotion Growth at Oxford University were

commissioned to prepare estimates of the primary and secondary care costs attributable to

physical inactivity for PCTs and strategic health authorities (SHAs) across England. The

results based upon 2006/2007 demonstrate an average healthcare cost of physical inactivity

for each PCT of £5 million per year. These costs can subsequently be used to assess the

cost-effectiveness of physical activity interventions.

3.10 It is recognised that “creating an „active‟ environment” must be prioritised to meet the aims of

the strategy given the quality of our environment has a direct influence upon levels of

physical activity. The strategy goes on to state that the opportunity to explore safe, attractive

and interesting parks or streetscapes can be a significant motivator for recreational walking

and cycling. In addition to this it has identified that natural environments offer important

settings for health-enhancing physical activity.

The Play Strategy (December 2008)

3.11 The Play Strategy (Department of Children, Schools and Families and Department of Culture,

Media and Sport, December 2008) sets out the Government‟s long term vision for play which

includes the provision of a range of safe exciting places for children of all ages to play close

to where they live. The Government‟s ambition is to make this the best country in the World

for children to grow up. Through children and communities‟ involvement in the design and

planning of these spaces, it is envisaged that play areas will be valued locally and continue to

reflect the distinct needs of each community. The strategy sets out how the Government

expects to deliver its vision for 2020, supporting local delivery partners to make a reality of

children‟s right to play, as stated in Article 31 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights

of the Child. The strategy defines play as children and young people following their own ideas

and interests, in their own way and for their own reasons, having fun while respecting

themselves and others. The Governments vision for play outlines that:

in every residential area there should be a variety of supervised and unsupervised

places for play, free of charge;

local neighbourhoods will be, and feel like, safe, interesting places to play;

routes to children‟s play space should be safe and accessible for all children and

young people;

parks and open spaces should be attractive and welcoming to children and young

people, as well as being well maintained and used;

children and young people should have a clear stake in public space while their play

should be accepted by their neighbours;

children and young people and their families should take an active role in the

development of local play spaces; and


Final Report 32

play spaces should be attractive, welcoming, engaging and accessible for all local

children and young people, including disabled children and children from minority

groups in the community.

3.12 The strategy sets out five overarching areas of action to improve play opportunities for all

children (see below):

More places to play: responding to children‟s demands for high-quality play spaces

in every area;

Supporting play throughout childhood: improving provision through a range of

settings for children of all ages;

Playing safely: providing safe, accessible and stimulating places for children to

play;

Child-friendly communities: engaging communities and involving children in

decisions; and

Embedding play in local priorities: ensuring leadership and effective delivery in

every local area.

Healthy weight, healthy lives: A cross government strategy

for England (January 2008)

3.13 The strategy begins by identifying a modern lifestyle „epidemic‟ evidenced by almost two-

thirds of adults and a third of children being either overweight or obese. This is considered an

issue because of the severe impact being overweight or obese can have on an individual‟s

health as well as rising costs to key services such as the NHS. This policy represents the

Government‟s acceptance that it has a role to play in expanding the opportunities people

have to make the right choices for themselves and their families; in making sure that people

have clear and effective information about food, exercise and their well-being; and in

ensuring its policies across the board support people and their efforts to maintain a healthy

weight. The Government through this strategy recognises that its approach to early years,

schools, food, sport and physical activity, planning, transport, the health service and other

areas all need to support the creation of a society that fully promotes health. The strategy

sets out a key ambition:

“Of becoming the first major country to reverse the rising tide of obesity and overweight in the

population by ensuring that all individuals are able to maintain a healthy weight”.

3.14 To help achieve this ambition it is suggested that the Government could best focus its actions

in five main policy areas – to promote children‟s health; to promote healthy food; to build

physical activity into our lives; to support health at work and provide incentives more widely to

promote health‟ and to provide effective treatment and support when people become

overweight or obese.

3.15 Of particular relevance to this updated study and the preparation of open space and outdoor

sports strategies is building physical activity into our lives. In this regard the Government‟s

vision is for a future where all individuals and families are able to exercise regularly and to

stay healthy and well throughout their lives. It is envisaged that Government, business, local

communities and other organisations will support this by creating urban and rural

environments where walking, cycling and other forms of physical activity, exercise and sport

are accessible, safe and the norm. Stated immediate plans include:

investing in a „Walking into Health‟ campaign;

investing £30 million in „Healthy Towns‟ – working with selected towns and cities to

build on the successful EPODE model used in Europe, with infrastructure and other


Final Report 33

best practice models to validate and learn from whole-town approaches to promoting

physical activity; and

a review of the Government‟s overall approach to physical activity, including the role

of Sport England, to develop a fresh set of programmes ensuring that there is a clear

legacy of increased physical activity leading up to and after the 2012 games.

3.16 Essentially through this strategy the Government has committed itself to creating and

supporting built environments which help tackle obesity and support healthy communities.

National Policy Development:

Draft National Planning Policy Framework

3.17 The Draft National Planning Framework (Draft NPPF) sets out the Government‟s economic,

environmental and social planning policies for England. Taken together these policies

articulate the Government‟s vision of a sustainable development, which the Draft NPF states

„should be interpreted and applied locally to meet local aspirations‟ (Draft NPPF, para4)

3.18 The Draft NPPF goes further by stating that „The National Planning Framework sets out the

Government‟s requirements for the planning system only to the extent that it is relevant,

proportionate and necessary to do so‟ (Draft NPPF, para5).

3.19 The most relevant section of this draft policy document that is relevant to this update of

Enfield‟s open space needs is titled „Deliver open space, sports and recreational facilities‟,

states that „Access to good quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation

can make an important contribution to the health and well-being of communities‟ (Draft

NPPF, para. 128). The Draft NPPF recognises the importance of and potential for access to

opportunities for sport and recreation.

3.20 The Draft NPPF outlines that planning policies should identify specific needs and quantitative

or qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local

area, while the information gained from this assessment of needs and opportunities should

be used to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space, sports and

recreational facilities.

Draft PPS – Planning for a Natural and Healthy Environment

3.21 This draft Planning Policy Statement (PPS) was published for consultation in March 2010.

The draft PPS contains policies focused on planning for the natural environment including

green infrastructure, open space, sport, recreation and play while at the same time moving

the matter into the context of the government‟s agenda for encouraging healthier living and

environments.

3.22 The consultation document outlines that it is intended, in its final form, that the proposed PPS

will supersede PPS9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation; PPG17: Planning for Open

Space, Sport and Recreation; PPS7: Sustainable Development in Rural Areas (paragraphs

21-23, 28-29, and 33); and PPG20: Coastal Planning (paragraphs 2.9, 2.10 and 3.9).

3.23 It is noted within the consultation document that the Government continues to support the

need to make adequate provision of land and facilities for sport, recreation and children‟s

play, and intends to maintain existing policies in PPG17. Local planning authorities will

continue to be required to protect from development existing land and facilities unless it can

be demonstrated that they are surplus to requirements. Where deficits are identified, local

planning authorities should identify opportunities to improve provision either by providing new

facilities or by making better use of existing ones.


Final Report 34

3.24 It should be noted that the Government is intending to amalgamate existing planning policy

statements and guidance into a combined national planning policy framework (NPPF). As a

result the above PPS and draft PPS will be superseded. At the time of writing the NPPF is

programmed to be published in late 2011.

Fields in Trust – Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and

Play (2008)

3.25 Fields in Trust (FIT) is the new name of the National Playing Fields Association. Planning and

design for outdoor sport and play (2008) updates and modernises previous recommendations

made in The Six Acre Standard. Since The Six Acre Standard was last published in 2001 a

range of more clearly defined and adopted policies for planning standards for open space,

sport and recreation including outdoor facilities for sport and play have been published. In

response to the changing policy context, and to reflect the need for local determination and

adoption of standards relating to quantity, quality and accessibility, in 2006 FIT

commissioned independent research to undertake a survey of local planning authorities and

consult with key stakeholders around the United Kingdom. It was decided that FIT should

recommend Benchmark Standards to planning authorities and others. These benchmark

standards are recommended as a tool for assisting the development of local standards. The

guidance states that the updated recommendations are very similar to previous

recommendations in The Six Acre Standard. A summary of the benchmark standards

outlined by this document follows.

Benchmark Standard Recommendations for Outdoor Sport

Quantity – Outdoor Sports

Table 3.2 – Quantity: Playing Pitches

Type of local authority Benchmark Standard (ha per

1,000)

Urban 1.15

Rural 1.72

Overall 1.2

Table 3.3 – Quantity: All Outdoor Sport

Type of Local Authority Benchmark Standard (ha per

1,000)

Urban 1.6

Rural 1.76

Overall 1.6

Quality – Outdoor Sport

3.26 FIT recommends the use of Technical Performance Quality Standards such as those

published in Design and Maintenance of Outdoor Sports Facilities (FIT, 2004) for both

pitches and other outdoor facilities, namely cricket, bowels and croquet.

3.27 Observational methodologies can also prove helpful as a starting point. Methods which might

be considered include that provided in Sport England‟s electronic toolkit.

Accessibility – Playing Pitches

3.28 Playing pitches should be available within 1.2 km of all dwellings in major residential areas.


Final Report 35

Accessibility – Other Outdoor Sports

3.29 Athletics – one synthetic track with floodlighting per 250,000 people living within 30 minutes

drive time of the proposed location.

3.30 Tennis – community tennis courts within 20 minutes travel time (walking in urban areas).

Benchmark Standard Recommendations for Outdoor Play

Quantity – Children’s Playing Space

Table 3.4 – Quantity: All Playing Space

Quantity - All Playing Space Benchmark Standard (ha per

1,000)

Designated Equipped Playing Space

0.25

Informal Playing Space 0.55

Children's Playing Space 0.8

Quality – Children’s Playing Space

3.31 Local authorities can set their own quality benchmark standards using the Children‟s Play

Council‟s Quality Assessment Tool. This would not set an absolute measure, but a

reasonable aspiration and benchmarks against which to measure quality of any existing

children‟s play space.

Table 3.5 – Accessibility Benchmark Standards for Children’s Playing Space

Type of Space Distance Criteria (m)

Walking Distance Straight Line Distance

Local areas for play or 'door-step' spaces - for play and informal recreation (LAPs)

100 60

Local equipped or local landscaped, areas for play - for play and informal recreation (LEAPs)

400 240

Neighbourhood equipped areas for play - for play and informal recreation, and provision for children and young people (NEAPs)

1,000 600

Planning Policy Guidance Note 17: Planning for Open Space

Sport and Recreation

3.32 According to Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 (2002), open spaces, sport and recreation

underpin people‟s quality of life and are fundamental in delivering broader government

objectives, including:

supporting an urban renaissance;

promotion of social inclusion and community cohesion;


Final Report 36

health and well being; and

promoting more sustainable development.

3.33 In establishing the value of existing recreational facilities to the community and the need for

new facilities, PPG17 recommends that Local Planning Authorities should undertake robust

assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sports

and recreational facilities. Guidelines describing how such assessments should be completed

are set out in Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A companion guide to PPG17 (ODPM,

2002).

3.34 PPG17 recommends that audits of local space needs should:

cover the differing and distinctive needs of the population for open space and built

sports and recreational facilities including those working in and visiting areas;

include audits of existing open space, sports and recreational facilities including

sage, accessibility, costs and opportunities for new open space and facilities. Audits

should establish the quantity of spaces; and

identify specific needs and quantitative or qualitative deficits or surpluses.

3.35 PPG 17 advises Local Authorities to use the information gained from their assessment of

needs and opportunities to set locally derived standards for the provision of open space,

sports and recreational facilities in their areas. Such standards form the basis of redressing

quantitative and qualitative deficiencies through the planning process. The companion Guide

to PPG 17 provides guidance as to how local authorities should identify and apply provision

standards based upon assessments of local need.

3.36 Paragraph 15 of PPG17 states that „In advance of an assessment of need, local authorities

should give very careful consideration to any planning applications involving development on

playing fields. Where a robust assessment of need in accordance with this guidance has not

been undertaken, planning permission for such developments should not be allowed unless:

the proposed development is ancillary to the use of the site as a playing field (e.g.

new changing rooms) and does not adversely affect the quantity or quality of pitches

and their use;

the proposed development only affects land which is incapable of forming a playing

pitch (or part of one);

the playing fields that would be lost as a result of the proposed development would

be replaced by a playing field or fields of equivalent or better quantity and quality

and in a suitable location; or

the proposed development is for an outdoor or indoor sports facility of sufficient

benefit to the development of sport to outweigh the loss of the playing field.

Sports Policy and Strategy:

The Role of Sport England

3.37 Sport England has been a Statutory Consultee on planning applications that affect playing

fields since 1996 (Statutory Instrument 1817, as amended by Statutory Instrument 2009/453),

due to concern over the loss of playing fields. This means that any planning application that

affects a playing field has to be referred to Sport England for comment by the local authority.

3.38 It is Sport England‟s policy to object to any planning application, which will result in the loss of

a playing field, unless it meets one of five exceptions as defined in A Sporting Future for the

Playing Fields of England. Protection of playing fields was further enhanced in 1998 with

Circular 9/98 (replaced in 2009 by Circular 02/09) which stipulates that where a local

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/SI/si1996/Uksi_19961817_en_1.htm

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2009/pdf/uksi_20090453_en.pdf

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities__planning/putting_policy_into_practice/idoc.ashx?docid=1ed19a00-14fa-4940-8a09-19cf63ce538b&version=-1

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities__planning/putting_policy_into_practice/idoc.ashx?docid=1ed19a00-14fa-4940-8a09-19cf63ce538b&version=-1

http://www.communities.gov.uk/archived/publications/planningandbuilding/circulartown2

http://www.communities.gov.uk/publications/planningandbuilding/circularconsultationdirect


Final Report 37

authority is minded to grant planning permission against Sport England‟s advice on land

owned by a local authority or used for educational purposes, then the application should be

referred to the relevant Government Office for possible „call in‟.

The importance of Playing Pitch Strategies

3.39 Sport England believes that to ensure informed decisions can be made by local authorities on

the future of a playing field, all local authorities within England should have an up to date

playing pitch strategy, either as a stand-alone document or forming part of a wider open

space strategy. This is in line with guidance contained within PPG 17, and not only seeks to

ensure an assessment of need is carried out, but also that a strategy is put in place in terms

of improving accessibility and quality of pitches. Sport England has produced guidance on

the undertaking of playing pitch strategies in Towards a Level Playing Field and provided

tools to help in the accompanying electronic toolkit.

Regional Guidance and Policy

The London Plan: Spatial Development Strategy for Greater

London (July 2011)

3.40 The London Plan is the overall strategic plan for London, setting out an integrated economic,

environmental, transport and social framework for the development of London over the next

20-25 years. The document brings together the geographic and locational aspects of the

Mayor‟s other strategies – including those dealing with:

transport;

economic development;

housing;

culture;

a range of social issues such as children and young people, health inequalities and

food; and

a range of environmental issues such as climate change (adaptation and mitigation),

air quality, noise and waste.

3.41 The London Plan is the strategic, London wide policy context within which the Boroughs

should set their detailed local planning policies. Key policies within The London Plan that are

relevant to this update include:

Policy 2.6: Outer London – vision and strategy

Strategic:

3.42 A: The Mayor will, and Boroughs‟ and other stakeholders should work to realise the potential

of outer London by recognising and building upon its great diversity and varied strengths and

providing locally sensitive development frameworks to enhance and promote its distinct

existing and emerging strategic and local economic opportunities and transport requirements;

3.43 B: The Mayor will and Boroughs‟ and other stakeholders should enhance the quality of life in

outer London for present and future residents as one if its key contributions to London as a

whole. The significant differences in the nature and quality of London‟s neighbourhoods must

be recognised and improvement initiatives should address these sensitively in light of local

circumstances, drawing on strategic support where necessary.

http://www.odpm.gov.uk/stellent/groups/odpm_planning/documents/page/odpm_plan_606902.hcsp

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities__planning/putting_policy_into_practice/idoc.ashx?docid=4830f1f0-5f09-4065-b9e5-64788f1ae04e&version=-1

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities__planning/putting_policy_into_practice/idoc.ashx?docid=d2f7a9af-9311-4b4b-90f8-a8fbcc833122&version=-1


Final Report 38

Policy 2.18: Green infrastructure: the network of open and natural spaces

Strategic:

3.44 A: The Mayor will work with all relevant strategic partners to protect, promote, expand and

manage the extent and quality of, and access to, London‟s network of green infrastructure.

3.45 B: The Mayor will pursue the delivery of green infrastructure by working in partnership with all

relevant bodies, including across London‟s boundaries, as with the Green Arc Partnerships

and Lee Valley Regional Park Authority. The Mayor will publish supplementary guidance on

the All London Green Grid to apply principles of the East London Green Grid to green

infrastructure across London.

3.46 C: In areas of deficiency for Regional and Metropolitan Parks, opportunities for the creation

of green infrastructure to meet this deficiency should be identified and their implementation

should be supported, such as in the Wandle Valley Regional Park.

LDF Preparation:

3.47 F: Boroughs are advised to follow the guidance in PPG17 and undertake audits of all forms

of green and open space and assessments of need. These should be both qualitative and

quantitative, and have regard to the cross-border nature and use of many of these open

spaces.

Policy 7.17: Metropolitan Open Land

Strategic:

3.48 A: The Mayor strongly supports the current extent of Metropolitan Open Land (MOL), its

extension in appropriate circumstances and its protection from development having an

adverse impact on the openness of MOL.

Planning Decisions:

3.49 B: The strongest protection should be given to London‟s MOL and inappropriate

development refused, except in very special circumstances, giving the same level of

protection as the Green Belt.

LDF preparation:

3.50 C: Any alterations to the boundary of MOL should be undertaken by Boroughs through the

LDF process, in consultation with the Mayor and adjoining authorities.

3.51 D: To designate land as MOL Boroughs need to establish that the land meets at least one of

a number of criteria.

Policy 7.18: Protecting Local Open Space and Addressing Local Deficiency

Strategic:

3.52 A: The Mayor supports the creation of new open space in London to ensure satisfactory

levels of local provision to address areas of deficiency.

LDF preparation:

3.53 C: When assessing local open space needs LDFs should:

include appropriate designations and policies for the protection of local open space;

identify areas of public open space deficiency, using the GLA‟s open space

hierarchy;

ensure that future open space needs are planned for in areas with the potential for

substantial change such as Opportunity Areas, Regeneration Areas, Intensification

Areas and other local areas; and


Final Report 39

ensure that open space needs are planned in accordance with green infrastructure

strategies to deliver mutual benefits.

Open Space Strategies: Best Practice Guidance: A joint

consultation Draft by the Mayor of London and CABE Space

(September 2008)

3.54 This guidance document aims to provide clear, practical guidance on how to create an open

space strategy, drawing from 5 years of CABE Space experience. It updates previous CABE

Space guidance, (Green space Strategies: A good practice guide, 2004), and combines this

with an update of the guidance for London, (Mayor’s guide to preparing open space

strategies; Best practice guidance of the London Plan, 2004), to provide one comprehensive

guide for England.

How to prepare an open space strategy

3.55 The guidance outlines a six stage process which should take between 12 and 18 months to

complete:

Stage 1: Prepare brief / scoping study;

Stage 2: Context Review;

Stage 3: Understand Supply;

Stage 4: Understand demands / needs;

Stage 5: Analyse and identify issues and objectives; and

Stage 6: Prepare strategy and action plan.

Supplementary Planning Guidance: Providing for Children

and Young People‟s Play and Informal Recreation (March

2008)

3.56 This supplementary planning guidance was prepared in response to challenges outlined in

The London Plan (consolidated with amendments since 2004) by offering guidance to

London Boroughs on providing for the play and recreation needs of children and young

people under the age of 18 and the use of benchmark standards in the preparation of play

strategies and the implementation of Policy 3D.13 as set out in the London Plan.

Policy 3D.13: Children and young people’s play and informal recreation strategies

3.57 “The Mayor will, and Boroughs and other partners should, ensure that all children have safe

access to good quality, well-designed, secure and stimulating play and informal recreation

provision. Boroughs should produce strategies on play and informal recreation to improve

access and opportunity for all children and young people in their area”.

3.58 The preparation of play strategies should provide comprehensive guidance on play provision

including quantitative and qualitative deficiencies in provision relative to future need as well

as mechanisms to address these. The guidance states that play strategies will be required to

take account of the importance of high quality design and integration of play provision into

overall open space strategies.

3.59 Application of standards should reflect local circumstances and needs while benchmark

standards outlined in the guidance are intended to provide a tool for assisting the

development of local standards and to be flexible enough to meet the varying needs of

children and young people across London, taking into account differences in local


Final Report 40

circumstances. It is recommended that Boroughs should use the benchmark standards in

setting local standards in the context of their open space and play strategies.

The Blue Ribbon Network: The Heart of London (GLA,

January 2006)

3.60 This Strategy report puts forward recommendations for strengthening the Blue Ribbon

Network element of the London Plan. An extensive series of waterways pass through the

London Borough of Enfield, constituting part of London‟s Blue Ribbon Network. It is

recognised within the report that the Blue Ribbon Network is a vital strategic resource for

London, although it does require better-co-ordinated protection, enhancement and

management

3.61 The Blue Ribbon Network includes the Thames, the canal network, the other tributaries,

rivers and streams within London and London‟s open water spaces such as docks, reservoirs

and lakes. Section 4c of The London Plan sets out six principles intended to inform decisions

taken in respect of the Blue Ribbon Network. These principles are broadly summarised as

follows:

protecting and enhancing the multi-functional nature of the Blue Ribbon Network to

support uses and activities that require a water or waterside location;

protecting and enhancing the Blue Ribbon Network as part of the public realm and

London‟s open space network, and promoting sport, leisure and education;

exploiting the potential for water-borne transport, leisure, tourism and waterway

support industries and capturing the investment potential of the Network through

appropriate waterside development and regeneration;

ensuring the Blue Ribbon Network is accessible for everyone that its cultural and

environmental assets are used to stimulate appropriate development in areas of

regeneration and need;

increasing use of the Blue Ribbon Network for transport of people and goods; and

protecting and enhancing biodiversity and landscape of the Blue Ribbon Network,

and having regard to the need for water supplies, sewage disposal and the risk of

flooding.

3.62 It is recommended by the report that the Mayor, together with relevant delivery organisations,

capitalise on the opportunity offered by 2012 to increase the use of London‟s waterways by

its diverse communities as a sport and recreational asset.

Local Guidance and Policy

The Enfield Plan: Adopted Core Strategy 2010-2025

(November 2010)

Enfield’s Local Development Framework

3.63 The London Borough of Enfield was required to prepare a Local Development Framework by

the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Enfield‟s LDF will ultimately contain the

following documents, the most important of which is the Core Strategy which sets out the

Council‟s strategy for planning in Enfield and provides the context for more detailed

documents:

Core Strategy;


Final Report 41

Proposals map;

Sites Schedule;

Enfield Design Guide;

Development Management Document;

Enfield Town Area Action Plan and Masterplan for the area around Enfield Town

station;

North East Enfield Area Action Plan, Ponders End Framework for Change and three

Planning Briefs for the key sites in Ponders End;

Leeside Area Action Plan and Masterplan for Meridian Water;

North Circular Area Action Plan and Masterplan for New Southgate; and

North London Joint Waste Plan.

3.64 The Core Strategy sets out a spatial planning framework for the long term development of the

Borough for the next 15 to 20 years. It is a strategic document providing the broad strategy

for the scale and distribution of development and the provision of supporting infrastructure,

including green infrastructure. Strategic Objective 9: Natural Environment aims to protect and

enhance Enfield‟s natural heritage by retaining the open character of the Borough,

safeguarding green belt and other open space and developing the wider network of green

infrastructure in the Borough. In addition the aim is to meet deficiencies in open spaces that

exist in the east and south of the Borough and improve access to green areas and waterways

(i.e. through River restoration projects), particularly in communities close to the Lee Valley

Regional Park.

Core Policy 1: Strategic Growth Areas

3.65 The London Borough of Enfield plans to focus future growth and development in the Borough

in four specific areas, which offer the greatest opportunities for change to improve the quality

of life for Enfield‟s residents. These areas are:

Central Leeside;

North East Enfield;

Enfield Town; and

the area around the North Circular Road at New Southgate.

3.66 It is stated that improvements to social and physical infrastructure will be prioritised in these

strategic growth areas to ensure planned growth and development is sustainable. Area

Action Plans (AAPs) will be prepared for each of these areas to provide a framework for

development and the context for more detailed master-plans for place shaping priority areas

within them, in accordance with Core Policies 37-45.

Core Policy 33: Green Belt and Countryside

3.67 The London Borough of Enfield will continue to protect and enhance Enfield‟s green belt.

Proposals for changes to the detailed boundary at the local level will be brought forward as

part of the Development Management Document. To support the GLA‟s Green Arc initiative,

the Council will promote positive uses for the use of the green belt whilst meeting its statutory

purposes, as identified in the North London Sub-Regional Development Framework.


Final Report 42

Core Policy 34: Parks, Playing Fields and Other Open Spaces

3.68 The London Borough of Enfield aims to protect and enhance existing open space and seek

opportunities to improve the provision of good quality and accessible open space in the

Borough by:

protecting MOL and extending its designation to include green chains that meet

MOL designation criteria;

requiring improvements to open space provision through increasing the access to,

quantity and quality of publically accessible open spaces and supporting the

community use of non-public open spaces. Priority will be given to addressing areas

of deficiency identified in the Enfield Open Space Study, particularly in the south and

east of the Borough;

requiring the provision of new and improved play spaces to address existing

deficiencies and to meet future needs, with priority given to those areas where the

deficiency of play space is considered most significant as identified in the Enfield

Open Space Study;

seeking to address deficiencies in allotment provision across the Borough identified

in the Enfield Open Space Study, through improving existing allotments, and

creating new informal growing spaces;

requiring the creation of new open space at Central Leeside as part of the

regeneration of Meridian Water and which provides effective links to the Lee Valley

Regional Park to the north and south;

exploring opportunities for links to the East London Green Grid particularly for

communities in the east of the Borough; and

maximising the potential for parks and playing pitches to be used for formal,

organised sporting activities, particularly in the context of the London 2012 Olympics

and Paralympics Games and its Legacy Transformation.

Core Policy 35: Lee Valley Regional Park and Waterways

3.69 The London Borough of Enfield will work with the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority, British

Waterways, riparian owners, the Environment Agency and other partners to:

improve access to the Lee Valley Regional Park, particularly from residential

communities to the west of the park, focusing on two key areas: Ponders End and

Central Leeside. The AAPs will propose specific physical infrastructure and/or urban

design in order to deliver improved access in these locations;

support the work of the Lee Valley Regional Park Authority to realise the potential of

the Lee Valley Regional Park; and

make the best use of the waterway network (part of London‟s Blue Ribbon Network)

in the Upper Lee Valley, including the River Lee, River Lee Navigation , and the

Turkey, Salmons and Pymmes Brooks, seeking to fully restore the waterways and

improve their pathways, and facilities for freight, recreational and educational use.

Core Policy 36: Biodiversity

3.70 The London Borough of Enfield will seek to protect, enhance, restore or add to biodiversity

interests within the Borough, including parks, playing fields and other sports spaces, green

corridors, waterways, sites, habitats and species identified at a European, national, London

or local level as being of importance for nature conservation.


Final Report 43

Area Action Plans

3.71 A number of AAPs have been or are being prepared. A Core Policy has been prepared for

each of these areas within the Core Strategy Document. Core Policies 37 and 38 are focused

on the Central Leeside AAP, including the Meridian Water Place Shaping Policy Area; Core

Policy 39 is focused on Edmonton; Core Policies 40 and 41 are focused on the North East

Enfield AAP, including the Ponders Place Shaping Priority Area; while Core Policies 42 and

43 look at the Enfield Town Centre AAP, including the Enfield Town Station Place Shaping

Priority Area; finally Core Policies 44 and 45 focus on the Area covered by the North Circular

AAP, including the New Southgate Place Shaping Priority Area.

London Borough of Enfield Parks and Open Spaces Strategy

2010 - 2020

3.72 The Parks and Open Space Strategy for Enfield identified Enfield as being one of London‟s

largest Boroughs with approximately one third of its open space designated as Green Belt

Land. The Borough also has a wealth of country and urban parks, farmland, woodland,

grasslands, waterways, wildlife and access to neighbouring regional parkland, such as the

Lee Valley and Epping Forest.

3.73 The Parks and Open Spaces Strategy is a spatial plan that is concerned with place shaping

and delivery. It recognises the value that residents attach to Enfield‟s open spaces and

acknowledges the intrinsic role that these open spaces have to play in achieving Enfield‟s

vision of a “healthy, prosperous, cohesive community living in a Borough that is safe, clean

and green”.

3.74 At a local level, the Parks and Open Spaces Strategy forms part of the wider planning for

Enfield‟s growth and development and relates to the Council‟s Sustainable Community

Strategy, The Place Shaping Strategy and the Local Development Framework (LDF).

3.75 The Strategy draws from a number of evidence based studies (Atkins 2006, Cracknell 2008).

The findings from these studies alongside extensive public consultation led to the

development of a vision which the Council in partnership with Government agencies, local

community and the voluntary sector are committed to deliver. The vision for Enfield‟s spaces:

By 2020 Enfield will be successful in:

making open spaces in Enfield places for everyone;

delivering High Quality open spaces in partnership ;

creating sustainable open spaces for the future; and

protecting and managing the exceptional quality and diversity of Enfield‟s open

spaces.

3.76 This vision forms the basis of a 10-year Delivery Plan which will be monitored on an annual

basis via a detailed 3-year rolling Action Plan. The Strategy document goes on to outline a

series of objectives and sets out local standards of provision, in line with National and

Regional Government policy.

Central Leeside AAP – Baseline Report (June 2007)

3.77 The Central Leeside AAP is a joint Local Development Document (LDD) being prepared on

behalf of the two north London Boroughs of Enfield and Haringey. Once adopted, the AAP

will form part of the LDF within each of the Boroughs, shaping the future development and

regeneration of the Central Leeside area.

3.78 As outlined in the Enfield Local Development Scheme the purpose of the AAP is to provide a

planning framework for development and regeneration in the Central Leeside Business area.


Final Report 44

The AAP identifies the study area as currently suffering from poor environmental quality and

infrastructure. As part of the initial brief for the AAP it was a specific aim to develop an

access strategy for the study area, with particular regard to estate accessibility. In addition it

is stated that the AAP must seek to protect and enhance existing environmental assets within

Central Leeside, including the Lee Valley Regional Park and the waterways i.e. the overall

quality of the public realm and image of the study area must be improved. Finally, the brief

also established objectives in relation to social infrastructure, in order to effectively support

both existing and future residential communities.

3.79 A summary of issues affecting the study area outline that it is deficient in terms of open

space. Access to and the quality of this space is also considered poor. It is recommended

that targeted improvements are made.

3.80 The Lee Valley Regional Park to the east of the AAP is of regional importance for nature

conservation and recreation. William Girling and Lockwood Reservoirs are designated as

sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and are of regional importance to the development

of water sporting excellence. The overall landscape character of the AAP is essentially urban

although views towards the north east exhibit more rural influences. Despite the extensive

areas of water enclosed within the reservoirs, public access to the water is restricted and the

high reservoir embankments mean that this potentially valuable resource remains for much of

the time hidden, in addition the fringes of land along the reservoir boundaries are of value to

the promotion of the Regional Park as Green Chain.

3.81 Generally it is considered that recreational open spaces in the study area suffer from poor

edge conditions and unsuccessful public and private interfaces.

3.82 With reference to social infrastructure the AAP draws a number of conclusions in relation to

open space:

the amount of open space per person is below recommended standards;

the quality of public parks is generally below the recommended standard;

access to children‟s play provision in parts of the area is beyond the recommended

400m catchment; and

parts of the area are beyond the recommended1km catchment of either a Borough

or Metropolitan Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

3.83 The Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006) went on to recommend a range of

possible measures to address deficiencies in provision, including:

improvements to the quality of parks and open spaces;

making provision for children‟s play spaces in those parks and open spaces that do

not currently include such provision but which could be accommodated;

diversifying existing areas of open space to incorporate an element of natural/semi

natural greens spaces; and

improving green linkages between areas of deficiency and existing natural green

spaces, creating linear routes and habitat spaces.


Final Report 45

Table 3.6 – Central Leeside AAP, including the Meridian Water Place Shaping Priority Area

Source: Enfield LDF: Core Strategy 2010 – 2025

North East Enfield AAP – Baseline Report (June 2007)

3.84 The North East Enfield AAP forms part of the Enfields‟ LDF, shaping the future of

development and regeneration of the North East Enfield Area.

3.85 The brief for the commission provided by Enfield Council established a series of objectives

for the North East Enfield AAP. Several of these relate to the provision of balanced and

sustainable economic growth. Of particular relevance to this update it is noted that this AAP

must seek to protect and enhance existing environmental assets within the study area i.e. the

overall quality of the public realm and image of the study area must be improved.

3.86 A summary of issues affecting the study area outline that it is deficient in terms of open

space. Access to and the quality of this space is also considered poor. It is recommended

that targeted improvements are made.

3.87 The Lee Valley Regional Park to the east of the AAP is of regional importance for nature

conservation and recreation. William Girling and Lockwood Reservoirs are designated as

sites of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI) and are of regional importance to the development

of water sporting excellence. The overall landscape character of the study area is essentially

urban although views towards the north east exhibit more rural influences. Despite the

extensive areas of water enclosed within the reservoirs, public access to the water is

restricted and the high reservoir embankments mean that this potentially valuable resource

remains for much of the time hidden, in addition the fringes of land along the reservoir

boundaries are of value to the promotion of the Regional Park as Green Chain.


Final Report 46

3.88 The AAP lies between two significant Green Belt areas which include the Lee Valley

Regional Park but also a series of other country parks further afield, including Trent Park,

Whitewebbs and Gunpowder Park. Within the Green Belt area, some areas have been

designated Areas of Special Character and the reservoirs form Sites of Special Scientific

Interest and Sites of Nature Conservation Importance. Green Chain and Wildlife corridors are

designated along both railway corridors and link the Green Belt via Turkey Brook.

3.89 Significant areas within the study area have been designated MOL, namely in Bullsmoor,

north of Turkey Street Station, Albany Park, Durants Park and an area north of Ponders End

Park.

3.90 Furthermore the urban fabric is interspersed with a number of extensive playing fields and

recreational open spaces. The parks, playing fields and recreational open spaces in the area

are of variable quality, due to differences in the condition and nature of spaces.

3.91 With reference to social infrastructure the AAP draws a number of conclusions in relation to

open space:

the amount of open space per person is below recommended standards;

the quality of public parks is generally below the recommended standard;

access to children‟s play provision in parts of the area is beyond the recommended

400m catchment; and

parts of the area are beyond the recommended1km catchment of either a Borough

or Metropolitan Site of Importance for Nature Conservation.

3.92 The AAP recommends a range of possible measures to address deficiencies in provision,

including:

making targeted improvements to the quality of parks and open spaces;

making provision for children‟s play spaces in those parks and open spaces that do

not currently include such provision but which could be accommodated;

diversifying existing areas of open space to incorporate an element of natural/semi

natural green space; and

improving green linkages between areas of deficiency and existing natural green

spaces, creating linear routes and habitat spaces.


Final Report 47

Table 3.7 – North East Enfield AAP, including the Ponders End Place Shaping Priority Area


North Circular AAP – Baseline Report (Jan 2007)

3.93 The North Circular AAP boundary covers an area around the North Circular Road (A406)

between the A109 at Bounds Green and the A10 Great Cambridge Road. The area is

predominately residential and is focused around the local shopping centres at Green Lanes

and Arnos Grove underground station.

3.94 A central part of Bowes ward between Brownlow Road and Melville Gardens has been

identified as an area deficient in the provision of public parks. To address this deficiency the

Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006) suggests there may be opportunities to

diversify the use of existing spaces to accommodate functions associated with public parks.

The possibility may also exist to improve the provision of children‟s play provision by

incorporating children‟s play facilities into new development. The same applies to an

accessibility deficit in the provision of allotment facilities in Southgate Ward.


Final Report 48

Table 3.8 – North Circular AAP, including the New Southgate Place Shaping Priority Area

Source: Enfield Local Plan: Core Strategy 2010 – 2025

Enfield Town AAP – Baseline Report (Sep 2006)

3.95 Enfield Town represents the main urban centre for the London Borough of Enfield and is

located centrally within the Borough. The town acts as an important shopping and service

centre for the entire Borough and beyond.

3.96 The AAP outlines that the quality of green space and its proximity to the town centre, is a

distinctive feature in Enfield town centre. The identification of strategic opportunities for these

spaces relies upon their designation and identified role within the centre. As such some

spaces are considered suitable for green landscaping while hard landscaping may be more

suitable for others.

3.97 The Enfield Town AAP provides little insight into the main issues related to the provision of

open space and outdoor facilities. As such no recommendations for remedial action of

improvements have been made

Table 3.9 – Enfield Town Centre AAP, including the Enfield Town Station Place Shaping Priority Area



Final Report 49

Edmonton Green Masterplan Development Plan Document

3.98 Edmonton Green is identified in the London Plan as a town centre in need of regeneration.

Our Core Strategy also identifies Edmonton Green as one of our Regeneration Priority Areas.

The approach we have taken for our other priority areas of New Southgate, Ponders End and

Meridian Water is to prepare Area Action Plans and Masterplans which provide a planning

framework to guide and deliver regeneration. A masterplan will be prepared for Edmonton

Green (in the form of an Area Action Plan). This will allow us to set specific planning policies

and allocate sites for redevelopment in Edmonton Green. The masterplan will also set out

clear urban design guidance for new development to improve public realm, green spaces and

connections.

3.99 The objectives of the masterplan are to:

Create a regeneration plan for the area, with a timeframe of 5-15 years that will

inform and stimulate investment, guide future development and change perceptions

of the area.

Capture the opportunities for growth and development along the A1010 corridor as

set out in the Upper Lea Valley Opportunity Area Planning Framework.

Reduce social and economic deprivation by creating new jobs, reducing child and

family poverty and health inequalities, improving links to other areas with job

opportunities and delivering long-term initiatives to up-skill local people.

Transform the shopping environment into a thriving and attractive centre with a wide

range of town centre uses including cafes, restaurants, hotels, leisure uses and

offices.

Create a clear link between Edmonton Green Station to create a public transport

network hub and enhance east-west connectivity across the area.

A greener Edmonton Green: Improvements to parks and open spaces.

A delivery Plan which identifies projects, timescales and resources to deliver them.

Meridian Water Masterplan SPD

3.100 Enfield‟s eco neighbourhood vision for Meridian Water is to create up to 5,000 new homes

and up to 3,000 jobs in Meridian Water as a growth and extension of Edmonton. The focus of

the Masterplan will be a spatial vision for Meridian Water, showing how redevelopment can

deliver a truly sustainable community with a wealth of background information and supporting

evidence to underpin this vision. Consultation on these initial plans took place this summer

with over 120 representations. Following a second round of consultation later this year, this

Masterplan will be adopted by the Council as a Supplementary Planning Document in 2012.

Ponders End Central Planning Brief SPD

3.101 The Ponders End Central Planning brief, which sets out the Council and community‟s

aspirations for the regeneration of the High Street, focusing around the former Middlesex

University site and 188-216 High Street was adopted in May 2011. The Council is purchasing

the former Police Station with a view to bringing forward a regeneration scheme at this

location.

3.102 Further planning briefs are anticipated for the South Street area which will encompass

development options for the Alma Estate, and for the Lee Valley, Known as Ponders End

Waterfront. The Waterfront proposals will include employment led mixed use development

alongside leisure uses to complement activity at Pickett‟s Lock.


Final Report 50


Final Report 51

4. Assessment of Open Space Needs

Introduction 4.1 This chapter presents an updated assessment of local open space needs and priorities.

There are a number of objective indicators which influence levels of open space need within

the Borough. Each of these indicators has been refreshed to reflect the most up to date

information where possible. The following list provides an overview of where information has

been updated.

Demographic profile: updated to reflect ONS Rounded Mid-year estimates (mid

2009).

Ethnicity: updated to reflect ONS estimated resident population by ethnic group and

sex (mid 2009).

Population density: Updated to reflect ONS, LSOA Mid-year population projections

(mid 2009).

Housing type: Has not been updated to reflect change since the Open Space and

Sports Assessment (2006) as more recent information is not available.

Child densities: updated to reflect ONS, LSOA Mid-year population projections

(mid 2009).

Health: Has not been updated to reflect change since the Open Space and Sports

Assessment (2006) as more recent information is not available.

Indices of deprivation: updated to reflect indices of multiple deprivation scores for

the Borough by lower super output area (2010).

Composite assessment of local need: updated to reflect new information outlined

above.


Final Report 52

Demographic Profile

4.2 The demographic profile of the Borough has a direct influence on sport participation levels

and open space usage as people‟s involvement in sport generally varies according to age.

Table 4.1 illustrates the demographic profile of the London Borough of Enfield compared to

London and England average in 2009.

Table 4.1 – Demographic Profile

Age Cohort

Total in Age

Cohort Enfield

% Enfield

% London

% England

0-4 23,200 8.0 7.3 6.2

5-7 18,800 6.5 5.7 5.5

10-14 17,600 6.0 5.3 5.8

15-19 17,800 6.1 5.5 6.4

Total Under 19 77,400 26.6 23.8 23.9

20-24 18,400 6.3 7.3 6.9

25-29 21,500 7.4 9.6 6.8

30-44 67,800 23.3 26.6 21.0

Total 20-44 107,700 37.0 43.5 34.6

45-59 54,300 18.6 17.0 19.2

60-64 13,500 4.6 4.2 6.0

65-74 19,900 6.8 5.9 8.5

Total 45-74 87,700 30.1 27.1 33.6

75-84 13,200 4.5 4.0 5.6

85-89 3,400 1.2 1.1 1.5

90 & Over 1,900 0.7 0.6 0.7

Total 75+ 18,500 6.4 5.6 7.8

Total 291,300 100 100 100 Source: ONS Rounded Mid-year Estimates (mid-2009)

4.3 Table 4.1 reveals that Enfield‟s population has increased from 273,559 (2001) to 291,300

(mid 2009), representing a 6.1% increase on the resident population in 2001. Enfield has a

higher proportion of children under the age of nineteen residing in the Borough compared to

the national average (26.6% in the Borough compared with 23.8% in London and 23.9% in

England). There are a slightly higher proportion of younger adults aged between 20 and 44

years of age in Enfield when compared against England. However, when compared against

London the proportion in this same age cohort is significantly lower in Enfield (37% in Enfield

compared against 43.5% in London and 34.6% in England). Conversely, Enfield has a

slightly lower proportion of residents between 45 and 74 years of age when compared

against England, although Enfield has a higher proportion of residents in this age cohort than

London (30.1% in Enfield compared against 27.1% in London and 33.6% in England). This is

also true for residents aged 75 and over (6.4% in Enfield compared against 5.6% in London

and 7.8% in England).

4.4 As found in the Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006), one of the

consequences of the Borough‟s demographic profile is that the demand for certain sports and

children‟s play facilities in Enfield may be slightly higher than the national average, due to the

fact that younger people generally have higher participation rates in sport. Therefore, due to

the Borough‟s younger age profile than nationally, one would expect the various open spaces

in the area to experience a slightly higher level of demand.


Final Report 53

Ethnicity

4.5 The ethnic profile of the Borough was also considered in the 2006 assessment. The

Borough‟s ethnic profile is likely to have an influence on sport participation levels in the

Borough. Table 4.2 illustrates that 42% of Enfield‟s total population is classified as non „White

British‟, this is comparable with London where 40% of the total population is classified as non

„White British‟. Since 2001 the proportion of Enfield‟s total population classified as non „White

British‟ has increased by 3.2%.

4.6 The proportion of ethnic populations in Enfield, apart from „Black or Black British: Caribbean,

are generally similar to those of London as a whole. The largest populations within the

Borough other than White (all) as identified by mid-2009 estimated resident population by

ethnic group and sex are „Black, or British Black: African‟ (6.2%) and „Black, or British Black:

Caribbean (5.1%).

Table 4.2 – Ethnic Group Populations

Enfield Population

% Enfield % London %

England

White: British 167,500 58 60 83

White: Irish 6,700 2.3 2.2 1.1

White: Other White 34,500 12.0 8.1 3.6

Mixed: White and Black Caribbean 3,300 1.1 1.0 0.6

Mixed: White and Black African 1,700 0.6 0.5 0.2

Mixed: Other Mixed 3,000 1.0 1.0 0.5

Asian or Asian British: Indian 13,400 4.6 6.3 2.7

Asian or Asian British: Pakistani 4,100 1.4 2.8 1.9

Asian or Asian British: Bangladeshi 4,600 1.6 2.2 0.7

Asian or Asian British: Other Asian 6,100 2.1 2.1 0.7

Black or Black British: Caribbean 14,600 5.1 4.0 1.2

Black or Black British: African 17,900 6.2 5.4 1.5

Black or Black British: Other Black 2,800 1.0 0.8 0.2

Chinese 3,700 1.3 1.8 0.9

Other Ethnic Group 4,300 1.5 1.7 0.8

Total 288,200 100 100 100 Source: ONS Estimated resident population by ethnic group and sex (mid-2009) (the dataset used for this table returns a different total population figure when compared against mid-year population estimates. This is due to the methodological approach employed by the ONS)

4.7 Research by Sport England and RSGB Market Research has shown that those from Black

and Ethnic Minority communities are less likely to participate in sport-related activities when

compared with white communities. Given that the non „White British‟ resident population in

Enfield is slightly lower than London as a whole, demand for parks in the Borough may be

slightly lower when compared against areas with a higher percentage of white residents.

Open Space Need Indicators 4.8 Several indicators have been derived to show variations in open space need within the

Borough. These are described below and highlighted in Figures 4.1 – 4.6.

Population Density

4.9 Population density is an indicator of open space need, since open spaces within areas of

high population density are within reach of a greater number of people and potentially used

more often. Often areas of high population density will be housing estates which may have a

lack of private amenity space in the form of gardens or yards.


Final Report 54

4.10 Figure 4.1 illustrates population density by census area derived from mid-year 2009

population projections (ONS, LSOA Mid-year population projections, 2009). The measure of

density used is people per hectare which has been calculated from the total population

divided by the area of census Lower Super Output Area. The density indicator shown in

Figure 4.1 relates to gross densities including all open space, infrastructure etc.

4.11 Areas with the highest population density are concentrated in Upper Edmonton, Edmonton

Green, Haselbury, Ponders End, Jubilee and Turkey Street wards.

Housing Type

4.12 Housing type is another indicator of open space need as, like density, it provides an

indication of access to private open space in the form of gardens or yards. Figure 4.2 shows

the percentage of dwellings within each Super Output Area which are terraced houses,

maisonettes, flats or apartments based on 2001 Census data (this dataset has not been

refreshed since the 2006 assessment of open space needs as more recent data is

unavailable).

4.13 Out of a total of 113,231 dwellings located in the Borough identified in the 2001 Census (this

dataset has not been refreshed since the 2006 assessment of open space needs), 70.2% are

terraced, maisonettes, apartments or flats. This suggests that properties in Enfield have a

lower proportion of private open space than elsewhere in England (45.5%), though slightly

more than London as a whole (74.7%).

4.14 The highest proportion of terraced houses, maisonettes, flats or apartments (87-100%) are

located in eastern and southern areas of the Borough within Edmonton Green, Lower

Edmonton, Bowes and Haselbury Wards. This demonstrates why higher population densities

are to be found in these areas. In addition areas of Southgate, Enfield Chase and Palmers

Green also have high proportions of terraced houses, maisonettes, flats or apartments.

Child Densities

4.15 Child densities provide an indication of the need for children‟s play provision within the

Borough. The demographic information above demonstrates that Enfield has a slightly higher

proportion of children aged 0-15 than both London and England as a whole (20.5%

compared against 18.3% and 17.5% respectively). Figure 4.3 shows the percentage of the

population within each lower super output area aged between 0-15 years of age (refreshed to

reflect ONS, LSOA Mid-year population projections, 2009).

4.16 Child densities can be said to increase from the west to the east across the Borough with the

exception of some pockets of high child densities located in Oakwood and Hadley Wood

Wards situated in the west of the Borough.

Health

4.17 Best practice guidance identifies the contribution of open space towards healthy living

(Companion Guide to PPG17, 2002). Open spaces have a preventative effect on ill health as

a population which is healthy in mind, body and spirit is more productive and makes less

demand on medical services. Green spaces help to reduce stress, provide formal and

informal opportunities for physical activity and sport and provide environments for relaxation

and stress relief.

4.18 Within Enfield, parks and open spaces with public access provide potential benefits to health.

The areas of the Borough which would benefit most from improvements in the quantity and

quality of open space provision are those areas where levels of poor health are high. Figure

4.4 illustrates census 2001 data showing the percentage of the population within each ward


Final Report 55

that are in good health (this dataset has not been refreshed since the 2006 assessment of

open space needs as more recent data is unavailable).

4.19 Figure 4.4 shows that the highest proportion of people not in good health are located towards

the south and east of the Borough, with the highest percentage of people in good health

located in the centre, north and west of the Borough.

Indices of Deprivation

4.20 Research suggests that the propensity of people to participate in sport is influenced by the

affluence of the area in which they live (Research to inform Sport England‟s Sports Equity

Index). Not only is the provision of sport facilities likely to be better in more affluent areas, but

the level of disposable income that is available to spend on sport and leisure activities is

higher.

4.21 Figure 4.5 illustrates the indices of multiple deprivation scores for the Borough by lower super

output area (2010). A higher score represents a greater the level of deprivation. It is evident

that the most deprived areas are clearly clustered towards the east of the Borough.

Edmonton, Ponders End and Turkey Street Wards are shown as the most deprived areas of

the Borough. The least deprived areas are to be found in the centre and west of the Borough.

Composite Assessment of Local Need

4.22 By overlaying the results of the five separate need indicators listed above, it is possible to

obtain an indication of the parts of the Borough in greatest need for open space. Differential

levels of need within the Borough were considered based upon the above findings. Figure 4.6

provides a composite assessment of need based on areas which have relatively high gross

residential densities (above 46 households per Ha), areas which had levels of terraced/flatted

dwellings above 87%, areas with child densities above 25%, areas with low proportions of the

population in good health (under 65%) and areas with high deprivation index rankings (above

33.51). The greater the number of these criteria fulfilled, the greater the need for open space

within the particular area.

4.23 Figure 4.6 illustrates that the areas that fulfil the greatest number of criteria, and therefore

have a greater need for open space are located in the East of the Borough and include Upper

Edmonton, Edmonton Green, Haselbury, Jubilee, Ponders End, Enfield Highway, Enfield

Lock and Turkey Street.

Vision to Address Open Space Needs 4.24 The updated review of existing policies and strategies at national, regional and local level, an

objective assessment of open space indicators (based on refreshed census and Index of

Multiple Deprivation data) as well as the findings of the Residents Survey (2006) of open

space and sport facility usage patterns and perceptions provide an updated framework within

which to derive open space standards which address local needs and priorities.


Final Report 56


Final Report 57

5. Assessment of Supply

Introduction 5.1 This chapter refreshes, identifies and examines the supply of open space within the London

Borough of Enfield. Open space is assessed by type while the supply of public parks within

the London Borough of Enfield has been considered in more detail. The findings of the Open

Space and Sports Assessment (2006) have been refreshed to account for the findings of the

2011 site assessment. This chapter provides the following:

a refreshed analysis of current open space provision in terms of quantity and

accessibility to reflect the findings of the 2011 site assessment;

refreshed benchmarking of existing provision against ideal levels of provision and

levels of provision found in other London Boroughs;

a refreshed access standard for each level of the parks hierarchy based upon

analysis of existing and future open space need, existing usage and travel patterns

(based on the Residents Survey, 2006) and the potential to introduce additional

spaces to address deficiencies; and

application of the refreshed access standard in order to identify deficiencies in

provision in terms of access to parks.

Existing Open Space Provision 5.2 Within Enfield a total of 350 spaces have been identified using the methodology outlined in

Chapter 2. Together these spaces comprise some 2,042 ha of land within the Borough (Table

5.1).

It is important to note that the 14 spaces which form part of the Lee Valley Regional Park

have been analysed individually rather than as one large Regional Park. This is because the

Enfield section of the Regional Park is limited in its role and function and only provides very

limited opportunities for formal and informal recreation (such as limited walking and cycling

routes and fishing). For example, due to its role and function, Site 151, Warwick Fields Open

Space is far more suitably classified as a small local park rather than as part of the Lee

Valley Regional Park (although it is within the Regional Park‟s borders). The space is more

likely to be used by local residents than by visitors travelling some distance to use the

facilities normally associated with a Regional Park. For this reason, it is therefore considered

most appropriate to analyse the role of each individual space within the Lee Valley Regional

Park but to also consider the role that they play collectively within this Chapter. Table 5.1

shows that 14 spaces, which cover an area of 486 ha, are included within the Lee Valley

Regional Park.

5.3 Table 5.1 identifies that public parks are the most abundant form of open space provision

within the Borough, representing 34.5% of the total area of assessed open spaces. This

figure would rise to 58% of the total area of assessed open spaces if all 14 spaces which

form part of the Lee Valley Regional Park were taken into consideration. However it should

be noted that only 3 of these spaces were assessed as a public park including Mossops

Creek Park (236), Warwick Fields Open Space (151) and Prince of Wales Field (152).

5.4 Private outdoor sports facilities make up the second largest proportion of total area of

assessed open spaces, representing 20.4% of all open space area. In terms of the number of

spaces, amenity greenspaces represent the most common form of open space provision in

Enfield with 76 sites. The four sites categorised as „other‟ include site 99 – „Eldon Road


Final Report 58

Secondary Tuition Centre‟, 131 – „Bulls Cross Nursery‟, 245 – „Bury Street Council Depot‟,

349 – „Holmesdale Open Space West‟.

5.5 A summary of all open space provision within the London Borough of Enfield by type and

ward is included in Appendix C. Where spaces lie within two or more wards the space has

been attributed to the ward which includes the greatest proportion of the space.

Table 5.1 – Open Space Provision by Type

Open Space Type No. of Sites

Area (Ha)

% Open Space Area

Regional Park 14 486.5 23.8

Metropolitan Parks 3 347.5 17

District Park 10 214.6 10.5

Local Park 18 93.5 4.6

Small local park / open space 17 30.8 1.5

Pocket Park 6 3.5 0.2

Linear open space / green corridors 15 14.9 0.7

Public park Total 69 704.8 34.5

Allotments, community gardens and urban farms 43 78 3.8

Amenity green space 76 39.9 2.0

Cemeteries and church yards 12 74.8 3.7

Civic spaces / pedestrianised areas 0 0 0.0

Greenspaces within grounds of institution 2 16 0.8

Natural or semi-natural urban greenspaces 23 440.3 21.6

Outdoor sports facilities / playing fields (education) 74 126 6.2

Outdoor sports facilities / playing fields (private) 36 417.2 20.4

Outdoor sports facilities / playing fields (public) 11 141.4 6.9

Other 4 3.12 0.2

Other open space total 281 1,336.9 65.5

Total Open Space 350 2,041.73 100 *Note: 14 spaces are classified as part of the Lee Valley Regional Park in addition to the individual role that each space plays. To avoid double counting, the total area and number of sites of the Regional Park have not been included in the total figures.

Public Park Provision

5.6 Table 5.1 shows the number of public parks within the Borough by type. There are 69 parks

equating to 704.83 ha (excluding Lee Valley Regional Park). In order to derive an appropriate

and updated quantitative standard of public park provision a number of indicators have been

reviewed including:

levels of existing open space provision by ward and the Borough as a whole;

indicative population thresholds required to support each type of park provision;

analysis of the size of parks within each level of the hierarchy to test the

appropriateness of size ranges identified within the GLA Parks within the Enfield

context; and

comparative benchmarking of existing open space standards and levels of public

park provision in other outer London Boroughs.

Open Space by Ward

5.7 Overall, within the London Borough of Enfield there exists 7.01 ha of open space provision

per 1,000 population and 2.42 ha of public park provision per 1,000 population (not including

spaces not assessed as public parks within the Lee Valley Regional Park). However, Table


Final Report 59

5.2 demonstrates that the levels of provision vary significantly between wards. Appendix D

provides details of public park provision by ward. The overall level of public park provision

ranges from no provision in Lower Edmonton to 15.58 ha per 1,000population in Cockfosters.

5.8 It should be recognised that ward level comparisons are potentially misleading and should be

viewed in the context of overall levels of open space provision and the pattern of land uses

within each ward.

Table 5.2 – Open Space by Ward

Ward *Total Area of public

parks (Ha)

Total Open Space (Ha)

Population Mid 2009

Public Park area per 1,000

population (Ha)

Total Open Space Area per 1,000

population (Ha)

Bowes 4.93 16.42 11,631 0.42 1.41

Bush Hill Park 2.93 63.35 13,690 0.21 4.63

Chase 194.10 413.30 13,102 14.81 31.54

Cockfosters 204.84 375.67 13,151 15.58 28.57

Edmonton Green 35.60 57.29 16,043 2.22 3.57

Enfield Highway 36.73 90.85 15,005 2.45 6.05

Enfield Lock 17.60 82.50 15,225 1.16 5.42

Grange 11.01 66.93 12,565 0.88 5.33

Haselbury 12.77 40.29 15,187 0.84 2.65

Highlands 4.89 60.69 12,625 0.39 4.81

Jubilee 21.53 399.21 14,110 1.53 28.29

Lower Edmonton 0.00 3.01 15,134 0.00 0.20

Palmers Green 11.06 18.35 13,493 0.82 1.36

Ponders End 6.64 22.83 13,774 0.48 1.66

Southbury 11.20 72.09 13,323 0.84 5.41

Southgate 26.85 52.24 13,614 1.97 3.84

Southgate Green 40.28 46.49 13,201 3.05 3.52

Town 4.39 28.45 14,517 0.30 1.96

Turkey Street 9.88 49.83 13,466 0.73 3.70

Upper Edmonton 7.68 26.53 15,795 0.49 1.68

Winchmore Hill 39.99 55.41 12,579 3.18 4.40

Total 704.83 2041.73 291,230 2.42 7.01

*Total park space includes the sum of the following for each ward: Linear Park / Open Space, Metropolitan Parks, District Parks, Local Parks, Small Local Parks / Open Spaces and Pocket Parks. Source: Population data: ONS 2010 Ward Population Estimates for England and Wales, mid-2009

5.9 Wards with above average public park provision per 1,000 population have been listed

below:

Chase (14.81 ha / 1,000 population);


Final Report 60

Cockfosters (15.58 ha / 1,000 population);

Enfield Highway (2.45 ha / 1,000 population);

Southgate Green (3.05 ha / 1,000 population); and

Winchmore Hill (3.18 ha / 1,000 population).

5.10 Most wards fall below the Borough average of 2.42 ha of public park provision per 1,000

population. This is due to the majority of park provision being focused in the wards listed

above.

Indicative Park Thresholds

5.11 The indicative threshold population for each type of public park type within the Borough was

derived by calculating the area of each catchment and applying average population densities.

Updated demographic information for Enfield (ONS Rounded Mid-year Population Estimates

2009) show that the Borough had a population density of 35.4 person per hectare in 2009.

The Borough‟s household size remains unchanged at 2.48 person per household (relevant

census information has not been updated since 2001). Table 5.3 identifies the indicative

threshold population for parks within the hierarchy. Local, small local and pocket parks

typically serve a catchment with a population of some 7,100 people or 2,900 households.

District Parks have a catchment threshold of some 16,000 people (6,500 households) and

Metropolitan Parks a catchment threshold of 114,000 people (46,000 households).

Table 5.3 – Indicative Park Population Thresholds

Catchment Type Size of catchment area

(ha)

Rounded Threshold Population

Rounded Threshold

Households

800m radius (Local, Small Local and Pocket Parks)

201.06 7,100 2,900

1,200m radius (District Parks)

452.39 16,000 6,500

3,200m radius (Metropolitan Parks)

3,216.99 114,000 46,000

Note: Threshold populations rounded to nearest 100

5.12 From the size of the threshold population within each type of catchment area, it is possible to

establish the theoretical level of provision that would be necessary to meet the needs of the

whole Borough. Table 5.3 demonstrates that a small local park with a catchment area of

800m will serve approximately 7,100 people. This means that Enfield, with a 2026 estimated

population of 304,705 (GLA 2010 Round Ethnic Group Population Projections using the

SHLAA) would need approximately 43 Local and Small Local Parks in order to serve its

entire population. Table 5.4 identifies differences in actual public park provision levels and

theoretical levels.


Final Report 61

Table 5.4 – Comparison of Public Park Provision and Indicative Park Population Thresholds

Park Type Current provisi

on

Number of parks required (based on mid

2009 population density)*

Min Size of park

type (ha)

Area of parks required

(based on mid 2009 pop

density)(ha)*

Current provision area

(ha)*

Difference required to make

up shortfall

(ha)

Pocket 6 41 0.1 4 3.51 0.6

Small Local 17 41 0.4 16 30.75 -14.3

Local 18 41 2 82 93.45 -11.4

District 10 18 20 364 214.63 149.5

Metropolitan 3 3 60 153 358.24 -204.9

Note: *Rounded to nearest whole number

5.13 Table 5.4 identifies that, assuming the population was evenly spread and that park

catchments do not overlap, a further 0.6 ha of pocket parks and 149.5 ha of District Parks

would be required in order to meet the needs of the whole Borough. However, Metropolitan

Parks do fulfil the shortfall in District Park provision within the Borough, just as District Parks

can fulfil the role of Local Parks and Local Parks can fulfil the role of Small Local Parks. It is

important to understand that this is a largely theoretical exercise, as the population density

will vary throughout the Borough and catchment areas will never fit perfectly together without

overlapping.

Size of Existing Spaces

5.14 The size of each open space within each park category was reviewed to ensure they are

broadly consistent with GLA size parameters. Although a number of parks fell outside the

size guidance for each park category, the spaces were retained within the appropriate park

category if the relevant functions associated with the space were represented within the

space. For example, if a park was only 12ha and therefore below the size threshold of a

District Park and within the local park size threshold but had the facilities associated with a

District Park the park would be classified within the District Park category. Appendix C shows

the detailed site classifications for each open space.

Accessibility of Public Park Provision 5.15 To identify a locally based access standard for public park provision we have reviewed the

appropriateness of using the catchment distances recommended at the regional level in the

GLA Public Park hierarchy (Table 2.1). To establish a locally based access standard it is

necessary to consider a range of indicators to identify how well the existing distribution of

provision meets the needs of the community (see below).

Consideration of the distribution of parks by ward / population (considered above);

Examination of existing patterns of open spaces by park type considering the mode

of transport and travel times;

Consideration of existing access patterns by age and gender and sub area within the

Borough to identify under-served groups / areas;


Final Report 62

Identification of community perceptions of existing levels of open space provision,

and analysis of the perceptions of open space non users who identify if it is a

community priority to improve accessibility to open space provision;

Application of proposed park catchments to the current distribution of public parks

within the Borough to identify existing deficiencies in access;

Identifying the significance of access deficiencies considering land use patterns and

local needs (considering objective indicators and public perceptions); and

Consideration of the potential to address access deficiencies through identifying

potential opportunities to increase park provision.

Defining effective Catchment Areas

5.16 Existing patterns of use provide the most robust basis upon which to base a future access

standard. The telephone survey undertaken as part of the 2006 assessment identified usage

levels, travel modes and travel times for different types of open space provision in the

Borough. The findings of the survey have been compared against other surveys of park use

undertaken for other local authorities in London by Atkins and other consultants and by

surveys conducted at the national level.

5.17 However, existing usage and travel patterns cannot be used directly as the basis for deriving

access standards to address future needs without considering whether a standard reflecting

existing usage patterns addresses the needs of the community. This issue is considered later

in this chapter.

Effective catchment distances

5.18 The catchment distances defined below relate to the typical effective catchment area for each

park type. The effective catchment area represents the area from which 70-80% of park

users are likely to be drawn from. An assumption is made that the catchment area and

threshold population should reflect the average for each park category. Variations in

catchment areas size and number and frequency of visits can be explained by a number of

factors including:

The range of facilities and environments within the park and their quality and

condition affect the attractiveness of the space to potential users. Parks with a wider

range of facilities than may be expected will have extended catchments perhaps

beyond the distance parameters identified in Table 2.1. The number and frequency

of visits is also likely to be higher;

The demographic and socio-economic structure of the population residing within the

park catchment and the extent to which park facilities meet their needs;

The pattern of land use within the park catchment particularly patterns of residential

development and population density; and

The range of park and open space opportunities within the locality will influence

levels of usage at individual spaces.

5.19 However, it is important to consider variations in catchment area size for spaces within the

same level of the hierarchy when identifying priorities for enhancing the quality and access of

spaces.


Final Report 63

Converting travel time to distances

5.20 Research1 undertaken on behalf of London Planning Advisory Committee (LPAC) in 1992

identifies that a 5 minute pedestrian travel time represents a distance of 400m on the ground

for less mobile sections of the community including parents with young children, the elderly

and disabled. However, a straight line distance cannot be directly used to represent a

pedestrian catchment on a map as the actual walking distance is influenced by severance

factors (e.g. railway lines, busy roads), topography, the location of park entrances and the

morphology and grain of the surrounding pedestrian route network.

5.21 Taking account of these factors the area included within a catchment is typically reduced by

some 50%. The research recommends that a fixed radius 70% of the catchment distance is

used to represent catchment area spatially, therefore a fixed radius of 560m from the edge of

the open space has been used to represent an 800 metre walking distance on the ground.

5.22 In this example, the 800m catchment distance would be adopted as the standard. However, it

is recommended that both radii are plotted to emphasise the importance of adopting a more

sensitive approach to assessing the catchments of parks on a case by case basis.

Existing Patterns of Use

Pocket Parks, Small Local Parks and Local Parks

5.23 According to the Residents Survey (2006) 82% of those surveyed travelled to pocket parks,

small Local Parks and Local Parks on foot. This is therefore the most common mode of

transport to these spaces. The Resident‟s Survey also identified that 43% of journeys to

these spaces take up to 5 minutes and that 70% (an additional 27%) of journeys take up to

10 minutes. A 10 minute catchment area therefore reflects existing patterns of usage. Based

on the research undertaken by LPAC in 1992 a 10 minute catchment area represents 800m

walking distance. However, as the research recommends that a fixed radius 70% of the

catchment distance is used to represent the catchment area. A 560m catchment area

therefore represents a 10-minute walking distance applied as a fixed radius from the edge of

the open space.

5.24 It is therefore recommended that an 800m (560m on the ground) access standard is used in

relation to local and small local parks, rather than the 400m catchment identified at the

regional level by the GLA guidance.

District Parks

5.25 The Resident‟s Survey identified that approximately 70% of users travelled to District Parks,

such as Oakwood Park and Broomfield Park, by foot, with approximately 40% of journeys

taking 5 minutes, 60% (an additional 20%) of journeys taking 10 minutes and 80% (a further

20%) of journeys taking 15 minutes. The effective catchment area of District Parks in the

Borough is therefore 15 minutes walking distance (equivalent to 1.2km).

Metropolitan Parks

5.26 According to the Residents‟ Survey, the chosen mode of transport for users of Metropolitan

Parks is mixed. 40% of respondents that use Trent Country Park travel to the park by foot,

whilst 54% travel to the park by car. Users of Whitewebbs Park, however, are more likely to

travel by car (77%). This may be due to the fact that it is situated at the northern end of the

Borough and therefore harder to reach by foot. Approximately 80% of visitors to these parks

reported that they travel up to 15 minutes to reach a Metropolitan Park.

1 Open Space Planning in London – London Planning Advisory Committee,1992, Page 107, Paragraph

6.2.19


Final Report 64

5.27 Although the Resident‟s Survey has identified that a majority of Metropolitan Park users

travel to these spaces by car, the GLA‟s Guide to Preparing Open Space Strategies (2004)

recommends that the catchment areas reflect patterns of use by those that do not have

access to a car and travel to Metropolitan Parks by public transport. The guidance also

recommends that cross boundary visits from other Borough‟s are taken into account.

Although the effective catchment for Metropolitan Parks is 15 minutes travel time for Enfield

users, it is not possible to ascertain how often the majority of users from other Boroughs are

willing to travel to Metropolitan Parks in Enfield.

5.28 It is therefore recommended that the 3.2km catchment area recommended by GLA guidance

is adopted in relation to Metropolitan Parks. The 3.2km catchment represents a 20 minute

journey time by public transport.

Regional Parks

5.29 According to the Resident‟s Survey, the most popular mode of transport for travelling to the

Lee Valley Regional Park is by car (73% of residents who use the Regional Park travel by

car), whilst 82% of the Lee Valley Regional Park users spend up to 20 minutes travelling to

the park. The effective catchment distance is therefore about 20 minutes by car. However,

again, it is not possible to ascertain exactly how far users of the Regional Park will travel from

other Boroughs. It is therefore recommended that the 3.2-8.0km catchment area

recommended by GLA guidance is adopted in relation to the Lee Valley Regional Park.

Adoption of Park Catchment Areas

5.30 Figure 5.1 to 5.3 illustrate the distribution of the different types of public park throughout the

Borough and identifies their assumed catchment areas by foot, car and public transport in

accordance with the criteria in the GLA Public Park Hierarchy (Table 2.1) modified to reflect

the Enfield context. This provides a basis for identifying the parts of the Borough which are

not adequately served (in terms of access by public parks).

5.31 The identification of areas of open space deficiency is very sensitive both to the actual

catchments adopted for different types of parks and the manner in which they are applied. It

should be recognised that the process of identifying deficiencies is a desk-top application of

the hierarchy catchments and does not take into account other criteria, e.g. quality and

function, which also inform the catchment of a park. These issues are discussed further in

Chapter 9.

Pocket Parks, Small Local Parks and Local Parks

5.32 Within the Borough there are six open spaces which fulfil the criteria of a Pocket Park, 17

open spaces which fulfil the criteria of a Small Local Park and 19 spaces which fulfil the

criteria for a Local Park. Although some spaces meet the correct size criteria for a Local

Park, some have been classified as a Small Local Park where the range of provision and

facilities do not meet the required standard for a Local Park. Figure 5.1 identifies distribution

of pocket parks, small local parks and local parks and areas which are outside of the

catchment area for this form of provision. It demonstrates that there are large parts of the

Enfield Highway, Highlands, Grange and Hill wards are outside of the 800m catchment area,

as well as smaller parts of the Southgate Green, Ponders End and Southbury wards.

However, these areas may have access to a District or Metropolitan Park that can fulfil the

functions of a Small Local or Local Park.

5.33 Although Small Local Parks in some cases have the potential to meet the demand for Local

Parks where none are accessible, these parks do not currently provide the range of provision

that would be expected of a Local Park.


Final Report 65

District and Metropolitan Parks

5.34 The open space assessment identified 10 open spaces which fulfilled the criteria of a District

Park.

5.35 Figure 5.2 identifies the distribution of District Parks within Enfield and illustrates that much of

the south centre of the Borough, including parts of Bush Hill Park and Palmers Green wards,

are outside the District Park Catchment area of 1.2km. Some smaller eastern and north

eastern areas within the Borough such as parts of Town, Turkey Street, Southbury and

Enfield Lock wards are also outside of the catchment area of a District Park, as is much of

Hadley Wood in the Cockfosters ward and the south eastern corner of Edmonton.

5.36 Figure 5.2 identifies the distribution of Metropolitan Parks within Enfield. It is apparent that a

majority of the Borough is outside the 3.2km catchment area for Metropolitan Parks, with

much of the southern and eastern parts of the Borough deficient in access to these parks.

The catchment area of Alexandra Palace, a Metropolitan Park within Haringey, covers the

majority of Bowes ward within the south west of the Borough.

5.37 Because the catchment area for Regional Parks is up to 8km, the entire Borough is deemed

to be within the catchment area of the Lee Valley Regional Park.

Park Deficiency Areas

5.38 Figure 5.4 identifies areas deficient in access to all public parks as classified by the parks

hierarchy. Parks deficiency areas have been derived by considering pedestrian access to all

forms of public park provision (Metropolitan Parks, District Parks, Local Parks, Small Local

Parks and Linear Open Spaces). Other open space provision including all types of open

space not included within the parks hierarchy have been excluded from this figure.

5.39 Those areas of the Borough which are deficient in public parks are defined as those which

are further than 800m from any form of public park provision. Areas defined as deficient are

illustrated (in green) on Figure 5.4.

Zone 1 – East Hadley Wood – small deficiency area covering Cockfosters Road and

the eastern parts of Hadley Wood.

Zone 2 – Highlands – One of the two largest deficiency areas in the Borough in

terms of population outside the 800m catchment area with a significant proportion of

the East Highlands ward deficient in access to public parks.

Zone 3 – Southbury – medium sized deficiency area covering northern and some

eastern parts of the Southbury ward, as well as small parts of the south of Chase

and Turkey Street wards.

Zone 4 – Lower Edmonton – medium sized deficiency area straddling Lower

Edmonton and Jubilee wards.

Zone 5 – Grange – the second of the two larger deficiency areas within the Borough

with a significant proportion of the population of Grange ward as well as smaller

parts of Winchmore Hill and Bush Hill Park, outside the 800m catchment area.

Zone 6 – Winchmore Hill – small area in the south of Winchmore Hill ward outside

the 800m catchment area.

Zone 7 – Southgate – small deficiency area just south of Southgate town centre.

Zone 8 – Bowes Park – small deficiency area in the centre of Bowes ward.

5.40 It is important for the assessment to relate quantitative deficiencies (as illustrated in Figure

5.4) to the character, density and other needs of areas within the Borough. Deficiency areas

within wards with a high proportion of dwellings that are terraced flats or apartments, such as


Final Report 66

areas identified in Figure 3.2, are likely to be more significant than other deficiency areas as

residents are less likely to have access to private gardens. Areas within wards with a more

suburban character may also have significant concentrations of private open space which,

although may not be accessible to the general public, provides relief from the built up area

and contributes towards visual amenity.

5.41 Figure 3.1 shows that the area covered by deficiency zones 4 and 8 experience a high

number of households per hectare, whilst Figure 3.2 shows that the area covered by zones 6

and 8 have a high proportion of dwellings that are flats, terraces or apartments Figure 3.3

illustrates that the area covered by zone 4 has generally high child densities, whilst the zones

with a high proportion of those not in good health (Figure 3.4) are 8, 4 and 3. Finally, Figure

3.5 illustrates that the area covered by zones 8, 4 and 3 also experience high deprivation

scores.

5.42 The deficiency zones with the highest need for open space as shown by non-open space

indicators are 8 (Bowes Park), 4 (Lower Edmonton) and 3 (Southbury).

5.43 The pattern of land use also influences the significance of open space for several deficiency

areas. For example, the deficiency in access to public parks in zone 3 is only significant

towards the northeast of the zone as the south of the zone is made up of the Great

Cambridge Road Industrial Area as well as Enfield Playing Fields. The northeast section of

this deficiency area is therefore more significant because only this part of the zone has any

residential population. Large deficiency areas also exist towards the northwest of the

Borough, but the population density is very low in this largely rural area.

Proposed Quantity and Accessibility Standards

Public Park Provision

Quantitative Component

5.44 At present there is 2.42 ha per 1,000 population of public park provision within the Borough.

This includes spaces included as part of the Lee Valley Regional Park which individually, are

classified as public parks.

5.45 To meet the needs of the Borough up to 2026, it is recommended that additional public parks

are introduced, as far as possible within the areas of deficiency identified in Figure 5.4 and

paragraph 5.38. If a small local park, with an average size of 2ha (see Table 2.1) and with a

catchment area of 800m is introduced in each of the deficiency areas identified, then the total

additional public provision that should be provided in order to alleviate all eight access

deficiencies is 16ha (eight deficiency areas multiplied by 2 ha park size). It is therefore

recommended that the quantity of public park provision should increase by 16 ha (an

increase of 2.3% on current public park provision within Enfield).

5.46 These new parks may need to be brought forward as new open space sites or through the

adaption / redesign of existing spaces. The exact size of parks should reflect development

constraints and opportunities. Additional facilities, such as improved children‟s play provision

and recreational facilities, may also need to be introduced to, for example, site 184 – Tatem

Park, to alleviate the access deficiency to District Parks in the centre of the Borough.

5.47 The standard of provision to meet the needs of the Borough up to 2026 has been derived by

taking existing levels of park provision (average per 1,000 / population) + the additional

provision required to address existing deficiencies in access (16 ha). The resultant standard

is based upon 2026 population forecasts, which is the end date for the Borough‟s Local

Development Framework. The recommended quantity standard for public parks is therefore

2.37 ha of public park provision per 1,000 population (based upon GLA projections for

2026 of 304,705 residents in the Borough).


Final Report 67

Benchmarking with other outer London Borough‟s

5.48 This approach of maintaining existing park provision (reflecting the average for the Borough)

whilst attempting to alleviate any deficiencies in access is the same approach used by the

London Boroughs of Croydon, Kingston, Haringey, Havering and Greenwich.

5.49 Table 5.5 illustrates the standards recommended for adoption in Enfield, Kingston, Haringey

Havering and Greenwich, all of which were identified using a similar methodology to that

used for this study. Table 5.5 identifies that Enfield has a higher recommended public park

standard of 2.37 ha per 1,000 / population when compared to Havering‟s 1.84 ha per 1,000 /

population and Kingston‟s 1.11 ha per 1,000 / population. This reflects the large amount of

public park provision within Enfield compared with these other outer London Borough‟s.

Table 5.5 – Comparison of Outer London Borough Park Standards

Borough Recommended Park

Standard (ha per 1,000 population)

Enfield 2.37

Greenwich 1.67

Havering 1.84

Kingston 1.11

Haringey 1.65

Hackney 1,36

Accessibility Component

5.50 The following access standards are recommended for adoption. The rationale for the

standards broadly reflects the GLA Public Park Hierarchy (Table 2.1) amended to reflect

patterns of usage in the Borough, community expectations and the physical context of the

Borough and potential to increase provision.


3.2km from home.

All residents within the Borough should have access to a District Park within 1.2km

from home.

All residents within the Borough should have access to a local park, small local park

or pocket park within 800m from home.

All residents within the Borough should have access to an area of public park

provision within 800m from home. The definition of a public park is as identified

within the GLA Public Park Hierarchy (Table 2.1).

5.51 Quality standards in relation to public parks are considered in Chapter 9.

Opportunities to Alleviate Public Quantity and

Access Deficiencies

Addressing deficiencies in quantity

5.52 Proposals for new housing development should be accompanied by proposals to improve

open space provision. The nature of such improvements should reflect the additional open

space needs generated as a result of the proposed development.


Final Report 68

5.53 If the proposed development is located within an identified area of deficiency for public park

provision it will be necessary for additional land to be brought into public park use. The

developer will be required to make a contribution towards the provision of a public park. It

may be appropriate for such provision to be incorporated within the curtilage of the

development. Alternatively a contribution to off-site provision may be appropriate.

5.54 If the proposed development is not located within an area which is deficient in either quantity

or access to public park provision, then consideration will be given to any deficiency in public

park quality or value. The quality and value of open space is identified in Chapters 9 and 10.

It is recommended that the developer will be required to make a contribution towards the

enhancement of the quality of public park provision including the range of facilities and their

condition. Chapter 16 considers the application of standards to growth areas within the

London Borough of Enfield.

Adaptation of other forms of open space

5.55 Figure 5.5 identifies other forms of open space provision located within park deficiency areas.

It is possible to reduce park deficiency areas by upgrading the roles and range of functions

provided at other publicly accessible open spaces and negotiating for community use of non-

public open spaces. The other open spaces which are publicly accessible within the

deficiency areas are identified below:

amenity greenspace;

allotments;

natural and semi-natural urban green spaces;

outdoor sports facilities / education playing fields;

outdoor sports facilities / private playing fields; and

cemeteries and church yards.

5.56 With reference to Figure 5.5, opportunities to alleviate deficiencies in public park provision

are considered below:

Zone 5: Highlands – Site 209 – Cheyne Walk Open Space is currently categorised

as a natural / semi natural greenspace due to a lack of facilities within the space. It

has the potential to accommodate facilities associated with a Local Park in order to

alleviate the deficiencies in access to public parks within the area.

Zone 3: Southbury – Site 197 – Enfield Playing Fields is currently categorised as a

public playing field but has opportunities to upgrade its status to a District Park by

introducing additional facilities such as formal planting and children‟s play provision.

Although the site accommodates over 20 pitches, it also has large area of informal

grassland which could accommodate the additional facilities without the need for

removing existing pitches.

Zone 3: Southbury – Site 127 – St Georges Playing Field is currently categorised as

a public playing field but has opportunities to upgrade its status to a Small Local

Park by introducing additional facilities such as seating and children‟s play. The site

is deemed large enough to accommodate such facilities without removing pitches

required to meet demand in the Borough.

Zone 4: Lower Edmonton – Site 161 – Turin Road is currently categorised as an

amenity space but is in need of maintenance. An opportunity exists to upgrade the

quality of the environment and introduce facilities such as seating and children‟s play

to upgrade its status to a Small Local Park. In addition, Site 29 - Edmonton Green

also has opportunities to improve recreational provision in order to upgrade its status


Final Report 69

to a Small Local Park. The site currently has basic landscaped and seating areas but

these could be improved and children‟s play facilities introduced.

Zone 7: Southgate – Site 216 – Minchenden Oak Garden is currently classified as

an amenity space which could be managed to include some of the functions more

commonly associated with public parks, such as a range of informal recreation

opportunities (for example improved seating children‟s play facilities). This would

alleviate the deficiency area identified in Southgate ward.

Zone 8: Bowes – Site 261 – Cherry Blossom Close is currently designated as a

private playing field but the site survey noted that no public access exists and that

the site is largely disused. Therefore, an opportunity exists to introduce functions

associated with a Small Local Park into part of the space to alleviate part of the

deficiency zone. Plans are in place to reinstate playing pitches to the site. It is

proposed that approximately 50% of the site will be used for publicly accessible

amenity space and a proposed sports pitch

District Park access deficiencies

5.57 Large parts of the west of the Borough are outside the 1.2km catchment area of a District

Park. However, these areas are served by Trent Park (224), a Metropolitan Park. While there

are significant areas of deficiency in the provision of District Parks within Enfield including

areas in the south / central section of the Borough and wards including Hadley Wood,

Cockfosters, Lower Edmonton and Edmonton Green other spaces within the public park

hierarchy could meet many of these deficiencies.

5.58 Metropolitan Parks are capable of fulfilling the role District Parks play in providing a range of

facilities for Borough residents. Figure 5.3 illustrates that Enfield‟s three Metropolitan Parks

(Trent Park, site 224; Whitewebbs Park, site 135; Forty Hall Park Estate, site 136) are

located largely towards the north and northwest of the Borough, if the District Park catchment

of 1.2km is applied to these spaces as well as the existing District Park spaces, the only

significant residential areas outside of the catchment are parts of Palmers Green, Bush Hill

Park and Grange wards in the centre of the Borough, as well as the eastern parts of Lower

Edmonton and Edmonton Green.

5.59 Site 184 – Tatem Park is currently a Local Park which could be enhanced with additional

facilities, such as improved children‟s play and recreational facilities. Improving the value of

this space could alleviate District park deficiency in the south / central area.

Metropolitan Parks access deficiencies

5.60 Figure 5.3 illustrates that large parts of the Borough are outside of the 3.2km catchment for

Metropolitan Parks as the Borough‟s three Metropolitan Parks are located in the north and

northwest of the Borough. The catchment area of Alexandra Park, a Metropolitan Park

situated within Haringey, serves the majority of Bowes ward within the south west of the

Borough.

5.61 Regional Parks can sometimes fulfil the functions of a Metropolitan Park. The spaces

classified in the east of the Borough as part of the Lee Valley Regional Park (see Figure

10.2) have been considered as to whether they can fulfil the functions of a Metropolitan Park

and therefore alleviate the access deficiency in the east of the Borough highlighted in Figure

5.3. Because of the very limited recreational provision and accessible open space throughout

much of Enfield‟s section of the Lee Valley Regional Park, it is considered that these spaces

do not fulfil the functions of a Metropolitan Park.

5.62 It is not feasible that any new Metropolitan Parks can be provided within the south or centre

of the Borough. However, routes to Metropolitan Parks should be improved (see below).


Final Report 70

Improving Public Park accessibility

5.63 It will be important to consider what practical measures could be undertaken to improve the

accessibility of existing parks. Such measures could include creating more park gates, or

establishing clearly sign posted routes to parks which avoid busy roads. Quiet roads could be

„greened‟ to enable safe access to a network of parks.

5.64 The information collected on non-public spaces within these areas of deficiency can also be

interrogated to assess whether they could play a role in meeting the deficiencies. The quality

of facilities and condition of open spaces should also be taken into account when prioritising

investment. In areas deficient in public parks and where there are limited opportunities to

increase supply, either by the creation of new spaces, improving other types of public open

spaces, or by increasing public access to private spaces, the only way of addressing

deficiency will be to ensure that the potential of existing spaces is fully realised where

appropriate and there is improved access to them where possible. This is discussed in the

next chapter.

5.65 At the district and Metropolitan Parks level efforts should be made to improve the

accessibility to these parks by public transport through the creation of better links between

parks and major public transport routes or, where this is not possible, considering how routes

to parks from transport stops and interchanges could be sign-posted and made more

pleasant.

Conclusions and Recommendations 5.66 Enfield currently has some 2.42 ha of public parks per 1,000 population. The provision of

public parks equates to 34.5% of the total area of open space in the Borough.

5.67 The hierarchy of open space (Table 2.1) has been amended and the typology of open space

(Table 2.2) expanded to reflect the findings of the resident‟s survey and the roles of different

open space types and accessibility issues.

5.68 Those areas of the Borough which are deficient in access to public parks include parts of

Cockfosters, Highlands, Grange, Town, Southbury, Jubilee, Lower Edmonton, Bush Hill Park,

Palmers Green, Southgate and Bowes wards. There are some other publically accessible

open spaces, including amenity greenspace, public playing fields and natural and semi-

natural greenspace, all of which may have the potential to address the lack of public park

provision.

5.69 A public parks standard of 2.37 ha per 1,000 population is proposed for new development in

the Borough based upon established levels of provision per 1,000 population (2.42 ha per

1,000 population) and the additional provision required to address existing deficiencies in

public park access (an additional eight spaces at 2 ha each) to meet needs in 2026.


Final Report 71

6. Assessment of Children‟s Play Provision

Introduction 6.1 Open space provides an important role in serving children‟s play needs. It is widely

acknowledged that the importance of children‟s play extends far beyond the activity itself.

Play contributes towards child development through the development of a wide range of

physical, social and emotional skills and abilities as well as having a positive impact on

children‟s heath. The key issues relating to children‟s play are the nature and location of play,

the influence of age and gender, safety and risk issues and consideration of the types of play

environments needed to meet play needs.

6.2 This chapter builds on the findings of the Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment

(2006). In addition to those sites surveyed as part of the 2006 site assessment an additional

15 sites not included have been surveyed alongside the resurveying of 107 outdoor sports

sites. The assessment of children‟s play provision has not been fully refreshed. This updated

assessment considers any children‟s play provision identified in the 15 additional sites, the

107 resurveyed outdoor sports sites and Pathfinder Play sites. This chapter therefore draws

from and adds to the findings of the 2006 site audit.

Approaches to Children‟s Play Provision 6.3 There are currently no adopted national standards relating to children‟s play provision.

However, a structured approach to the planning and provision of children‟s play areas has

been developed by Fields In Trust as outlined in planning and design for outdoor sport and

play (2008). The approach provides quantity, quality and accessibility benchmark standard

recommendations for outdoor play, outlined below.

Table 6.1 – Quantity: All Playing Space

Quantity - All Playing Space

Benchmark Standard (ha per 1,000 population)

Designated Equipped Playing Space

0.25

Informal Playing Space 0.55

Children's Playing Space 0.8

6.4 Local authorities can set their own quality benchmark standards using Play England‟s Quality

Assessment Tool (2009). This would not set an absolute measure, but a reasonable

aspiration and benchmarks against which to measure quality of any existing children‟s play

space.

Table 6.2 – Accessibility Benchmark Standards for Children’s Playing Space

Type of Space Distance Criteria (m)

Walking Distance

Straight Line Distance

Local areas for play or 'door-step' spaces - for play and informal recreation (LAPs)

100 60

Local equipped or local landscaped, areas for play - for play and informal recreation (LEAPs)

400 240

Neighbourhood equipped areas for play - for play and informal recreation, and provision for children and young people (NEAPs)

1,000 600


Final Report 72

The Mayor‟s Approach to Play Standards

6.5 The GLA encourages Borough‟s to produce play strategies, developing local standards and

indicators are an identified part of developing a play strategy. The Guide to Preparing Play

Strategies (2004) states that standards for play should be developed locally with an

emphasis on quality and accessibility as opposed to overly prescriptive measures of quantity.

6.6 Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation, Mayoral SPG

(2008) identified regional benchmarks for play provision to provide additional guidance for

London Borough‟s and enable benchmarking of provision. The benchmark standard of

10sqm per child is recommended as the basis for assessing existing provision and assessing

future requirements arising from an increase in the chid population of the area and through

new developments. The GLA benchmark includes both formal and informal children‟s play

space.

6.7 Informal children‟s play is assessed as being informal recreational grassland accessible to

the public.

6.8 Along with the benchmarks the SPG identifies a Playable Space Typology. This typology has

been adapted for this updated assessment (see Para‟s 6.9 – 6.11) (Table 6.3).

Table 6.3 – Playable Space Typology

Typology Minimum Size

Description Example Facilities

Doorstep Playable Space

100 sqm A landscaped space including engaging play features for

young children, and places for carers to sit and talk. No formal

supervision.

Facilities can include landscaping, climbable

objects, fixed equipment, seating for carers, sand

and water feature.

Local Playable Space

400 sqm A landscaped space with landscaping and equipment so that children aged from birth to 11 can play and be physically active and their carers can sit

and talk. Flexible use; No formal supervision.

Facilities can include landscaping, equipment for swinging, sliding and climbing integrated into landscape, balls walls,

kick about areas, basketball area, seating,

and sand.

Neighbourhood Play able Space

1,000 sqm

A varied natural space with secluded and open areas,

landscaping and equipment so that children aged from birth to 11 can play and be physically

active and they and their carers can sit and talk, with some

youth facilities. Flexible use; May include youth space; May

be supervised.

Facilities can include landscaping, equipment for swinging, sliding and climbing integrated into landscape, bike, skate board facilities, hard

surface area, balls walls, kick-about areas,

basketball area, seating, and sand, shelter.

Youth Space 200 sqm A social space for young people aged 12 and over to meet, hang

out and take part in informal sport or physical recreational

activities. No formal supervision.

Space and facilities for informal sport or

recreation, multi ball court, basketball court, climbing

wall, multi-use games area (MUGA), skate park

or BMX track, seating areas, youth shelter and

landscaping.


Final Report 73

Other 400 sqm Open Games Area suited to a wide range of sports. All

weather and Hard Surface

Open Games Area suited to a wide range of sports.

All weather and Hard-Surface.

Full size basketball 437 sqm Full size basketball court (standard size). All weather and

Hard Surface.

Full size basketball court (standard size). All weather and Hard-

surface.

Source: Mayor of London – Supplementary Planning Guidance (2008). N.B size of Local and Neighbourhood Playable Space

amended to reflect NPFA minimum size thresholds for children‟s play)

Existing Children‟s Play Provision

6.9 The Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006) identified provision for children‟s

play in Enfield. The 2006 children‟s play assessment applied National Playing Field

Association (NPFA) standards for children‟s play facilities outlined in the „Six Acre Standard’.

The 2006 children‟s play assessment has been updated by this assessment to reflect the

Mayor‟s approach to play standards.

6.10 Providing for Children and Young People’s Play and Informal Recreation, Mayoral SPG

(2008) identifies NPFA standards for children‟s play provision (Table 2.3, p23).Minimum size

thresholds for NPFA children‟s play typologies are identified as:

Neighbourhood Equipped Area of Play (NEAP): 1,000 sqm;

Local Equipped Area of Play (LEAP): 400 sqm;

Local Area of Play (LAP): 100 sqm.

6.11 NPFA minimum size thresholds for children‟s play have been applied to the Mayor‟s

children‟s play typologies (Table 6.3). The full range of criteria for NEAP and LEAP are

outlined in appendix E. This update to the 2006 children‟s play assessment also considers

the role of informal children‟s play.

6.12 Out of a total 275 open spaces (which did not include school sites) assessed in 2006 and

2011, 56 contain some form of children‟s play provision. 39 of these sites meet one of the

criteria for dedicated children‟s play provision (LEAP or NEAP). 37 spaces meet NPFA LEAP

standard and two the NEAP standard. In total 17 children‟s play areas were assessed as not

meeting all the NPFA criteria for a LEAP or a NEAP and are therefore categorised as a LAP.

As a result of the site surveys (2011) a single LEAP was identified in addition to the findings

of the children‟s play assessment (2006) along with 13 additional Pathfinder Play Sites.

Table 6.4 – Formal Children’s Play Provision

Type of Children's Play Provision (excl. Schools)

*No of Open

Spaces

% of Total Open Spaces

NEAP 2 0.7

LEAP 37 13.5

LAP 17 6.2

No Children‟s Play Provision 219 79.6

Total 275 100

*Note does not include schools

6.13 Many of the identified children‟s play facilities were assessed as Local Areas of Play. A

number of these fulfil some of the criteria for a LEAP and could be classified as such if minor

improvements were made to the play space. Similarly, some spaces which are classified as

LEAP could be reclassified as NEAP if minor improvements are made. Appendix F provides


Final Report 74

information on the number of items of play equipment, the overall quality of the facility and

whether the facility meets LEAP or NEAP standards at each publicly accessible, children‟s

play facility.

6.14 The condition of children‟s play provision in Enfield was scored according to the range and

type of play equipment and other facilities including provision of seating, skateboarding

facility, rebound wall, hard playing surface, informal games area, absorbing safety surface

and play area boundary. This score was used to classify the condition of children‟s play, as

shown in Table 6.5. Appendix F lists the location of all children‟s play facilities as well as the

assessed condition of the equipment.

Table 6.5 – Condition of Children’s Play Provision

6.15 The 2006 assessment identified that the majority of children‟s play areas are of „Good‟

quality. The additional LEAP identified in 2011 has also been assessed to be of „Good‟

quality. Combining the findings of the 2006 children‟s play assessment and the additional

LEAP identified in 2011 shows that 84.8% of all children‟s play areas were assessed as

being of „Good‟ quality. 15.2% of all children‟s play areas have been assessed as being of

„Fair‟ quality while no „poor‟ quality children‟s play areas were identified in 2006 or 2011. Four

sites assessed in 2006 as LEAP‟s were considered to be of „Fair‟ quality. To improve the

quality of individual children‟s play areas, existing spaces should aim to fulfil the criteria set

out by Fields in Trust to qualify as a LEAP.

6.16 To establish the existing level of children‟s play provision within Enfield, an assumed average

size for each type of play space has been derived. The Consultants applied this approach

because many play sites often form part of a larger open space. Children‟s play findings

taken from the Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006) have been adapted to

comply with the GLA‟s Playable Space Typology. Children‟s play areas assessed as LEAPs,

NEAPs and LAPs have been reassessed as Doorstep Playable, Local Playable Space and

Neighbourhood Playable Space. To robustly reclassify children‟s play sites, minimum size

thresholds for LAPs, NEAPs and LEAPs have been applied to the adapted GLA Typology

(Table 6.3). Therefore for the purposes of this report LAPs have been assessed as Doorstep

Playable Space, NEAP‟s have been assessed as Neighbourhood Playable Space and

LEAPs have been assessed as Local Playable Space. Other GLA categories have been

omitted from this assessment as a complete survey of children‟s play provision has not been

completed as part of this update.

6.17 Table 6.6 outlines the total number of formal play facilities located within the Borough

(including Pathfinder Play Sites). In total the Borough has provision of some formal play

facilities, which is equivalent to 18,500 sqm of formal play space.

6.18 By comparing existing formal children‟s play provision with the current child population,

defined as children aged between 0 and 15 (59,600 children - ONS rounded, mid - 2009) it

has been possible to identify the current level of formal provision in Enfield (0.31 sqm per

child).

Quality of Children's Play Provision (excl. Schools)

No of Children's Play

Areas

% of Total Children's play areas

Good 39 84.8

Fair 7 15.2

Poor 0 0.0

Total 46 100


Final Report 75

Table 6.6 – Formal Play Provision

Type of Formal Provision Quantity Total Area

(sqm)

Doorstep Playable Space 17 1,700

Local Playable Space 37 14,800

Neighbourhood Playable Space 2 2,000

Total 56 18,500

6.19 To fully assess the existing level of children‟s play provision within the Borough against the

Mayor‟s Benchmark standard of provision it is necessary to assess the potential level of

informal children‟s play provision.

6.20 The recreational role of each open space was assessed as part of the site audits in 2006 and

2011. Where the open spaces included a recreational role for children, this has been

identified, 100 publicly accessible open spaces have been identified as having an informal

recreational role for children‟s play. Areas suitable for informal recreational play include open

space suitable for informal play activities such as throwing a Frisbee, flying a kite or space for

running.

6.21 To calculate the level of open space that could potentially be used for informal children‟s

play, the information collected on the physical character of each site during site assessments

has been used. Where informal recreational grassland has been identified, it has been

assumed that the percentage of grassland area represents the amount of open space that

could be used for informal children‟s play. The 100 sites with an informal recreational role for

children‟s play incorporate 308.7 ha of informal recreational grassland. The existing level of

informal play provision in Enfield is 51.8 sqm per child when compared against the mid 2009

child population of 59,600 (0 – 15 years). Combining formal and informal children‟s play

provision results in a total of 310.6 ha of children‟s play provision which equates to 52.2 sqm

per child.

6.22 Table 6.7 identifies the level of play provision compared with the child population for each

ward. There are wide variations in the amount of available space by ward, with some wards

including a large amount of play provision such as Cockfosters (592 sqm / per child) and

Chase (187.1 sqm / per child), whereas some like Lower Edmonton (0.3 sqm / per child)

have very low overall provision. Identified variations could be due to a number of factors e.g.

the vicinity of Trent Park in Cockfosters Ward or the low availability of public open space in

Lower Edmonton Ward. The majority of wards are below the current Borough wide level of

provision (52.2 sqm per child). This is due to the majority of informal provision being

concentrated in a small number of wards including Chase (16.2%), Cockfosters (38.8%),

Enfield Highway (8.1%) and Southgate Green wards (6.9%).

Table 6.7 – Amount of Play Provision by Ward

Ward Informal

Provision (sqm)

Formal Provision

(sqm)

Child Population (Mid 2009)

Play Space / Child (sqm)

Bowes 26,841 800 1,905 14.5

Bush Hill Park 49,263 400 2,333 21.3

Chase 500,362 500 2,677 187.1

Cockfosters 1,197,994 2600 2,028 592.0

Edmonton Green 176,252 1000 4,280 41.4

Enfield Highway 250,126 800 3,686 68.1

Enfield Lock 111,488 2100 3,980 28.5

Grange 56,757 400 1,850 30.9

Haselbury 39,661 600 3,488 11.5


Final Report 76

Highlands 24,882 400 1,910 13.2

Jubilee 15,182 1800 3,064 5.5

Lower Edmonton 648 500 3,813 0.3

Palmers Green 22,121 800 2,439 9.4

Ponders End 9,369 500 3,052 3.2

Southbury 50,053 500 2,954 17.1

Southgate 2,584 500 2,268 1.4

Southgate Green 212,192 900 2,175 98.0

Town 41,086 200 2,671 15.5

Turkey Street 133,201 900 3,092 43.4

Upper Edmonton 99,666 1100 3,681 27.4

Winchmore Hill 67,723 400 2,208 30.9

Total 3,087,449 18,500 59,554 52.2

Access to Children‟s Play Provision 6.23 The updated distribution of children‟s play provision is shown in Figure 6.1. The distribution of

children‟s play areas within open spaces is not even across the Borough, meaning that there

are areas of the Borough that are not provided with dedicated Children‟s play areas. Figure

6.1 identifies areas of the Borough which are outside the 400m catchment of current LEAPs

and NEAPs. It also shows the location of play areas that do not satisfy the LEAP or NEAP

criteria. Figure 6.2 illustrates other publically accessible open spaces which may have the

potential to incorporate children‟s play provision.

6.24 Figure 6.2 shows that all wards within the Borough have areas which are outside the 400m

catchment area for children‟s play facilities. The largest access deficiencies are generally

centrally located within the Borough and include parts of Winchmore Hill, Grange, Bush Hill

Park and Highlands Wards.

6.25 Several spaces indicated as being outside children‟s play catchment areas have not been

assessed as meeting criteria for LEAP or NEAP children‟s play provision, these play areas

have been classified as LAPs. The potential exists to upgrade children‟s play equipment

contained within them to meet LEAP or NEAP standards and therefore alleviate access

deficiencies. The following lists includes Pathfinder Play Sites identified as LAP‟s (for more

information regarding the pathfinder programme in Enfield please see Para 6.27).

site 97 – Cumberland Road Amenity Space;

site 104 – College Close Amenity Space;

site 119 – Denridge Close Amenity Space;

site 170 – Craig Park;

site 176 – Churchfields Recreation Ground;

site 179 – St. David‟s Park;

site 232 – Wilbury Way Open Space;

site 214 – Oakwood Park;

site 199 – Aldersbrook Avenue Recreation Ground;

site PF1 – Radiomarathon;

site PF2 – Kettering Road;

site PF3 – Kestrel House – Alma Road;


Final Report 77

site 37 – Weir Hall;

site 220 – High Road Open Space;

site 87 – St Michael‟s Green; and

site PF5 – Hastings House.

6.26 The Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006) identified several open spaces

within deficiency areas which do not currently accommodate provision for children‟s play but

have the potential to accommodate such facilities. The introduction of LEAP or NEAP

standard play equipment to these spaces would alleviate some of the current deficiencies in

access to children‟s play. The spaces are:

site 6 – Lee View Amenity Space (Amenity Space);

site 12 – Belmont Close (Amenity Space);

site 22 – River Bank Open Space (Amenity Greenspace);

site 90 – Grove Road Open Space (Amenity Greenspace);

site 101 – Hoe Lane Housing Land (Amenity Greenspace);

site 106 – Lavender Hill Amenity Space (Amenity Greenspace);

site 107 – Berry Gardens Amenity Space (Local Park);

site 127 – Enfield Rangers Playing Field (Public Playing Field);

site 132 – Camlet Way (Small Local Park);

site 148 – Hoeland Open Space (Amenity Greenspace);

site 161 – Turin Road (Amenity Greenspace);

site 185 – Clowes Sports Ground (Public Playing Field);

site 197 – Enfield Playing Fields (Public Playing Field);

site 209 – Cheyne Walk Open Space (Natural/Semi Natural Greenspace);

site 217 – Conway Road Recreation Ground (Small Local Park);

site 229 – World‟s End Lane Open Space (Natural/Semi Natural Greenspace);

site 263 – Brimsdown Sports Ground East (Private Playing Fields); and

site 255 – Bull Lane Sports Ground (Private Playing Fields).

Pathfinder Play Sites 6.27 As part of the previous Government‟s National Play Strategy (2008) local authorities were

funded to provide 30 brand new adventure playgrounds, and up to 3,500 new or refurbished

play areas for children to enjoy across the country. Pathfinder funding enabled local

authorities to work more closely with children, families and communities using these sites.

Local authorities were also expected to demonstrate how their new play spaces were

sustainable when it comes to ongoing maintenance.

6.28 There were 30 Play Pathfinder Authorities each controlling around £2.1m capital and

£500,000 revenue funding. Each Play Pathfinder was funded to provide a large adventure

playground and develop a minimum of 28 free play areas for children aged 8-13 years old.

6.29 The London Borough of Enfield was selected as a Pathfinder authority while investment into

children‟s play provision was spread over a two year period. Table 6.7 identifies the 28 Play


Final Report 78

Pathfinder sites within the Borough. It should be noted that the Pathfinder Play Sites have not

been assessed using the methodology outlined in this report.

Table 6.8 – Pathfinder Play Sites

Year Pathfinder Play Site

Year 1 - Area 1

1. Albany Park

2. Ponders End Park

3. Durants Park

Year 1 - Area 2

4. Cuckoo Hall Recreation Ground

5. Craig Park

6. Montagu Recreation Ground

Year 1 - Area 3

7. Tottenhall Boundary Park

8. Bramley Close Amenity Space

9. Grovelands Park

10. Boxers Lake

Year 1 - Area 4 11. Bush Hill Park

12. North Enfield Recreation Ground

Year 2 - Area 1

1. Enfield Island Village

2. Radiomarathon

3. Kettering Road

4. Kestrel House - Alma Road

Year 2 - Area 2

5. Pymmes Park

6. Church Street Recreation Ground

7. Weir Hall

Year 2 - Area 3

8. Bury Lodge

9. Hazelwood Sports Ground

10. Arnos Park

11. Hood Avenue

12. High Road Open Space

13. Trent Park

Year 2 - Area 4

14. Four Acres Amenity Space

15. St Michael's Green

16. Hastings House

Adventure Playground 17. Florence Hayes Adventure Playground Source: LB Enfield

6.30 Of these Pathfinder Play Sites, 13 are additional to children‟s play sites identified in the 2006

and 2011 site surveys. The rest represent upgrades to previously surveyed sites. The

following list identifies these play sites along with their GLA typology:

Site 181 – Tottenhall Boundary Park – Local Playable Space;

Site 228 – Boxers Lake – Local Playable Space;

Site PF1 – Radiomarathon – Doorstep Playable Space;

Site PF2 – Kettering Road – Doorstep Playable Space;

Site PF3 – Kestral House, Alma Road – Doorstep Playable Space;

Site 37 – Weir Hall – Doorstep Playable Space;

Site 220 – High Road Open Space – Doorstep Playable Space;

Site 224 – Trent Park – Neighbourhood Playable Space;

Site 87 – St Michael‟s Green – Doorstep Playable Space


Final Report 79

Site PF5 – Hastings House – Doorstep Playable Space

Site PF4 – Hazelwood Sports Ground – Unknown Typology

Site 7 – Four Acres Amenity Space – Unknown Typology

Site 174 – Florence Hayes Adventure Playground – Adventure Playground

6.31 Of the 13 sites identified above three have not been included as part of the quantitative

assessment. These include Hazelwood Sports Ground (unknown typology), Four Acres

Amenity Space (unknown typology) and Florence Hayes Adventure Playground (Adventure

Playground.

Approach to standards 6.32 This updated assessment of children‟s play uses the adopted Mayor of London„s Playable

Space Typology in order to derive standards for children‟s play. The present level of

children‟s play provision has been quantified using GLA guidelines for playable space

provision i.e. amenity space and informal recreational grassland. Children‟s play areas are

often within another type of green space (e.g. parks). Therefore to avoid overestimating the

quantity of open space in use as children‟s play provision, assumptions about the size of play

areas have been used. These draw from the „minimum size‟ for each formal typology.

6.33 Based on these assumptions there is presently 18,500 sqm of formal children‟s play provision

within the Borough, which is equivalent to 0.31 sqm per child. It should be noted that this

figure likely underestimates the true amount of formal children‟s play provision in the Borough

as a full site assessment for children‟s play was not within the scope of this update, although

Pathfinder Play Sites have been considered. The GLA recommend that open space with an

informal recreational role is also taken into consideration. In Enfield this equates to 51.8 sqm

per child. Clearly by taking informal provision into account Enfield is well served by children‟s

play provision when compared to the benchmark standard of 10 sqm. However, it is

considered that access deficiencies and the low assessed level of formal provision means

that there is a need to provide more formal provision in order to meet deficiencies and meet

the needs of the future child population, particularly in areas were formal play provision is

low.

6.34 We recommend the GLA standard of 10 sqm per child for new development should be

adopted. However, a certain level of formal provision should be included within this 10 sqm

standard.

6.35 To meet the needs of the Borough up to 2026 it is recommended that the quantity of formal

provision should be increased by some 10,600 sqm. The additional provision is based on

maintaining existing formal provision and providing nine new neighbourhood play areas,

three new local playable spaces and four new doorstep playable spaces necessary to

alleviate those significant deficiencies in access to play provision (illustrated in Figure 6.1).

These may need to be brought forward at new open spaces or through the adaptation /

redesign of existing spaces, but should be located to provide maximum benefit in alleviating

access deficiencies.

6.36 The standards of formal provision to meet the needs of the Borough up to 2026 has been

derived by taking existing levels of formal provision (average per child 0.31 sqm) + the

additional provision required to address existing deficiencies in access (10,600 sqm). The

resultant standard is based on 2026 child population forecasts of 60,988 children aged

between 0 and 15 years of age (GLA 2010 Round Ethnic Group Projections). The

recommended quantity standard for formal children‟s play provision is therefore 0.48 sqm of

formal provision per child. The recommended quantity standard for formal children‟s play


Final Report 80

provision constitutes part of the recommended GLA standard of 10 sqm per child for new

development.


children‟s play provision needs generated as a result of the proposed development. The

exact form of play provision should be identified following consultation with the local

community to identify local priorities.

6.38 If the proposed development is located within an identified area of deficiency for children‟s

play provision it will be necessary for additional land to be brought into use for the purposes

of children‟s play. Developer contributions towards the provision for children and teenagers

would assist in meeting deficiencies in children‟s play provision. It may be appropriate for

such provision to be incorporated within the curtilage of the proposed development.

Alternatively, a contribution to off-site provision may be appropriate.

Qualitative Component

6.39 Children‟s play provision within the Borough should be of adequate quality and provide a

range of facilities associated with the size of the facility. The playable space typology should

be used to assess levels if adequacy in terms of the range and quality of provision.


6.40 All residents within the Borough should have access to areas of formal and informal play

provision for children and teenagers within 400m from home.


Final Report 81

7. Assessment of Natural and Semi-

Natural Greenspace

Introduction 7.1 This chapter considers the extent to which open spaces represent accessible natural or semi-

natural greenspace consistent with Natural England (Formerly English Nature) definition and

also analyses greenspace provision within the framework used by the GLA as part of the

Mayor‟s Biodiversity Strategy. Suggested access and quantity standards for natural

greenspace have been updated to reflect both the 15 re-assessed open spaces (2011) and

amendments to the 2006 site boundaries.

Approach to Natural Greenspace Provision

ANGSt Standards – The National Recommendation

7.2 Natural England has recommended that local authorities set standards relating to natural

greenspace provision known as the Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard (ANGSt). This

guidance was formally issued within A Space for Nature (1996) and recommended the

following standards:

that no person should be located more than 300m from the nearest area of natural

greenspace of at least 2 ha in size;

provision of at least 1ha of Local Nature Reserve per 1,000 population;

that there should be at least one accessible 20ha site within 2km from home;

that there should be one accessible 100ha site within 5km; and

that there should be one accessible 500ha site within 10km.

7.3 These standards are used by a wide range of local authorities throughout the country to

inform natural greenspace provision. However, relatively few authorities outside London have

adopted formal standards of natural greenspace provision within their development plans.

7.4 The ANGSt model was reviewed by Natural England in Accessible Greenspace Standards in

Towns and Cities: A Review and Toolkit (2003). The review did not alter the standards listed

above but it did identify a number of problems with the model.

7.5 The definition of natural greenspace used within the model “Areas naturally colonised by

plants and animals” was considered to be unclear and impractical. This definition also

excludes man made types of vegetation which predominate within urban areas and which

have high biodiversity value. A complete knowledge of the history of each site would be

required to determine whether a site has been naturally colonised or had resulted from

planting and management.

7.6 The review also identified the need for greater flexibility regarding the distance and size

criteria and role within the hierarchy to reflect local circumstances. The revised PPG17 also

recommends that local authorities should derive locally based standards of provision rather

than adopt nationally derived standards wholesale.


Final Report 82

Existing Natural Greenspace Provision 7.7 For the purposes of analysing the distribution of natural greenspace against the ANGSt

standards identified above, the findings of the open space site appraisals were used to

identify open spaces where at least 5% of the site is comprised of natural heathland,

downland, common or natural woodland, wasteland / derelict areas, water area, or informal

grassland.

Table 7.1 – Natural Greenspace Provision identified during Open Space Assessment

Natural Greenspace Provision No. of

spaces* Area (Ha)

Natural Heathland / Downland / Common

2 71.4

Natural Woodland 38 178.5

Wetland 5 13

Scrubland 14 39.1

Unimproved meadows 10 17.9

Informal recreational grassland 148 350.8

Water (still/moving) 24 318

Total 189 988.7 * Number of Open Spaces with one or more form of natural greenspace and total natural greenspace

identified by area (Ha)

Note: Only includes natural greenspace provision, rather than other types of open space, within

ecological designated sites

7.8 The natural greenspace coverage of open spaces within the Borough is identified within

Table 7.1. The table identifies the total area of particular forms of natural greenspace found in

the Borough, calculated from the open spaces surveyed, as well as the number of spaces

within the Borough that the particular greenspace type is associated with. Figure 7.1

illustrates the spaces within the Borough that have at least 5% natural greenspace coverage.

Within the Borough there are 189 spaces which have at least 5% natural greenspace

coverage (54.1% of all open spaces in the Borough). The total area of natural greenspace

identified within Enfield by using this method equates to 988.7ha.

Table 7.2 – Defined Areas of Natural Greenspace

Spaces with Natural / Semi Natural Urban Greenspace and Other Natural Green Space

No. of Open

Spaces

Area (Ha)

Sites > 20 Hectares 4 658.3

Sites 2 to 20 42 241.5

Sites < 2 143 88.9

Total 189 988.7

Sites not defined as having 'Natural Green Space'

160

7.9 Access to natural and semi-natural greensace according to the ANGSt standards is shown in

Figure 7.2. Table 7.2 identifies the number of areas of natural greenspace, by size and total

area. Table 7.9 demonstrates that four open spaces were identified during site visits which

have natural greenspace areas over 20ha in size, representing an overall area of 658.3ha.

These sites are 135 – Whitewebbs Park, 136 – Forty Hill Park & Estate, 224 – Trent Park and

King George and Girling Reservoirs.

7.10 Figure 7.2 identifies the areas of the Borough further than 2km from a natural or semi-natural

greenspace area of at least 20 ha in size. The areas of the Borough with the largest areas of

deficiency, when the ANGSt access standards are applied, include a deficiency area roughly


Final Report 83

following the extent of the A10, Great Cambridge Road, encompassing the south of

Southbury, west of Jubilee, west of Lower Edmonton and east of Haselbury wards and

significant deficiency areas in Bush Hill Park, Winchmore Hill, Southgate Green. The north of

the Borough provides natural greenspace over 20ha at Trent Park and Whitewebbs, whilst

the Lee Valley provides natural greenspace towards the east of the Borough. There are no

natural greenspaces over 20ha towards the south or centre of the Borough. There are also

no natural greenspaces of this size in Haringey or Barnet within a 2km catchment area of the

Borough. The following wards have large areas outside the 2km catchment area of natural

greenspace bigger than 20ha:

Bowes;

Upper Edmonton;

Southgate Green;

Palmers Green;

Haselbury;

Winchmore Hill;

Bush Hill Park; and

Grange.

7.11 Figure 7.2 also identifies the areas of the Borough that fall outside the 300m catchment area

of natural greenspace between 2 and 20ha. The parts of the Borough deficient in access to

this type of natural greenspace are distributed relatively evenly, although the east of the

Borough does have more areas outside of the 300m catchment than the rest of the Borough.

Those wards which have a significant area outside of the 300m catchment area are:

Cockfosters;

Highlands;

Town;

Grange;

Enfield Lock;

Enfield Highway;

Ponders End;

Lower Edmonton;

Edmonton Green;

Upper Edmonton; and

Bush Hill Park.

7.12 There are currently three natural greenspaces larger than 100ha in the Borough; Forty Hill

Park and Estate, Trent Park and King George and Girling Reservoirs. When a 5km

catchment area is applied to these spaces (as recommended in the English Nature

guidelines), none of the Borough is deficient in access to natural greenspaces of this size.


Final Report 84

Sites of Nature Conservation 7.13 The above analysis of spaces with a proportion of natural greenspace is useful to establish

overall provision and distribution of natural greenspace within the Borough. However, such

an analysis cannot distinguish between the differing quality of natural greenspace habitats

throughout the Borough. For example, a large grassed space with no formal playing pitch

provision, which is counted as natural greenspace, will probably not accommodate a wide

range of species and habitats that a large wooded area may do. The Natural England

Guidance Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards in Towns and Cities: A Review and

Toolkit for their implementation (2002) recognises the difficulty in establishing an acceptable

definition of „natural greenspace‟.

7.14 The GLA have taken the approach whereby four different types of ecological designation

have been identified under the procedures detailed in Policy, Criteria and Procedures for

Identifying Nature Conservation Sites in London (revised July 2000), which is recommended

by the Mayor of London in his Biodiversity Strategy (July 2002) as the basis for such work.

The Natural England guidance notes that „The GLA approach identifies the habitat types of

nature conservation interest and eventually evaluates sites to a range of criteria which

include those of social benefit‟ and that „this approach offers a pragmatic solution to the

challenge of defining natural greenspace.‟

7.15 It is therefore considered most appropriate to assess the amount of natural greenspace in the

Borough by using those GLA ecological designations (also known as Sites of Importance for

Nature Conservation (SINCS) illustrated in Figure 7.3, as these designations offer the most

robust definition of what „natural greenspace‟ is.

7.16 Following a GLA ecological survey of Enfield in 2001, four sites were designated as being of

Metropolitan Importance (47 open spaces), seven sites were designated as being of Borough

Importance Grade I (four open spaces), eight sites were designated as being of Borough

Importance Grade II (30 open spaces) and seven sites were designated as being of Local

Importance (8 open spaces).

7.17 Sites of Metropolitan Importance are those sites which contain the best examples of

London‟s habitats and sites which contain particularly rare species. They are of the highest

priority for protection.

7.18 Sites of Borough Importance are important on a Borough perspective in the same way as the

Metropolitan Sites are important for the whole of London. Whilst protection of these sites is

important, management of these sites should usually allow and encourage their enjoyment by

people and their use for education.

7.19 Sites of Local Importance are, or may be, of particular value to nearby residents or schools.

These sites also deserve protection in planning terms. Local sites are particularly important in

areas otherwise deficient in sites of Metropolitan and Borough Importance. Where areas of

deficiency are identified, Sites of Local Importance are the best available to alleviate this

deficiency (Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy 2003).

7.20 Table 7.3 shows the total number and area of assessed open spaces located within GLA

designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation. Figure 7.3 illustrates the location of

the GLA designations as well as all open spaces assessed as part of this study.


Final Report 85

Table 7.3 – GLA Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation

Ecological Designations No. of Open

Spaces

Area (Ha) Ha per 1,000 population (Mid 2009)

Site of Metropolitan Importance 47 742.6 2.55

Site of Borough Importance (Grade I) 4 150.4 0.52

Site of Borough Importance (Grade II) 30 142.2 0.49

Site of Local Importance 8 79.7 0.27

Total 91 1,115 3.83

7.21 Table 7.3 represents assessed open space and highlights that there is a total of 3.8ha of

GLA designated Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation per 1,000 population (Mid

2009) within sites surveyed in 2006 and 2011. This 3.8ha / 1,000, compares favourably with

the 1ha of Local Nature Reserve per 1,000 population recommended by Natural England.

However, the definition of Natural Englands‟ Local Nature Reserve is different to the GLA

Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation.

7.22 Local Nature Reserves are normally greater than 2ha in size, whereas the GLA uses no size

threshold when identifying Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation. In addition, Local

Nature Reserves should be capable of being managed primarily for nature conservation and

so that the special opportunities for study, research or enjoyment of nature are maintained

(English Nature – Local Nature Reserves: Places for People and Wildlife, 2000). This means

that they are often publically accessible and include some facilities for observing nature. It is

important that the potential conflicts between allowing public access to nature and protecting

biodiversity are recognised. Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation are identified by

habitat and species richness but do not necessarily have to provide public access or nature

conservation facilities.

Distribution of SINCs

7.23 Table 7.4 indicates the distribution of the GLA designated SINCs by ward. Table 7.4 and

Figure 7.3 show that some wards, such as Cockfosters and Chase in the north of the

Borough, which are less densely developed, and Jubilee and Ponders End in the east of the

Borough, which includes the Reservoirs, have access to large SINCs whereas some other

wards, such as Haselbury, Southbury and Turkey Street, have no access to sites designated

as Important for Nature Conservation. However, it should be noted that whilst the reservoirs

in the east are designated by the GLA as Sites of Metropolitan Importance, access

arrangements to the reservoirs are limited.


Final Report 86

Table 7.4 – GLA Sites of Importance for Nature Conservation by Ward

Ward Area of SINCs (Ha)

Population (Mid 2009)

Ha per 1,000

population (Mid 2009)

Population (2026)

Ha per 1,000

population 2026

Bowes 0 11,631 0 12,350 0

Bush Hill Park 1.42 13,690 0.10 14,147 0.10

Chase 193.32 13,102 14.75 13,358 14.47

Cockfosters 330.47 13,151 25.13 13,650 24.21

Edmonton Green 20.48 16,043 1.28 16,709 1.23

Enfield Highway 29.08 15,005 1.94 14,923 1.95

Enfield Lock 49.15 15,225 3.23 15,279 3.22

Grange 32.26 12,565 2.57 13,545 2.38

Haselbury 0 15,187 0 14,870 0

Highlands 5.95 12,625 0.47 14,098 0.42

Jubilee 332.12 14,110 23.54 13,030 25.49

Lower Edmonton 0 15,134 0 14,535 0

Palmers Green 6.02 13,493 0.45 13,975 0.43

Ponders End 3.02 13,774 0.22 16,634 0.18

Southbury 0 13,323 0 13,899 0

Southgate 33.31 13,614 2.45 13,493 2.47

Southgate Green 38.54 13,201 2.92 13,977 2.76

Town 2.55 14,517 0.18 14,690 0.17

Turkey Street 0 13,466 0 13,353 0

Upper Edmonton 0 15,795 0 21,151 0

Winchmore Hill 37.30 12,579 2.97 13,039 2.86

Total 1,115 291,230 3.83 304,705 3.66 Source: 2010 Ward Population Estimates for England and Wales, mid-2009 (experimental statistics). (GLA 2010 Round Ethnic Group Population Projections using the SHLAA).

Access Deficiencies

7.24 The GLA defines an area of ecological access deficiency as an area beyond 1km walking

distance to a publicly accessible open space of Metropolitan, Borough Grade I or Borough

Grade II Importance. Figure 7.4 illustrates the 1km catchment area when applied to these

designations within Enfield. It shows that a linear strip running from the north to the south of

the Borough, roughly in line with the A1010 Hertford Road is outside of the recommended

1km catchment area.

Quantitative Component 7.25 Provision for GLA designated greenspace (SINC) is 3.83 ha per 1,000 / population (2011)

(Table 7.3). To maintain appropriate provision of natural greenspace of nature conservation

value, it is recommended that the Natural England standard of 1ha of LNR per 1,000 /

population is amended to a standard of 1ha of SINC per 1,000 population be adopted.

However, this should not be interpreted as a lowering of existing provision (3.83 ha per 1,000

/ population) within the Borough. There are 11 wards within Enfield (Bowes, Bush Hill Park,

Haselbury, Highlands, Lower Edmonton, Palmers Green, Ponders End, Southbury, Town,

Turkey Street, and Upper Edmonton) which are currently under the current standard of 1 ha

of SINC per 1,000 / population (Table 7.4). It is recommended that provision should be

improved within these wards.


Final Report 87

7.26 Those sites designated by the GLA as Important for Nature Conservation (as shown on

Figure 7.3 should be protected against development.

7.27 It is recommended that proposals for new housing development should be accompanied by

proposals to improve natural greenspace within those wards which have been identified as

deficient. The nature of such improvements should reflect the additional open space needs

generated as a result of the proposed development.

7.28 If the proposed development is not located within an area which is deficient in access to

natural or sem-natural greenspace then consideration should be given to any deficiency in

quality or value of existing natural or semi-natural greenspace areas. It is recommended that

the developer would be required to make a contribution towards the enhancement of the

quality of existing provision.

Accessibility Component 7.29 The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy recommends that an „area of deficiency‟ of natural

greenspace is one that is further than 1km distance from either a Site of Borough Importance

(Grade I or II) or a Site of Metropolitan Importance. Figure 7.4 illustrates the 1km catchment

area when applied to these designations within Enfield. It shows that a linear strip running

from the north to the south of the Borough, roughly in line with the A1010 Hertford Road is

outside of the recommended 1km catchment area.

7.30 The Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy also recommends that sites of Local Importance (identified

on Figure 7.4) are particularly important in areas otherwise deficient in nearby wildlife sites. In

line with Proposal of the Mayor’s Biodiversity Strategy, the Council should identify sites of

Local Importance in order to alleviate the identified deficiency; such sites need not lie in the

area of deficiency, but should be as near to it as possible. Where no such sites are available,

opportunities should be taken to provide them by habitat enhancement or creation, by

negotiating access and management agreements, or by direct acquisition.

7.31 Sites with opportunities to improve nature conservation and to improve the quality of natural

greenspace within the deficiency area include Jubilee Park (Site 162), Durants Park (Site

155), Albany Park (Site 153) and Weirhall Recreation Ground (Site 172). It is recommended

that these sites be designated as sites for Local Importance.

7.32 In addition, whilst the wards on the eastern site of the Borough are within the 1km catchment

area of the Lee Valley Reservoirs, access to these sites is limited. Other more accessible

spaces form part of the Lee Valley Regional Park, such as 234 – Lee Valley Reservoir

(Ponders End Mill) and 235 – Lee Valley Reservoir (Lee Navigation Banks) are also

designated as Sites of Metropolitan Importance, and so large parts of the eastern wards still

have access to sites with ecological designations within the 1km catchment area. However,

there are opportunities to improve access to the reservoirs which provide a valuable nature

conservation resource.

7.33 Further measures to alleviate natural greenspace deficiencies in the wards covered by the

deficiency area are discussed in Chapter 11.

Qualitative Component 7.34 Areas of natural and semi-natural greenspace should be of adequate quality and support

local biodiversity. Areas of natural and semi-natural greenspace which either under perform

in terms of their value to the local community or their bio-diversity should be enhanced,

consistent with guidelines identified in this chapter.


Final Report 88


Final Report 89

8. Allotment Needs

Introduction 8.1 This chapter considers the extent of allotment provision within the London Borough of Enfield

by assessing the need for existing allotment space as well as latent potential and suppressed

demand for allotment space. A review of the recommended standard for allotment provision

is provided, including access and quantity standards covering the period up to 2026.

8.2 The methodology adopted for this update differs from that found in the Enfield Open Space

and Sports Assessment (2006). The new quantity standard has been derived as a product of

population as opposed to households, as used in the 2006 Assessment. This is to allow for

consistency when applying standards to growth areas within Enfield.

8.3 Recently interest in allotments has increased due to public awareness of „green‟ issues,

concerns over the links between food and health and an increasing trend towards cultivating

food. Modern housing developments also have smaller garden sizes, or no private outdoor

space. These factors are relevant both to the over 50 demographic which represent the main

group of allotment gardeners and the increasingly younger profile of participants.

Policy Context 8.4 Within the policy arena, the importance of allotments is increasingly recognised as having an

important role in contributing towards urban regeneration, sustainable development and

quality of life. The benefits of allotments include:

the practical value of allotments in providing access to affordable fresh vegetables,

physical exercise and social activity;

localised food production brings environmental benefits of reducing the use of

energy and materials for processing, packaging and distributing food. Allotments

also perform a role in the recycling of green waste;

the therapeutic value of allotments in promoting good physical and mental health.

Gardening is identified as one of the Health Education Council‟s recommended

forms of exercise for the 50‟s;

allotments are an important component of urban green space and provide a green

lung within the urban environment;

cultivated and untended plots contribute towards maintaining biodiversity particularly

where plots are maintained using organic methods;

allotments have an important role to play in the implementation of plans for

encouraging local sustainable and community development; and

allotments have an important historical and cultural role in community heritage,

values and identity.

National Context

The Allotment Acts

8.5 The legal framework for Allotments has developed in a piecemeal fashion and is

encapsulated within a number of Acts identified below.


Final Report 90

Table 8.1 – Principal Allotments Legislation

Act and Date Relevance

Small Holdings and Allotments Act 1908

Consolidated all previous legislation and laid down the basis for subsequent Acts.

Placed a duty on local authorities to provide sufficient allotments according to demand. Makes provision for local authorities to compulsorily purchase land to provide allotments.

Allotments Act 1922 Limited the size of an individual allotment to one quarter of an acre and specified that they should mostly be used for growing fruit and vegetables.

Allotments Act 1925

Required local authorities to recognise the need for allotments in any town planning development.

Established statutory allotments which a local authority could not sell or convert to other purposes without Ministerial consent.

Allotments Act 1950 Made improved provisions for compensatory and tenants rights. Confined local authorities obligation to 'allotment gardens' only.

8.6 The national planning framework relating to allotments is set out in PPG17 (2002). This

guidance identifies the role of informal open space including allotments as performing:

the strategic function of defining and separating urban areas;

contributing towards urban quality and assisting urban regeneration;

promoting health and well being;

acting as havens and habitats for flora and fauna;

being a community resource for social interaction; and

a visual function.

8.7 PPG17 also identifies the issues which Local Planning Authorities should take into account in

considering allotment provision and circumstances when disposal may be appropriate.

Local Context

The Enfield Plan – Core Strategy (2010)

8.8 Core Policy 34 – „Parks, Playing Fields and other Open Spaces‟ outlines that the Council

aims to protect and enhance existing open space all the while seeking opportunities to

improve the provision of good quality and accessible open space in the Borough. Core Policy

34 states that this can be partly achieved by:

seeking to address deficiencies in allotment provision across the Borough identified

in the Enfield Open Space Study (2006) through improving existing allotments and

creating new informal growing spaces.

8.9 The Core Strategy recognises that improving the quality and quantity of, and access to, all

types of open space, including allotments, is crucial to promoting community cohesion,

providing opportunities for recreation and play, improving the health and well being of the

community, promoting sustainable development, enhancing the image and vitality of areas

and helping to ameliorate environmental effects including the urban heat island effect.


Final Report 91

Allotment Review – A Report into the Current Condition and Provision of

Allotments in Enfield (2008)

8.10 The Allotment Review (2008) recognises that allotments within the London Borough of

Enfield play a vital role in the green spaces of the Borough. Many of these spaces are

identified in the review as being in densely populated areas, offering green, open space for

people to cultivate crops. The review indicates that there have been management problems

in relation to allotments in the past and that a majority of sites have seen little or no

investment for some time with many sites showing signs of physical deterioration and poor

appearance.

8.11 The review states that the demand for allotments has increased dramatically and there are

now waiting lists on almost all sites, additionally the review identifies that continuing revenue

pressures within the parks sector has been reflected by a lack of investment in allotments.

8.12 A series of recommendations are proposed for improving existing facilities at allotment sites

as well as site management.

Assessing Allotment Needs 8.13 PPG17 states that in preparing development plans, Local Authorities should undertake an

assessment of the likely demand for allotments and their existing allotment provision, and

prepare policies which aim to meet the needs in their area.

8.14 There is no formal guidance on how allotment needs should be assessed, however the Local

Government Association good practice guide Growing in the Community (2001) identifies

issues which should be considered. Local authorities are required to provide allotments for

their residents if they consider there is demand, under section 23 of the 1908 Allotments Acts

(as amended). The 1969 Thorpe Report recommended a minimum standard of allotment

provision of 0.2 hectares (0.5 acre) per 1,000 / population. With a population of 291,300

(ONS rounded mid-year estimates (mid – 2009) ) this would equate to a provision in the

London Borough of Enfield of 58 hectares.

8.15 In 1996 the National Allotment survey identified an average provision in England of 15 plots

per 1,000 households. This would equate to the provision of approximately 1,656 plots within

the London Borough of Enfield. At present Enfield has a level of allotment provision of 25.9

plots per 1,000 households (Census 2001).

8.16 It will be important to ensure that local standards of provision reflect local circumstances of

supply and demand. This assessment fulfils the requirements of PPG17 to provide a robust

and defensible assessment of allotment needs accounting for different components of

demand, such as latent demand.

Allotment Supply

8.17 Allotments were surveyed as part of the site audit (2006). In addition to the information

collected on site, Enfield Council provided up to date and detailed information on plots,

vacancy and occupancy at each site.

8.18 Enfield Council own 37 sites of which they are responsible for managing 32. Another five

sites are leased by the Council to individual allotments groups; Alma Road (Site 52), Aylands

(site 47), Clay Hill (site 44), Falcon Fields (site 53) and Gough Hill (site 45).

8.19 The 32 Council managed sites contain 2,089 plots while the self managed sites contain 766

plots giving a total of 2,855 plots in the Borough. Table 8.2 summarises allotment supply,

occupancy and demand using information provided by Enfield Council.


Final Report 92

8.20 Most plots have high occupancy rates with the lowest being 93.6% at Green Street

Allotments (site 51). The average occupancy rate for all Council managed sites is 97.8%

while the same figure for self managed sites is 100%.

8.21 At present the 37 Council owned sites comprise 76.9 hectares of actively managed allotment

land in the London Borough of Enfield.

8.22 Table 8.2 provides a breakdown on vacancy and waiting lists within the Borough. In a

number of instances waiting lists are showing at sites with vacant plots. Enfield Council state

this is due to a time lag between individual plots becoming available and occupied by those

on waiting lists. As of 22nd

August 2011 there were 485 people on a waiting list for an

allotment within the Borough while 46 vacant plots have been recorded. These figures

suggest that there is limited capacity at existing allotment sites while there is currently one

vacant plot available for every 11 people on the waiting list.

Demand Assessment

8.23 In addition to manifest demand (i.e. the number of occupied plots) there are two forms of

latent demand (see below).

Latent Suppressed Demand – comprises of individuals who would rent an

allotment but are unable to do so and is indicated by existing allotment waiting lists.

Figures are likely to fluctuate throughout the year with greatest demand in summer

months.

Latent Potential Demand – expresses additional potential demand derived from

people who may exhibit, in addition to those who have already done so, a desire to

rent an allotment now or in the future. Influences on potential demand include

demographic characteristics, accessibility and availability of allotment quality and

standard allotment management, public awareness and extent of allotment

promotion, potential changes in demand resulting from diversification in allotment

usage to foster cultivation.

8.24 The extent of unfulfilled demand needs to be considered in conjunction with the size and

distribution of sites (see Figure 8.1). Although there are pockets of residential areas with poor

access to allotment sites, most of the urban part of the Borough benefits from a good

distribution of allotment sites. The accessibility of allotment sites and allotment catchment

areas are considered below.

Latent Suppressed Demand

8.25 When considering the adequacy of allotment provision within the London Borough of Enfield,

it is necessary to analyse the extent to which demand cannot be met by existing provision.

The best indicator of this latent suppressed demand is the number of people that are

currently on the waiting list for an allotment plot.

8.26 Separate waiting lists of potential allotment users are managed for each allotment site in

Enfield. Currently 33 allotment sites are maintaining active waiting lists, a strong indicator of

high levels of suppressed demand within the Borough. Across all allotment sites the average

occupancy rate is 98.4% while 23 sites have a 100% occupancy rate.


Final Report 93

Table 8.2 – Allotment Supply, Capacity and Status

Man

ag

em

en

t

Sit

e ID

Allo

tmen

t

Nam

e

Siz

e (

ha)

To

tal P

lots

To

tal

Occu

pie

d

% O

ccu

pie

d

Vac

an

t

Wait

ing

Lis

t

Council Managed 62 Barrowell Green Allotments 3.90 180 174 96.7 6 20

55 Barrowfield Allotments 3.08 125 121 96.8 4 53

74 Bourne Allotments 0.47 20 20 100 0 32

61 Bowes Road Allotments 0.59 28 28 100 0 4

41 Chaselands Allotments 1.82 38 38 100 0 11

72 Cheyne Walk Allotments 2.41 73 71 97.3 2 15

69 Church Street (1) Allotments 3.66 89 85 95.5 4 7



43 Cooks Hole Allotments 0.45 24 24 100 0 5

48 Elliots Field Allotments 1.41 67 65 97 2 5

70 Enfield Playing Fields - A. Y Allotments 2.43 124 121 97.6 3 13

71 Enfield Playing Fields - C. A Allotments 1.26 51 51 100 0 9

60 Fairbrook Allotments 1.75 83 78 94 5 14

63 Farndale Allotments North 0.29 19 19 100 0 9

64 Farndale Allotments South 0.67 44 42 95.5 2 11

46 Goat Lane Allotments 1.07 48 48 100 0 8

51 Green Street Allotments 0.86 47 44 93.6 3 10

54 Houndsfield Allotments 7.96 268 264 98.5 4 39

49 Newbury Avenue Allotments 0.79 31 28 90.3 3 2

38 Oakwood North Allotments 1.47 75 75 100 0 9 33 Raith Avenue Allotments 0.32 22 22 100 0 8

75 Southgate Chase Allotments 2.87 129 126 97.7 3 18

50 Sunny Road Allotments 0.29 18 18 100 0 4

59 Tanners Hall Allotments 1.52 45 45 100 0 13

39 Trentwood Side Allotments 1.48 50 50 100 0 8

56 Weir Hall Allotments 4.57 171 171 100 0 52

65-68 Carpenter Gardens (1,2,3,4) 0.20 13 13 100 0 1

73 Deepdene Court Allotments 0.15 9 9 100 0 0

42 Lavender Gardens Allotments 0.14 4 4 100 0 0

40 Links Side Allotments 0.24 17 17 100 0 0

356 Sketty Road Allotments 0.07 4 4 100 0 0

Sub Total 32 52.67 2,089 2,043 97.8 46 419

Self Managed 52 Alma Road (leased) Allotments 3.46 120 120 100 0 8

47 Aylands (leased) Allotments 4.89 129 129 100 0 6

44 Clay Hill (leased) Allotments 4.15 123 123 100 0 34

53 Falcon Fields (leased) Allotments 6.77 245 245 100 0 13

45 Gough Hill (leased) Allotments 4.91 149 149 100 0 5

Unknown 13 Chalkwell Park Avenue 0.46 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

24 Green End Allotments 0.10 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

25 Greenway Allotments 0.60 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Sub Total 8 25.34 766 766 100 0 66

Total 40 78.01 2,855 2,809 98.4 46 485 Source: Enfield BC (22

nd Aug 2011)


Final Report 94

Accessibility and Demand Catchments

Latent Potential Demand

8.27 It is also important to analyse the accessibility of allotments within the Borough along with

their demand catchments.

8.28 The GLA open space hierarchy estimates that small open spaces under 2ha are likely to

have a pedestrian catchment area of 400 metres and that most users will travel from within

that area. However, the Enfield Residents Survey (2006) suggested that people are prepared

to travel slightly further to reach an allotment and indicates that a larger catchment area

should be used to assess any allotment access deficiencies in the Borough.

8.29 The Enfield Residents Survey (2006) revealed that 48% of allotment users are within a 5-

minute journey of their allotments. A significant proportion of respondents, 29%, are within a

6-10 minute journey of these spaces. The Residents Survey (2006) also identified that 29%

of allotment users surveyed travelled by car to their allotments while 52% walk, 10% cycle

and 10% report travelling by bus. Although a significant proportion of allotment users (29%)

prefer to travel by car and may not be excluded from allotment gardening by the geographic

distribution of plots within the Borough, it is more appropriate to measure allotment site

accessibility by foot. In addition to being the most sustainable form of transportation, walking

is also the most common form of transportation among the older / retired population with

whom allotment gardening is most popular. For these reasons we have used 800 metre

catchment area to assess any allotment access deficiencies in Enfield. The 800m catchment

area represents the average distance travelled during a 10-minute walk, as well as the

maximum distance that most people are willing to walk before considering other forms of

transport.

8.30 Figure 8.1 illustrates the 800m catchment area applicable to allotment sites. However, it

cannot be concluded that there is sufficient need in the underserved areas for additional

allotment sites from this information alone. Previous studies have found that, although

participation is highest amongst those who live in close proximity to their plot, the relationship

between site size, occupancy, availability and catchment area indicates that some plot

holders are able and prepared to travel to alternative sites when a plot is not available at their

nearest site. However, the extent to which local allotment demand can be satisfied outside of

the immediate neighbourhood is limited by the proportion of allotment holders willing and able

to use alternative forms of transport (i.e. cycle, car, bus, train etc) to access an allotment.

8.31 At present, areas of several Wards are not well served by the existing distribution of allotment

sites including much of the western part of Town, the northwestern part of Cockfosters, the

southern part of Turkey Street, the northeastern part of Southgate, the southern part of

Winchmore Hill, the southwestern corner of Southgate Green, the eastern parts of Upper

Edmonton and Edmonton Green and the southeastern corner of Jubilee. Table 8.3 shows the

total provision of allotments and community gardens in each Ward. Town and Lower

Edmonton wards have no allotment provision. Turkey Street, Ponders End and Chase Wards

have the highest provision per 1,000 / households.


Final Report 95

Table 8.3 – Allotment Provision by Ward

Ward Allotment area

within ward / ha No. of Households

(2001) Provision / ha per 1,000 households

Bowes 2.3 4,915 0.5

Bush Hill Park 3.7 5,219 0.7

Chase 10.7 5,388 2

Cockfosters 1.5 5,030 0.3

Edmonton Green 3.1 6,226 0.5

Enfield Highway 1.2 5,421 0.2

Enfield Lock 0.8 5,183 0.2

Grange 3.0 4,960 0.6

Haselbury 6.0 5,565 1.1

Highlands 3.5 5,224 0.7

Jubilee 8.0 5,126 1.6

Lower Edmonton 0.0 4,989 0

Palmers Green 4.9 5,377 0.9

Ponders End 10.2 4,882 2.1

Southbury 3.7 5,160 0.7

Southgate 3.9 5,327 0.7

Southgate Green 0.3 4,992 0.1

Town 0.0 5,753 0

Turkey Street 6.3 5,046 1.2

Upper Edmonton 4.6 5,639 0.8

Winchmore Hill 0.2 4,976 0 Source: Consultants site audit (2006) and 2001 Census

8.32 Table 8.4 represents the wider area for each site, not just allotment space and illustrates the

high extent of latent demand in many Wards. The number of plots represents demand based

upon a visual assessment of the proportion of households lying outside of existing sites. The

methodology used for assessing the number of households beyond the catchment of an

allotment is an estimation based on assessing the number of households beyond the

catchment of an allotment (see Figure 8.1). Large areas of parkland / industrial land that

might make up a large proportion of the ward have been considered as have the catchments

of un-used allotment sites, which have not been applied to this analysis.

8.33 Borough wide it is estimated that 35% of households are not well served by the distribution of

existing allotment sites. This equates to some 38,983 households. Based on the current

number of plots of 2,855 the current rate of participation for these households is 25.9 (per

1,000 households). Assuming that plot holders will not travel beyond 800m to an allotment

site, latent demand could exist for up to 1,010 plots if the distribution of allotment sites were

to be improved.


Final Report 96

Table 8.4 – Estimated Allotment Needs Arising from Households Lying Outside Catchment Area

Ward Estimate of households

outside of allotment catchment (%)*

No. Households

(2001)

Estimated Households

beyond allotment catchment

Estimated Latent

Demand (No. Plots)

Bowes 5 4,915 245.8 6.4

Bush Hill Park 35 5,219 1,826.7 47.3

Chase 5 5,388 269.4 7

Cockfosters 50 5,030 2,515 65.1

Edmonton Green 60 6,226 3,735.6 96.8

Enfield Highway 20 5,421 1,084.2 28.1

Enfield Lock 60 5,183 3,109.8 80.5

Grange 30 4,960 1,488 38.5

Haselbury 30 5,565 1,669.5 43.2

Highlands 50 5,224 2,612 67.7

Jubilee 20 5,126 1,025.2 26.6

Lower Edmonton 50 4,989 2,494.5 64.6

Palmers Green 5 5,377 268.9 7

Ponders End 15 4,882 732.3 19

Southbury 50 5,160 2,580 66.8

Southgate 40 5,327 2,130.8 55.2

Southgate Green 30 4,992 1,497.6 38.8

Town 50 5,753 2,876.5 74.5

Turkey Street 30 5,046 1,513.8 39.2

Upper Edmonton 50 5,639 2,819.5 73

Winchmore Hill 50 4,976 2,488 64.4

Total 35 110,398 38,983 1,010 Note: *These estimates reflect a visual assessment of the percentage of built-up area within each ward that is outside of an

allotment catchment area

Demographic Change

8.34 It is estimated that the number of households within Enfield is expected to increase during

the period up to 2026 (Table 8.5). The population of the Borough may increase by 11.4%

(based on 2001 Census). Making the assumption one plot may be rented per household

given that it is highly unlikely that a household would rent more than one allotment plot, and

assuming the allotment participation rate in Enfield remains unchanged, it is estimated that

there will be demand for an additional 518 plots between 2001 and 2026 due to demographic

change. Additional demand from other factors is considered separately below.

Table 8.5 – Estimated Allotment Needs Arising from Demographic Change

Year 2001* 2026**

Population Scenario Baseline Projection

Population Estimate 273,559 304,705

Estimated No. Households 110,398 130,439

Estimated plot requirement (assumes 25.9 plots per 1,000 households) 2,855 3,373

Additional Plots due to Population increase N/A 518 Source: 2001 data: Census; 2026 data GLA Round 2010 ward population projections, 2010.

8.35 To fulfil additional need from demographic change to 2026 and the existing latent demand,

allotment land will need to be identified and brought forward for allotment use to meet the

needs of under-served areas and the increased demand resulting from population growth. To

summarise, the total allotment requirement amounts to1,976 and comprises:


Final Report 97

net requirement including, latent demand from areas under served by existing need

arising from demographic change: 1,976 (deducting existing vacant plots – see

Table 8.6); and

existing supply 2,855.

Table 8.6 – Summary of Allotment Requirements 2026

Additional allotment requirements 2001 - 2026

Plots Area (ha)

Latent Demand from areas under served by existing provision 1,010 27.2

Additional need arising from demographic change 518 14.0

Latent Suppressed Demand (Waiting Lists) 485 13.1

Vacant Plots -46 -1.2

Net Requirement 1,967 52.9

8.36 Table 8.6 indicates that there is potential demand for up to 1,967 allotment plots. The

feasibility of implementing such a large number of new allotment plots, which would require

approximately 52.9 ha of land to be brought forward into allotment use up to 2026, is

questionable.

8.37 A more pragmatic approach towards improving accessibility and accommodating future

demand is therefore required, based upon considering the significance of deficiency and local

need. The largest component of potential demand is from resident‟s residing outside of the

800m allotment catchment area. The distribution of allotments within the Borough, in terms of

the number of allotments is uneven with the 4 largest allotment sites accommodating over

half of all the Borough‟s allotments. There is scope to improve distribution and accessibility to

allotment provision where parts of the Borough are outside the 800m catchment area.

8.38 Figure 8.2 illustrates the areas where the deficiency in provision is considered most

significant. The provision of 8 additional allotment sites would help to alleviate access

deficiencies in areas of greatest need. If each of these new sites had an average of 30 plots,

which is achievable and efficient in terms of land use and management arrangements, then

each new site would be approx 0.81ha reflecting an average plot size of 0.03 ha in Enfield.

8.39 Adopting this approach leads to an amended requirement of 6.46 ha for latent demand from

areas under served by existing provision. Therefore the total land area requirement for

additional allotments is 32.2 ha.

Proposed Standard

8.40 Existing allotment sites within the Borough total 76.9 ha with a total 2,855 plots. This means

the average plot size is 0.03 ha or 36 plots per hectare. It has been assessed that an

additional 32.2 ha of allotments land would need to be brought into use to meet existing

deficiencies and needs associated with household growth within the Borough between 2001

and 2026. It should be recognised that this land requirement assumes that the average size

of allotment plots remains the same.

8.41 The approach to developing the allotment standard is shown in Table 8.7. The standard is

derived from existing allotments land and the estimated additional requirement. In total it is

estimated that 4,052 allotments will be required by 2026 which equates to 109.1 ha. It is

demonstrated that 0.36 ha of allotment land per 1,000 / population is required to meet this

demand.


Final Report 98

Table 8.7 – Approach to Developing Allotment Standard to 2026

Plots Area (Ha)

Existing Allotments 2,855 76.9

Additional Requirement 1,197 32.2

Total Allotment Requirement 2026 4,052 109.1

Estimated Population 2026 304,705

Standard (ha per 1,000 / population) 0.36

8.42 The proposed standard can be compared with other studies undertaken by the consultants

within London:

London Borough of Hackney: 0.015 ha per 1,000 / population;

London Borough of Havering: 0.18 ha per 1,000 / population;

London Borough of Greenwich: 0.16 ha per 1,000 / population; and

Royal Borough of Kingston: 0.35 ha per 1,000 / population.

Quality and Management 8.43 The quality, condition and management of allotments also influence potential demand.

Allotments that are well maintained and have vacant plots which are available for use with

little clearance of scrub and rubbish are likely to prove more attractive than overgrown plots.

8.44 The condition and maintenance of facilities including fences, the water supply, toilets,

communal huts, sheds and greenhouses, paths and waste areas will also influence the

attractiveness of allotment sites to potential plot holders, particularly if it is sought to broaden

demand and attract new users.

Towards the Development of an Allotments

Strategy 8.45 The Council has an opportunity to develop a coherent vision for allotments within Enfield.

This vision should recognise the multiple roles which allotments can play and the benefits of

allotment gardening and be used as a basis to gather support and funding for improvements

from other sources within the Council, external funding sources and relevant community and

voluntary sector partners.

8.46 The vision should include an action plan which seeks to integrate allotment gardening with

other strategies and programmes and identifies improvements to individual allotment sites

and other projects and initiatives to foster participation in allotment gardening. It will be

necessary to identify resources to implement projects including human resources to

implement improvements.

8.47 The value of allotments as described earlier in this chapter includes their role as:

open space;

providing opportunities for informal recreation;

a sustainable food source;

a resource for health;

a community resource;

an educational tool;


Final Report 99

a resource for biodiversity; and

a place for composting and the management of green waste.

8.48 At present not every plot within the Borough performs all of the above roles. All allotment

sites do however form an important component of urban greenspace as defined in PPG17.

8.49 Allotments also contribute towards the landscape character of the Borough by providing

visual amenity in the form of relief from the built up area or by allowing views beyond the

immediate area. Many allotment sites have some form of nature conservation value although

those in Enfield are intensively cultivated due to high demand.

8.50 Potential may exist to increase the nature conservation value of some sites through

identifying areas to develop as wildlife habitat within underutilised areas. At other sites,

smaller areas could be enhanced with particular emphasis given to those allotments located

within areas deficient in natural and semi-natural greenspace provision.

8.51 In addition to the functions outlined above, significant scope exists to develop active social

and educational roles through links with schools and other community organisations. These

roles can be encouraged through specific initiatives which integrate allotments within other

strategies and programmes and fostering allotments within the wider community.

Conclusions and Recommendations

Provision

8.52 There is currently provision for 2,855 allotment holders in Enfield, with 2,809 of these

occupied. Overall it is estimated that between 2001 and 2026 there will be demand for an

additional 518 plots arising through demographic changes. It is estimated that 240 plots are

needed in areas under served by existing provision.

8.53 In summary, the estimated additional requirement of up to 32.2 ha of ha of allotment land

takes into account the demand from demographic changes, under-served areas and existing

latent demand while considering the practicalities of delivering new allotments in Enfield.

Distribution and Access

8.54 At present significant latent demand exists within much of the London Borough of Enfield due

to lack of accessibility. Latent potential demand is 240 plots.

8.55 Deficiencies in allotment supply exist within all Wards. Although deficiencies are

concentrated in Edmonton Green, Enfield Lock, Cockfosters, Highlands, Lower Edmonton,

Southbury, Town, Upper Edmonton and Winchmore Hill Wards.

8.56 Even after the three unknown allotment sites and other vacant sites are taken into

consideration it is unlikely that additional provision of allotment land (see Table 8.6),

reflecting existing participation rates, could be provided in the Borough up to 2026. Instead

an approach of improving the distribution of allotments by targeting those areas where need

is highest is recommended.

8.57 By introducing eight new allotment sites at locations outside of the existing 800m allotment

catchment areas, but within areas where need is highest, accessibility to allotments would be

improved.

8.58 Given that allotments can be on fairly small sites, there may be potential to include allotments

or community gardens as part of new large scale housing developments. There may also be

scope, in under-served areas to bring forward allotments or community gardens through the

diversification of open space such as amenity greenspace in housing areas, playing fields

whether privately owned or those used by schools, where there is sufficient space.


Final Report 100

Management and Resources

8.59 At present provision is generally managed by Enfield Council. However, additional funding

would secure a more comprehensive management and maintenance strategy. This may be

achieved by integrating the improvement of allotments within other initiatives relating to

regeneration, neighbourhood renewal and Local Agenda 21 and bidding for external funding.

Other ways of funding improvements to allotment sites include the following.

Increase rents: the best value process and opportunity to compare allotment rents

to those in surrounding areas and cost other recreational and leisure activities

provided by the Council. It will be important to consider the overall cost and quality of

the service provided and to consider whether service users wish to pay more for an

improved service.

Devolved management arrangements: used to cut the cost of allotment provision

through passing day to day management of sites to plot holders. Best value provides

an opportunity to consider possible options.

8.60 Several external funding sources exist which could be drawn upon to fund specific projects

rather than ongoing management and allotment administration. These may include:

National Lottery Funding;

the SEED programme;

the ENTRUST Landfill Communities Fund; and

the Co-operative Group Community Dividend.

Proposed Allotment Standard

Allotment Provision

8.61 To meet the needs of the Borough up to 2026 it is recommended that a standard of 0.36 ha

of allotment land per 1,000 / population is adopted. In order to meet this standard an

additional 32.2 ha of allotment land would need to be brought forward up to 2026, on top of

existing provision of 79.2 ha.

8.62 This standard could be partly achieved via the re-use of parts of other types of open space

and seeking new provision in non traditional allotment form, for example community gardens

or roof gardens.


allotment provision. The nature of such improvements should reflect the additional open

space needs generated as a result of the proposed development but also take into

consideration average garden sizes. If the proposed development is located in an area

outside catchments in Figure 8.1 it will be necessary for additional land to be brought into use

for this purpose. The developer will be required to make a contribution towards the provision

of allotments. It may be appropriate for such provision to be incorporated within the curtilage

of the development. Alternatively a contribution towards off-site provision may be appropriate.

8.64 If the proposed development is not located within an area which is deficient in access to

allotment provision then consideration should be given to any deficiency in quality or value of

existing allotment sites serving the development. The developer may be required to make a

contribution towards the enhancement of existing provision.

8.65 Developments should also include community gardens, window boxes, planted garden roofs,

to provide further opportunities for gardening.


Final Report 101


8.66 The following access standard is recommended:

All households within the Borough should have access to an allotment garden within

800m of home.

Qualitative Component

8.67 Allotment sites should be of adequate quality as identified in Chapter 9 and support the

needs of the local community. Allotment sites which under perform in terms of their value to

the local community should be improved.


Final Report 102


Final Report 103

9. Quality of Supply

Introduction 9.1 Research focused on „open space‟ highlights the importance placed on the quality of facilities

by users. Quality of facilities affects how far people will come to use an open space, affects

enjoyment of open space, how often they will use an open space and how long people will

spend at an open space.

9.2 As qualitative factors are often difficult to assess objectively, it is important to establish a

methodology to enable the consistent scoring and ranking of the condition and quality of

spaces. Many aspects of open space quality raise detailed issues of park management and

maintenance which are beyond the scope of this update.

9.3 This chapter refreshes work undertaken in relation to quality for Enfield‟s Open Space and

Sports Assessment (2006). The findings presented in this chapter incorporate information

gathered during site visits (Spring 2011).

Quality Assessment 9.4 The range and condition of facilities within all open spaces were assessed in 2006. In

addition to those sites included in the 2006 study, 15 were assessed as part of the 2011 site

survey to inform this update. The site assessments used a scoring criterion method derived

from the Civic Trust Green Flag standard assessment which is also consistent with GLA

guidance. The standard is based partly on a physical site appraisal of 27 criteria relating to

the range, quality and condition of park facilities which accounts for 70% of the overall score

and a desk research element relating to management arrangements and sustainability which

comprises of the remaining 30% of the score.

9.5 In some circumstances Green Flag assessment criteria have not been used i.e. for those

spaces that have been identified as railway embankments not all of the criteria are

appropriate for example; “a welcoming place for all”. Open space has not been assessed by

those criteria that are not appropriate for a given type of space.

9.6 The open space assessment included consideration of 18 Green Flag criteria which have

been assessed via visual appraisal of the site. The dimensions of quality considered were:

the conservation of natural features;

the conservation of landscape features;

the conservation of buildings and structures;

the provision of educational interpretation facilities;

standards of aboricultural and woodland management;

whether the space was welcoming;

the accessibility of a site and the safety of site access;

how well signposted the space is;

whether there is equality of access to and within the space;

the safety of equipment and facilities;

levels of personal security within the space;


Final Report 104

evidence of dog fouling and availability of appropriate provision (designated bins,

dog walks);

the appropriate provision of facilities for the type of space;

the quality of facilities;

the cleanliness of a site including litter and waste management arrangements;

standards of grounds maintenance and horticulture;

standards of building and infrastructure maintenance; and

standards of equipment maintenance.

9.7 The criteria which were not assessed related to the sustainability of management and

maintenance practices (four criteria), the level of community involvement (two criteria),

marketing and promotion (two criteria) and implementation of the park management plan

(one criteria).

9.8 Each of the 18 criteria were attributed a score between 0 and 10, where 0 is considered to be

„Very Poor‟ and 10 is considered to be „Exceptional‟. The score for each of the criterion was

evaluated against a range of issues relating to each factor of these are described fully within

the guide to the site survey pro-forma (refer to Appendix B). The Green Flag scoring system

used to assess criteria within the standard is as follows:

0-1 Very Poor;

2-4 Poor;

5-6 Fair;

7 Good;

8 Very Good;

9 Excellent; and

10 Exceptional.

9.9 Not all of the criteria were applicable to each type of open space (e.g. conservation of

buildings, equipment maintenance). Therefore an average score was derived for each open

space based upon those aspects of quality considered. However, a percentage score was

also calculated which assumed all 18 quality variables.

9.10 For an open space to achieve Green Flag standard the minimum quality standard required of

a site is 66% (taking account of the desk top and site based aspects of assessment). In order

to achieve this quality standard the open space must achieve an overall score of at least 60%

on the site based assessment.

9.11 Figure 9.1 categorises each open space according to its overall quality score. It is evident

that the larger spaces within the Borough tend to score higher than the smaller spaces. There

is not clear spatial distinction between spaces that score well and spaces that score less well,

although the north and west of the Borough do seem to accommodate a slightly higher

proportion of spaces with a higher quality score. This area of the Borough accommodates the

majority of larger spaces in Enfield.

9.12 Table 9.1 provides an indication of how each type of open space performs against the 18

Green Flag criteria assessed on site. The average score shows the average of those

variables scored at each site. Whilst the “Average all criteria” column provides an indicator of

how each site fares against all 18 criteria and represents the overall quality of each open

space type. It is important to note that the spaces that form part of the Lea Valley Regional

Park in Enfield have been analysed collectively. Sites falling within the boundary of the Lea


Final Report 105

Valley Regional Park are listed below. These sites fall within the remit of the Lee Valley

Regional Park Plan (2000).

site 151 – Warwick Fields Open Space;

site152 – Prince of Wales Field;

site 234 - Lee Valley Reservoir Land 1 (Ponders End Mill);

site 235 – Lee Valley Reservoir Land 2 (Lee Navigation banks);

site 236 – Mossops Creek Park (Stockingswater Lane Brimsdown);

site 237 – Lee Valley Reservoir Land 3 (Navigation Drive);

site 238 – Rammey Marsh;

site 259 – Lea Valley Leisure Park;

site 264 – Lee Valley Reservoir Land 4 (Enfield Island north of);

site 265 – Lee Valley Reservoir Land 5 (Enfield Island south of);

site 331 – King George & Girling Reservoirs;

site 351 – Royal Small Arms Angling Club;

site 353 – Innova Park Open Space; and

site 355 – Tottenham Hotspur Training Ground.

9.13 It is evident that Metropolitan Parks are the highest „average ranking‟ typology with a score of

8.6 or „Very Good‟ (out of all categories assessed). This is consistent with the fact that two

Metropolitan Parks in Enfield, Forty Hall Park (site 136) and Trent Park (site 224) were both

awarded Green Flag Status in 2005. Town Park (207), Oakwood Park (214), Jubilee Park

(162), Grovelands Park (187) and Pymmes Park (171) have also attained Green Flag status.

9.14 The open space typology with the lowest „average ranking‟ is „Other‟. This typology consists

of Eldon Road Secondary Tuition Centre (99), Bulls Cross Nursery (131), Cambridge Road

Recycling Centre (345), and Holmesdale Open Space West (349). On average these open

spaces achieved an average score of 5.36 (out of those categories assessed) and 31.53%

(Out of all 18 categories) or „Fair‟. However, it should be noted that this is due to Cambridge

Road Recycling Centre and Vacant Land both scored particularly poorly (4 and 2.09

respectively).

9.15 Table 9.1 identifies that the average score for all open space in Enfield has been assessed

as 7.14 or „Good‟. Appendix G provides the overall quality score for each individual space,

along with the value scores which are discussed in the next Chapter.


Final Report 106

Table 9.1 – Quality Assessment by Space Type (Overall Average Scores)

Space Type Average

Assessed Score

Average % Score

(All Criteria)

Regional Park* 6.41 36.6

Metropolitan Parks 8.60 82.78

District Park 7.95 67.29

Local Park 7.08 64.81

Small local park / open space 7.11 59.90

Pocket Park 7.11 62.13

Linear open space / green corridors 6.81 44.93

Allotments, community gardens and urban farms 6.85 48.1

Amenity green space 6.92 45.23

Cemeteries and church yards 7.67 62.82

Greenspaces within grounds of institution 8.27 67.5

Natural or semi-natural urban greenspaces 6.18 35.7

Outdoor sports facilities / playing fields (education) 7.65 64.45

Outdoor sports facilities / playing fields (private) 7.41 60.56

Outdoor sports facilities / playing fields (public) 7.01 60.25

Other 5.36 31.53

All spaces 7.14 54.8 *Note: Includes 14 spaces which form part of the Lea Valley Regional Park.

9.16 Table 9.2 demonstrates the average scores for assessed Green Flag categories across the

full range of open space typologies. Scoring represents the average score of those

categories assessed for each typology. It is evident that most open space types score

between 6 and 9 across the majority of quality scores, which means open space within

Enfield is not specifically lacking in any one quality aspect. For all spaces, the lowest scoring

categories were the provision of educational information (5.7), signage (7.3) and dog fouling

(7.4). For all spaces, the highest scoring categories were safe equipment and facilities (8.0),

building and infrastructure management (8.0) and quality of facilities (8.0).

9.17 Table 9.2 illustrates that natural or semi-natural greenspace scores are consistently lower

than is the case with other open space types, most notably for provision of education

information (2.2). Safe equipment and facilities and personal security also receive low scores

(5.3) however, only 6 of the 14 sites considered to be natural or semi-natural greenspace

have been assessed as having on-site facilities.

9.18 The larger park typologies (Metropolitan, District) score consistently well. For each of these

park types all of the assessed quality categories score 7 or above. In relation to the Lea

Valley Regional Park only quality of facilities (7.2), conservation of natural features (7.6),

conservation of landscape features (7.3) and arboriculture and woodland management (7.7)

score above 7. The lowest average assessed category for the Lea Valley Regional Park was

the provision of educational information (3).

9.19 Smaller public parks, Local and Small Local Parks, scored 7.06 and 7.16 respectively, or

alternatively „Good‟. Both of these park types score ‟Fair‟ for building and infrastructure

management, and conservation of buildings and structures while Small Local Parks achieved

the lowest average score out of all the public park categories for signage (6.2).

9.20 On average, Amenity Greenspace scored „Fair‟ across all assessed categories. The lowest

scoring category was for the provision of educational information (4), while all other

categories scored in the 6 – 7 range.


Final Report 107

9.21 The most abundant playing space typology in the Borough, outdoor sports facilities / playing

fields (education), scored well attaining an average score of 7.59. The highest scoring

categories for this open space type were safe equipment / facilities (8.2) and personal

security (8.2). These scores can be attributed to many of these open spaces being School

sites which have restricted access and in general terms, good, well maintained facilities.

9.22 An important aspect to a qualitative assessment is the need to integrate decision-making on

park improvements with the assessment of the quantity and accessibility of provision. In

areas deficient in public open space and where there are limited opportunities to increase

supply, whether by the creation of new space, or by increasing public access to private

spaces, the only way of addressing deficiency will be to ensure that the potential of existing

spaces are fully realised where appropriate and that there is improved access to them where

possible.


Final Report 108

Table 9.2 – Average Quality Scores by Type of Open Space

Welc

om

ing

Go

od

an

d S

afe

Access

Sig

na

ge

Eq

ua

l A

ccess f

or

All

Safe

Eq

uip

men

t an

d F

acilit

ies

Pers

on

al S

ecu

rity

Do

g F

ou

lin

g

Ap

pro

pri

ate

Pro

vis

ion

of

Fa

cilit

ies

Qu

ali

ty o

f F

acilit

ies

Lit

ter

an

d W

aste

Man

ag

em

en

t

Gro

un

ds M

ain

ten

an

ce a

nd

Ho

rtic

ult

ure

Bu

ild

ing

an

d In

frastr

uctu

re M

an

ag

em

en

t

Eq

uip

men

t M

ain

ten

an

ce

Co

ns

erv

ati

on

of

Natu

ral F

eatu

res

Co

ns

erv

ati

on

of

La

nd

scap

e F

eatu

res

Co

ns

erv

ati

on

of

Bu

ild

ing

s a

nd

Str

uctu

res

Pro

vis

ion

of

Ed

uc

ati

on

al In

form

ati

on

Arb

ori

cu

ltu

re a

nd

Wo

od

lan

d M

an

ag

em

en

t

Regional Park* 6.3 6.9 6.1 6.3 6.8 6.4 6.7 6.7 7.2 6.5 6.6 6.0 6.8 7.6 7.3 6.6 3.0 7.7

Metropolitan Parks 8.3 9.0 8.7 8.3 8.5 7.0 7.3 8.3 8.7 8.7 9.0 9.0 9.0 9.7 9.3 9.0 8.5 8.3

District Park 8.3 7.8 7.7 8.0 8.0 7.4 7.4 7.4 8.2 7.7 7.5 8.6 8.0 7.8 8.3 8.1 7.9 8.4

Local Park 7.2 7.2 6.9 7.2 7.4 7.0 7.0 7.3 6.9 7.0 7.2 6.9 6.8 7.3 7.1 6.8 6.5 7.4

Small local park / open space 7.3 7.1 6.2 6.9 7.8 7.1 6.8 7.5 7.3 7.0 7.4 6.8 7.0 7.4 7.3 6.8 8.0 7.3

Pocket Park 7.0 7.3 6.4 7.2 7.0 6.8 7.3 7.3 7.5 7.7 7.2 7.5 7.0 6.6 6.7 8.0 5.0 6.8

Linear open space / green corridors 7.1 7.2 6.2 6.8 6.7 6.4 6.4 7.0 7.5 6.3 6.5 7.4 7.0 7.4 6.6 6.7 5.3 6.8

Allotments, community gardens and urban farms 6.6 6.7 6.7 6.2 6.8 7.4 8.0 7.4 7.2 7.4 7.1 7.1 6.9 6.9 6.5 6.6 6.0 6.9

Amenity green space 6.9 7.1 6.3 6.9 7.3 7.6 6.8 6.8 6.9 6.9 6.9 7.1 6.9 7.0 6.8 6.5 4.0 7.2

Cemeteries and church yards 7.8 7.8 7.7 7.4 7.8 7.7 8.0 7.6 7.7 7.5 7.8 7.3 7.3 7.8 7.8 7.7 N/A 7.8

Greenspaces within grounds of institution 8.5 8.5 8.0 8.0 9.0 8.0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A 8.0 8.0 8.5 9.0 N/A

Natural or semi-natural urban greenspaces 6.2 6.2 5.6 5.5 5.3 5.3 6.1 5.6 5.3 6.7 6.5 6.0 5.5 7.4 6.8 6.2 2.2 7.1

Outdoor sports facilities / playing fields (education) 7.5 7.9 7.5 7.6 8.2 8.2 7.7 7.8 7.8 7.9 7.6 7.8 7.8 7.2 7.2 7.7 5.9 7.5

Outdoor sports facilities / playing fields (private) 7.2 7.6 7.4 7.2 7.9 7.8 7.8 8.2 8.3 7.5 7.6 7.9 8.0 7.1 7.5 8.0 3.0 7.7

Outdoor sports facilities / playing fields (public) 6.9 7.3 6.8 6.9 7.1 7.2 7.0 7.0 7.0 6.6 7.3 6.7 6.7 6.8 7.1 6.7 N/A 7.6

Other 5.0 6.3 4.7 6.0 8.0 6.3 3.0 5.5 9.0 5.0 4.5 9.0 9.0 4.3 3.7 6.7 N/A 6.0

*Note: Includes 14 spaces which form part of the Lee Valley Regional Park. These spaces have also been assessed according to their individual classification.


Final Report 109

Conclusions and Recommendations 9.23 In the past open space policy has been primarily concerned with the quantity and distribution

of open space. This update considers not only these but also considers the range and

condition of facilities within open spaces and the quality of those facilities.

9.24 Open spaces can fulfil many urban needs often in highly sustainable ways. They are

generally local facilities accessible to people of all ages and backgrounds. They can be used

for exercise, education, meeting people, community events and to encourage the movement

of flora and fauna. They also contribute to the visual amenity of a local area, breaking up the

urban fabric and providing an escape from the traffic and built environment.

9.25 A strategy for improving the range and condition of facilities within parks should be developed

to take into account:

the unique character of parks and the potential to incorporate further facilities;

whether there is a deficiency in the provision of open space in the area;

the proximity of other parks which may have an oversupply of certain facilities; and

the local social conditions (see Chapter 4).

9.26 The companion guide to PPG17 (2002) suggests that an understanding of the Borough‟s

characteristics will help to inform the priority given to different parts of an open space strategy

and can identify possible priorities for open space improvements.

9.27 The Mayor of London‟s Guide to preparing Open Space Strategies (2004) suggests that „A

series of management plans should be prepared in respect of key open spaces. These can

take the form of individual site Management Plans which reflect local needs and specific

issues‟.

9.28 The guidance recommends which stakeholders should be consulted and in particular, how to

consult the general public.

9.29 Consultation with local user groups and other stakeholders help to define the sorts of

facilities, amenities and activities that might be required in a certain area. The 2006

Residents‟ Survey identified the sort of improvements people wanted to see happen to

existing open spaces.

Proposed Quality Standard

Public Parks

9.30 Public Parks within the Borough should be of „Good‟ quality and provide the range of facilities

associated with their respective tier of the parks hierarchy. The Green Flag assessment

identifies spaces with a ranking of 7 and above to be considered as „Good‟ Quality. Those

public parks which either under perform in terms of their value to the local community or their

condition should be improved with the guidelines identified.


Final Report 110


Final Report 111

10. Open Space Value

Introduction 10.1 This chapter considers the value of open spaces. Value is a different and separate concept

from quality. It relates to three things (see below).

Context: a space which is inaccessible may be of little value, irrespective of its

quality. If there is a high level of open space provision in an area some of it may be

of relatively little value, conversely if there is very little provision even a space of

mediocre quality may be valuable.

Level and type of use: context should also be interpreted in terms of use by people

and wildlife.

Wider benefits: generated for people, biodiversity and the wider environment.

10.2 The benefits and value of open spaces to local communities extends beyond their active

recreational role. Both public and private open spaces perform recreational and non-

recreational roles contributing to community and quality of life. These roles are examined

under the following headings:

recreational;

structural;

amenity;

historical / heritage;

ecological;

educational;

cultural; and

social.

10.3 The recreational value of open space in Enfield was assessed in 2006 by considering the

recreational roles performed at each site and the indications of informal use. In addition to

those sites included in the Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006), 15 were fully

assessed as part of the 2011 site survey to inform this update, furthermore the recreational

role of 104 open spaces assessed in 2006 as having an outdoor sports role were re-

assessed.

10.4 Non-recreational roles relate the value or function of an open space to the structure or

amenity of the Borough as a whole. Open spaces with significant ecological or nature

conservation value are identified later in this chapter and proposals are made to improve the

accessibility of nature conservation areas to local residents.

10.5 Educational, cultural and social roles relate to indirect benefits and values associated with the

presence of and use of open spaces. Assessment of the additional benefits and value offered

by individual open spaces is significant when considering their importance.

10.6 Individual value scores for each of the above headings and for each individual space has

been included with Appendix I. Appendix H illustrates the scoring system used to derive

overall value scores.


Final Report 112

Recreational Value 10.7 The recreational value of open spaces in Enfield was assessed in 2006 by considering the

recreational roles performed at each site and the indications of informal use. In addition to

those sites included in the Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006), 15 were fully

assessed as part of the 2011 site survey to inform this update, in addition the recreational

role of 104 open spaces assessed as having an outdoor sports role were re-assessed. Active

recreational roles include pitch sports, other outdoor sports and other active recreational

activities such as allotment gardening. Informal recreational activities include walking and

dog walking, children‟s play, teenagers „hanging out‟, sitting out, relaxation and other

pastimes such as remembrance at memorial gardens and cemeteries.

10.8 A recreation score has been derived for each open space based upon the number of active

and informal recreational roles each space performed, whether they represented a major or

minor role within the open space and whether there was dedicated provision or whether the

activity was supported informally. Indications of informal use were also included within the

score. Appendix I provides further details of the scoring system used to assess recreational

value. A standardised percentage score for each space was derived.

10.9 Table 10.1 identifies the number, and percentage of open spaces within the Borough which

performed selected active and informal recreational roles. It also identifies whether these

roles were major or minor and whether the provision was deemed „dedicated‟ or „informal‟.

10.10 A major role is defined as where either 40% of the site area or estimated usage is dedicated

to the role identified. A minor role was identified where the activity represented a lower level

of usage or land take. Dedicated provision is defined as a site where equipment designed for

that particular recreational use is evident, with informal provision defined as a site where the

recreational activity takes place without such equipment. Percentage columns for minor and

major role and dedicated and informal provision, illustrate the proportion of a given site which

offers a particular recreation type that has been identified under a particular category.

Table 10.1 – Recreational Role of Open Spaces

Each Recreational

Type Major Role Minor Role

Dedicated provision

Informal provision

Recreation Type

No. % of all open

spaces No.

% of sites with

recreation type

No.

% of sites with

recreation type

No.

% of sites with

recreation type

No.

% of sites with

recreation type

Active Recreation

Pitch Sports 112 32.1 106 94.6 6 5.4 92 82.1 18 16.1

Court Sports 66 18.9 62 93.9 4 6.1 66 100 0 0.0

Golf/Putting 9 2.6 8 88.9 1 11.1 9 100 0 0.0

Water Sports 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Noisy Sports 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0 0 0.0

Other Activity 41 11.7 37 90.2 4 9.8 34 82.9 0 0.0

Informal Recreation

Walking / Dog Walking

157 46.2 19 12.1 138 87.9 112 71.3 45 28.7

Children's Play 76 22.4 34 44.7 42 55.3 63 82.9 14 18.4

Teenagers Hanging Out

9 2.6 0 0.0 9 100 2 22.2 10 111.1

Sitting Out/ Relaxation

171 50.3 13 7.6 158 92.4 153 89.5 16 9.4

Cycling 28 8.2 5 17.9 23 82.1 9 32.1 19 67.9

Other Activity 6 1.8 2 33.3 4 66.7 6 100 0 0.0


Final Report 113

10.1 Table 10.1 illustrates that the most common activity that takes place in open spaces is sitting

out/relaxation (171 sites) followed by walking/dog walking (157 sites). Of those open spaces

where sitting out/relaxation takes place, 89.5% have dedicated provision. It is interesting to

note that for the nine open spaces where the activity „teenagers hanging out‟ has been

recorded, only two (22.2%) have dedicated provision. It is important to note that Table 10.1

illustrates the recreational role of all spaces as identified by the site audit 2006 and 2011).

10.2 The 2006 resident‟s survey reported that 43% of respondents stated that they use open

spaces for walking, which corresponds with the 46.2% of open spaces which provide facilities

for walking/dog walking. In addition, 25% of Residents Survey (2006) respondents stated that

they use open spaces for children‟s play, which also corresponds with the 22.2% of open

spaces with facilities for children‟s play (formal and informal) while 8.2% of open spaces have

facilities for cycling (formal and informal), corresponding to the 4% of resident‟s survey

respondents who use open spaces for this use.

10.3 However, it is interesting to note that whilst 32.1% of all open spaces have a pitch sport

recreational role (formal and informal), just 5.5% of those interviewed for the resident‟s

survey use open spaces for football, cricket or rugby, although many of these spaces host

more than one recreational role. These findings suggest that pitch spaces are not as

intensively used as other types of open space such as parks.

Table 10.2 – Indications of Informal Use

Informal Use No. Open Spaces

% Total Open Spaces

Desire Lines 41 11.7

Skateboarding 0 0.0

BMX 1 0.3

Cycling 20 5.7

Basketball practice area 31 8.9

Kick about area 93 26.6

Dog Walking 118 33.8

10.4 The 2006 and 2011 open space assessments recorded the prevalence of informal uses

which do not require the provision of dedicated or specialist facilities. Informal use of open

space has been assessed by observing whether there was evidence of informal kick-about or

basketball practice areas, skateboarding, cycling and BMX use, people walking their dogs or

desire lines (Table 10.2). The most common types of informal use identified are dog walking

(33.8% of total open spaces) and kick about areas (26.6% of total open spaces). This type of

use may fluctuate depending on the time of day and season and can be further assessed

through the results of the resident‟s survey.

Structural Role 10.5 The structural role of open spaces as identified by the 2006 and 2011 open space

assessments is presented in Table 10.3. These sites form significant elements in the

Borough‟s overall physical structure and include a combination of green open spaces, such

as public parks and gardens, cemeteries, green spaces within grounds of institutions and

natural/semi natural greenspace. They provide a physical and visual break between major

residential areas and help to distinguish between different neighbourhoods and communities.


Final Report 114

Table 10.3 – Structural Role of Open Space

Structural Role No. of Open

Spaces

% Total Area of all

Open Space

Area of Open

Space (ha)

Clearly distinguishable from the built up area providing separation between different communities.

23 49.2 1,005.2

Contributes to the Special identity of Enfield 20 40.2 820.5

Creates a positive and significant open space experience when passed or crossed by travelling on the adjacent main road networks and railways.

40 40.2 820.5

Contributes to the sense of place in the local area. 29 42.9 875.8

Helps to define neighbourhoods within the urban area. 50 39.2 801.1

Accommodates recognised and recognisable features of local importance (e.g. Buildings/structures, landscape, events and activities).

56 37.2 759.7

Total open spaces with structural role 125 76.8 1,568.6

Total open spaces with no structural role 224 23.2 473

Structural Land Use Designations

Metropolitan Open Land 75 25.5 519.8

Lee Valley Regional Park 14 23.8 486.6

Greenbelt 60 60.9 1,243.3

Green Chain Corridor 11 5.1 104.1

Green Chain Missing Link 6 2.6 52.8

Wildlife Corridor 31 10.2 208.1

10.6 Table 10.3 shows that 125 open spaces (35.8%) in the London Borough of Enfield fulfil at

least one of the structural roles identified. The most common structural role is

accommodating a recognisable feature of local importance. A total of 56 open spaces meet

this criterion. There are 224 sites that do not have a structural role. Table 10.3 also identifies

the number of spaces with structural land use designations. Of those sites assessed, 75 were

classified as „Metropolitan Open Land‟, 60 were classified as Greenbelt and 31 as wildlife

Corridor. Within Enfield 14 sites were included as part of the Lee Valley Regional Park.

10.7 While only 35.8% of all open spaces have been assessed as having a structural role, of the

total land area of assessed open space in Enfield, 76.8% was considered to have a structural

role. Open spaces assessed as having a structural role tend to be larger. Definitions used to

assess each criterion are included in the guide to the proforma in Appendix A.

Amenity Role 10.8 The ways in which open space contributes to the visual amenity of a given area is influenced

by the amount of open space in the area, the visual envelope of the open space and the

contribution it makes to the street scene.

10.9 The following criteria were used to assess the amenity value of open spaces in Enfield (see

guide to proforma, Appendix B for criteria definitions).

Is it visible from parts of the surrounding area?

Is it visually attractive?

Does it have a clearly definable townscape value?


Final Report 115

Does it provide relief from the built up area?

Site mitigates visual impact of unsightly land uses (buffer, bunding, screening).

10.10 The distribution of open spaces with an amenity role is illustrated in Figure 10.3. If the open

space meets one or more of the above criteria it was considered to offer „significant amenity

value‟. The more criteria the space fulfils the greater the amenity value of the space. The

overall amenity value of open spaces within the Borough is summarised within Table 10.4.

Table 10.4 identifies that 72.7% (1,485 ha) of the total area of all open spaces has amenity

value based on one or more of the criteria outlined above.

Table 10.3 – Amenity Value of Open Space

Amenity Value No. of Open

Spaces

% Total Area of all

Open Spaces

Area of Open Space

Visible from parts of the surrounding area 109 19.2 392.9

Visually attractive 204 62.8 1,281.8

Clearly definable townscape value 43 18.6 380.3

Provides relief from the built up area 62 41.9 856.4

Mitigates visual impact of unsightly land uses 15 1.7 34.0

Total open spaces with amenity value 245 72.7 1,485

Total open spaces with no amenity role 104 27.3 556.7

Amenity Land Use Designation

Area of Special Landscape Character 49 58.4 1,192.4

Education 10.11 Urban open spaces can represent an educational resource for both children and adults,

either on an organised basis such as schools using open spaces for activities linked to the

curriculum or on a more informal basis (nature walks etc). Educational roles should be

assessed in terms of the potential benefit to the wider community (not just schools) and

include the following (see below).

Sport / organised Games – Sites should be assessed for signs of existing use by

schools for active recreation.

Nature / environmental Study – Sites should have a range of ecological /

environmental features. For the sites to have an existing role there should be some

form of interpretation provision (e.g. boards, leaflets, programme of events).

Historical interpretation / understanding – Open spaces which form part of the

setting for any of the heritage designations including English Heritage Registered

Historic Parks and Gardens, Conservation Areas, Listed Buildings, Scheduled

Ancient Monuments, or sites located within the extent of the proposed World

Heritage Site boundary and buffer zone. For the sites to have an existing role there

should be some form of interpretation provision (boards, leaflets part of trail).

10.12 An assessment of the existing and potential value for spaces informed the education

component of the value assessment (refer to Appendix H).

10.13 Open spaces in Enfield were assessed on their existing and potential educational roles. A

total of 144 (41.3%) of open spaces in Enfield perform at least one existing educational role.

The most common existing role is for sport and organised games with a total of 35% of all

open spaces providing this role.


Final Report 116

10.14 Table 10.5 identifies that of assessed open spaces, 19.2% were assessed to have the

potential to introduce one or more educational roles, with 8.9% and 7.7% of assessed open

spaces having the potential to introduce sport and organised games and opportunities for

enhancing historical interpretation / understanding respectively.

Table 10.4 – Educational Role of Open Spaces

Educational Role

No. of Open Spaces

% of Total Open Spaces

Existing Potential Existing Potential

Sport / Organised Games 122 31 35 8.9

Nature / Environmental Study 17 27 4.9 7.7

Opportunities for enhancing historical interpretation / understanding

5 9 1.4 2.6

Total 144 67 41.3 19.2

*Note: A single space can have both an existing and a potential educational role.

Heritage Value 10.15 The relationship between open space provision and areas of heritage value within the

Borough is shown in Figure 10.4. This identifies the location of existing historic parks and

gardens, and the relationship between open space provision and Conservation Areas.

10.16 The English Heritage Register for Parks and Gardens of Special Historic Interest identifies

nine phases of park and garden development criteria which any site must meet to warrant

inclusion on the register:

sites with a main phase of development before 1750 where at least a proportion of

the layout of this date is still evident, even perhaps only as an earthwork;

sites with a main phase of development laid out between 1750 and 1820 where

enough of this landscaping survives to reflect the original design;

sites with a main phase of development between 1820 and 1880 which is of

importance and survives intact or relatively intact;

sites with a main phase of development between 1880 and 1939 where this is of

high importance and survives intact;

sites with a main phase of development laid out post-war, but more than 30 years

ago, where the work is of exceptional importance;

sites which were influential in the development of taste whether through reputation

or references in literature;

sites which are early or representative examples of a style or layout, or a type of site,

or the work of a designer (amateur or professional) of national importance;

sites having an association with significant persons or historical events; and

sites with strong group value.

10.17 These criteria, set by English Heritage, make specific reference to „Parks and Gardens‟ only.

Many of the open spaces assessed as part of the study do not qualify as either a Park or

Garden. However, cemeteries do fall within the scope of the Register criteria and can be

assessed for inclusion.

10.18 The English Heritage Local Register of Historic Parks and Gardens contains 28 open spaces.

Open space, West Lodge Park (marked on Figure 10.4 as space I), is included on the

English Heritage Local Register of Historic Parks and Gardens but was not included as part

of the Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006) or 2011 open space update. This


Final Report 117

space forms part of the West Lodge Park Hotel grounds and as such is not deemed to offer

other types of value or recreation due to its restricted access and so is not included in the

remainder of the assessment.

10.19 Table 10.6 identifies those open spaces included on the English Heritage Local and National

Registers of Historic Parks and Gardens.

Table 10.5 – Open Spaces Included within the EH Register of Historic Parks and Gardens

Open Space ID Site Name Area (Ha)

Included in the Local Register of Historic Parks and Gardens*

30 Tottenham Park Cemetery 2.4

31 Edmonton Federation Cemetery & Western Synagogue Cemetery

11.1

76 Edmonton Cemetery 11.9

78 Lavender Hill and Strayfield Cemeteries 17.5

79 Southgate Cemetery 5.5

129 Enfield Golf Course 37.3

135 Whitewebbs Park 58.3

137 Chase Green Gardens 0.8

138 Hilly Fields 26.8

139 Whitewebbs Golf Course 43.2

155 Durants Park 19.2

157 Ponders End Park 5.3

171 Pymmes Park 20.5

184 Tatem Park 6.0

200 New River Loop 2.5

201 Conical Corner 0.2

202 Chase Green 2.7

203 Cenotaph Gardens 0.1

204 St Andrews Churchyard 1.0

206 Library Green 0.4

207 Town Park 9.7

216 Minchenden Oak Garden 0.2

218 Arnos Park 17.3

219 Broomfield Park 21.4

228 Boxers Lake Open Space 4.9

240 Capel Manor 15.4

247 Enfield Crematorium 14.7

256 Hadley Wood Golf Club 77.2

Included in the National Register of Historic Parks and Gardens

136 (Grade II) Forty Hall Park & Estate 101

187 (Grade II*) (includes sites 251 and 213)

Grovelands Park 36.9

219 (Grade II Broomfield Park 21.4

224 (Grade II) Trent Park 188.2 *Site not included in open space assessment but still included as part of the local register of historic parks and gardens - West

Lodge Park

10.20 Criteria used to assess the cultural heritage value of spaces are identified in Appendix I. The

heritage value of spaces is incorporated within the composite assessment of open space

value described later in this section. No additional open space sites were identified which

have potential for inclusion on the English Heritage National or Local Registers of Parks and

Gardens.


Final Report 118

10.21 In addition, other open spaces also have heritage value as they form part of Conservation

Areas or their setting. There are 16 Conservation Areas within Enfield, 13 of which include

one or more areas of open space. These are:

Southgate Green (five spaces);

Enfield Town (11 spaces);

Winchmore Hill Green (one space);

Forty Hill (14 spaces);

Church Street Edmonton (two spaces);

Ponders End Flour Mills (one space);

Trent Park (four spaces);

Enfield Lock (two spaces);

Clay Hill (five spaces);

Montagu Road Cemeteries (two spaces);

Fore Street (one space);

Bush Hill Park (two spaces); and

Hadley Wood (one space).

10.22 The open spaces within these Conservation Areas are of value as they provide a setting for

the built fabric within these areas. Those open spaces which are contemporary with their

surroundings, such as some squares, are of additional value as they form an intrinsic part of

the ensemble of buildings and public spaces which led to Conservation Area designation.

10.23 The location of Scheduled Ancient Monuments in relation to open spaces within Enfield is

illustrated on Figure 10.4. There are over 200 „classes‟ of monuments on the schedule, and

they range from prehistoric standing stones and burial mounds through the many types of

medieval site – castles, monasteries, abandoned farmsteads and villages – to the more

recent results of human activity, such as collieries‟ and wartime pillboxes. Five open spaces

within Enfield incorporate Scheduled Ancient Monuments. These spaces are:

site 129 – Enfield Golf Course;

site 135 – Whitewebbs Park;

site 136 – Forty Hall Park & Estate;

site 224 – Trent Park; and

site 248 – Bush Hill Golf Course.

Social and Cultural 10.24 Open Spaces can also represent a source of wider social benefits and cultural value

providing the setting for sport, community meetings, fairs, firework displays, picnics etc.

Social benefits are recognised as perhaps the most obvious benefits and opportunities that

urban open spaces provide for City Living (Urban Open Spaces, 2003). For example the site

survey‟s identified two open spaces as existing venues for large scale outdoor events

including Broomfield Park (site 219) and Lea Valley Leisure Park (site 259). The social and

cultural benefits associated within open spaces follow (see below).


Final Report 119

Community focus – A sense of community can be provided by open spaces which

host small and large events and both organised and informal gatherings. Open

spaces also represent a source of local identity and pride.

Cultural focus – Parks and open spaces are important for people from different

cultures. They provide a venue for religious services, festivals and charity events.

Social focus – Open spaces provide opportunities for social interaction and the

development of social capital through family and group outings, community events

and activities, meetings between friends and chance encounters. Participation in

physical recreation has shown to contribute towards a reduction of incivilities and

anti-social behaviour among participants.

Health benefits – Open spaces provide benefits to health. Exercise and physical

activity contribute towards physical well being. Whilst peace and quiet, social

interaction, opportunities for aesthetic appreciation and proximity to nature is

beneficial to mental health and well being.

Educational focus – Open spaces provide opportunities for children‟s play which

are beneficial to child development. These benefits are not confined to children‟s

play areas but other features and experiences on offer within open spaces. Open

spaces provide visual stimulation, opportunities to develop and appreciation of

wildlife and the natural environment, opportunities to improve cognitive, co-

ordination and communication skills through play. Open spaces can provide a safe

environment for informal play and adventure which can foster a sense of

independence.

Heritage focus – Open spaces can be of historic value and provide opportunities for

people to engage with and interpret the historic environment which can provide a

sense of community identity.

10.25 Table 10.6 summarises the existing and potential cultural roles performed by open spaces in

Enfield. 12.3% of open spaces already perform a cultural role either through the provision of

dedicated facilities to support cultural activities or through events held within the space, whilst

8.3% of open spaces within the Borough have been identified as having potential to perform

culture related functions. Appendix H lists those spaces which have a potential social/cultural

role.

Table 10.6 – Social and Cultural Roles Performed by Open Spaces

Social / Cultural Role No. of Open Spaces % of Open Spaces

Existing Potential Existing Potential

Venue for large scale outdoor events 2 4 0.6 1.1

Dedicated venue for small scale events 22 24 6.3 6.9

Events Programme 10 13 2.9 3.7

Community / Youth Centre / Meeting Hall 10 7 2.9 2

Indoor Sports Hall / Leisure Centre 9 3 2.6 0.9

Total Open Space with one or more cultural role 43 29 12.3 8.3 Note: A single space can have both an existing and potential role

Ecological Role 10.26 It is recognised that open space within the London Borough of Enfield is fundamental to

biodiversity. Both large and small green spaces play a vital role for biodiversity by providing

links and stepping stones as well as increasing the ecological permeability of urban habitats.

For a detailed assessment of natural and semi-natural green space provision within Enfield


Final Report 120

refer to Chapter 7. Criteria used to assess the ecological role of spaces are outlined in

Appendix I.

Composite Value Analysis 10.27 A composite assessment of the value of open spaces was undertaken which considered the

context within which the open space lies, the level and type of use associated with the space

and the wider benefits it generates for people, biodiversity and the wider environment.

10.28 The following types of value were examined:

the context of the open space including local open space needs, park deficiencies,

site access arrangements and barriers of access to and within the open space;

the recreational function performed by the open space;

the structural role of open space in separating and defining communities;

the amenity value of space;

historical / heritage value of spaces;

the ecological and environmental roles performed by spaces;

the existing and potential educational value of spaces to the community; and

the cultural roles spaces perform (e.g. community venues, performance spaces).

10.29 The criteria used to assess each of these dimensions of value are described fully in Appendix

I. Each of the values were weighted and given a percentage score. The Value score of each

space is also given in Appendix H.

10.30 The value of individual spaces within Enfield is illustrated on Figure 10.5. The overall value of

spaces within the Borough is summarised within Table 10.7. The value scores were not

weighted to reflect the type of open space (unlike the quality assessment). The value scores

should be viewed as an indicator of the “richness” of individual spaces. The only major

aspect of the site value which could not be established from the onsite assessments was

usage levels of individual spaces. The 2006 resident‟s survey provides an indication of the

usage to be established on a park by park basis. However, it is not possible for this study to

use the resident‟s survey information to inform the value assessment at this stage as

information on usage was not collected for every space. Whilst the survey does provide

information on usage patterns for larger spaces, usage data for all spaces is required if this is

to be factored into the value scoring system without skewing the results.


Final Report 121

Figure 10.7 – Value Weightings

10.31 Almost all spaces within the study area have value of some kind along one or more

dimensions described above. The open spaces which perform the most roles are likely to be

the most valued spaces to the community. However, the reverse is not necessarily true.

10.32 The value scores should not be used to directly compare different types or sizes of open

space as, for example, it is not expected that an amenity space within a housing area should

be of the same value as a District Park.

Table 10.7 – Composite Value Scores

Range of Score % No. Open Spaces

% Open Spaces

0 - 10 48 13.8

11 - 20 191 54.7

21 - 30 70 20.1

31 - 40 20 5.7

41 - 50 11 3.2

51 - 60 9 2.6

61 - 70 0 0

71 - 80 0 0

Total 349* 100 *Does not include site 356 Sketty Road allotment as this site has not been assessed.

10.33 Table 10.7 shows the distribution of value scores. It should be recognised that a score of

more than around 15% indicates that an open space is contributing significantly to one or

more dimensions of value described above. Only rarely do individual spaces fulfil all of the

dimensions of value identified in the highest category, this is why only 20 open spaces score

more than 41% and nine spaces more than 51%. 261 sites (74.8% of total open spaces)

scored between 11% and 30%. This is likely due to the high prevalence of amenity

greenspace (76) and playing fields (121) in Enfield, which often have a limited number of

functions. This does not mean that these spaces are not valued, as they will often have a

10%

15%

15%

10% 10%

10%

10%

10%

10% Cultural

Site Context

Recreational

Structural

Amenity

Heritage

Ecological

Environmental

Educational


Final Report 122

high amenity score, but it means that such spaces do not offer the „richness‟ of other spaces

such as public parks.

10.34 The lowest scoring sites, in terms of value, include site 140 – Slades Close (natural / semi-

natural greenspace), 245 – Bury Street Council Depot (other), 27 – Norman Way Community

Gardens (amenity greenspace) and 186 – Hounsden Gutter (linear openspace / green

corridor). The highest scoring sites, in terms of value, include site 207 – Town Park (Local

Park), 219, Broomfield Park (District Park), 171 – Pymmes Park (District Park) and 187 –

Grovelands Park (District Park).

10.35 The value scores should not be viewed on a continuum. A space which has a score of 50%

does not necessarily contribute twice as much value to the community as a space which

scores 25%. It is important to consider each of the different dimensions of „value‟ individually

when considering the value of open space sites to the community.

10.36 The value scores provide a snapshot of existing open space value. However, this is not fixed

and can be enhanced over time through improvements to the open space. Some aspects of

value are more easily changed than others through enhancement and improvement.

Combining Quality and Value 10.37 Assessing the quality and value of open spaces is fundamental to identifying those spaces or

facilities which should be given the highest level of protection by the planning system, those

which require enhancement and those which may no longer be needed for their present

purpose.

10.38 The Companion Guide to PPG17 recommends using this simple high/low classification to

provide a means of determining the most appropriate policy approach to each open space. It

also provides a basis for linking planning, design, management and maintenance.

Table 10.8 – Quality / Value Matrix

High Quality / Low Value High Quality / High Value

Wherever possible, the preferred policy approach to a space or facility in this category should be to enhance its value in terms of its present primary purpose. If this is not possible, the next best policy approach is to consider whether it might be of high value if converted to some other primary purpose. Only if this is also impossible will it be acceptable to consider a change of use.

Ideally all space and facilities should come into this category and the planning system should then seek to protect them.

Low Quality / Low Value Low Quality / High Value

Wherever possible, the approach to these spaces or facilities should be to enhance their value. If this is not possible, for whatever reasons, the space of facility may be 'surplus to requirements' in terms of its present primary purpose.

The policy approach to these spaces or facilities should always be to enhance their quality and therefore the planning system should seek to protect them.


Final Report 123

10.39 The relationship between the quality and value of open spaces within Enfield is illustrated by

Figure 10.9 below. It plots the quality and value scores for each open space on a graph.

Appendix J illustrates the results of this exercise on a site by site basis.

10.40 Many of the high quality and low value spaces represent mono-functional open spaces which

only contribute to the community in a limited way. Within areas of identified deficiency (in

terms of quantity, quality or access) it is important that such spaces do not under perform in

terms of their potential value and multi-functionality and are improved to fulfil their potential.

10.41 250 of the 349 open spaces (excluding site 356 Sketty Road allotment) score over 15% in the

value assessment which indicates that the open space is contributing significantly to one or

more dimensions of value.

Figure 10.8 – Combining Quality and Value Scores

10.42 By using the average scores for value and quality, it is possible to establish how many of

Enfield‟s open spaces are assessed as above and below the average quality and value.

Table 10.9 demonstrates that 22.9% of Enfield‟s open spaces have been assessed as being

of „high quality and high value‟, and 11.7% are of low quality and high value. Low value

spaces were evenly split with 32.7% of spaces achieving high quality and 32.7% achieving

low quality.

Table 10.9 – Relationship Between Quality and Value

Quality - Value Rating No. Open Spaces

% Open Spaces

High Quality & Value 80 22.9

Low Quality High Value 41 11.7

High Quality Low Value 114 32.7

Low Quality and Value 114 32.7

Total 349* 100 *excludes site 356 Sketty Road allotment as this site has not been assessed.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Val

ue

Ass

ess

me

nt

Green Flag Score


Final Report 124

Scope for Change and Improvement 10.43 The 2006 and 2011 open space site audits included identification of the physical potential for

sites to accommodate a range of possible changes. The evaluation of potential physical

improvements, which was carried out during the site visits, is intended to identify possible

opportunities and not to assess the feasibility of improvements or identify particular projects.

Table 10.10 provides a summary if the overall number of open spaces with scope for each of

the changes / improvements. Figure 10.6 illustrates the distribution of spaces with scope for

improvement while Appendix O identifies these spaces.

Table 10.10 – Scope for Change / Improvement

Scope for Change / Improvement No. of sites

% of all open

spaces

Potential for improved site utilisation (site redesign / improvement) 101 28.9

Potential opportunities for introducing other open space uses 84 24.1

Potential to improve landscaping 55 15.8

Potential to improve accessibility within the park 29 8.3

Potential for enhancing historic value 7 2.0

Physical potential to intensify use of existing pitches 43 12.3

Physical potential to accommodate changing rooms / social facilities 20 5.7

Physical potential for additional pitches 23 6.6

No real Scope for improvement 166 47.6

Potential to improve safety aspects within the park 35 10.0

Other 7 2.0

Potential for Improved Utilisation

10.44 Some 101 sites (28% of open spaces) have been identified as having potential for improved

site utilisation (see Figure 10.6). Identification of sites indicates that there are either areas

within the site which have no particular role or purpose, or that there are facilities or parts of

the site which may be used perhaps due to the quality of the environment or the condition of

existing provision.

Potential Opportunities for Introducing Other Open Space

Uses

10.45 Some 84 sites (24.1% of open spaces) have been identified as having potential for the

introduction of other open space uses (see Figure 10.6). Identification of sites indicates that

either all or part of the site does not currently fulfil the primary role of the open space

suggested by its place within the open space hierarchy. There is the potential for re-defining

the primary role of the space or potential to diversify the range of open space functions

currently performed by the space to increase its value to the community.

Potential to Improve Landscaping

10.46 Some 55 sites (15.8% of open spaces) have been identified as having potential to improve

landscaping and the quality of the environment within the park / open space (see Figure

10.6). Almost all sites could potentially be subject to minor landscaping improvements. These

open spaces were only selected where there was a strong justification for making

improvements to improve the value of the site to the community through providing a more

varied environment within the park or where existing landscapes are of poor quality and


Final Report 125

require enhancement measures rather than simple improvements to management or

maintenance.

Potential to Improve Accessibility within the Park

10.47 Some 29 sites (8.3% of open spaces) have been identified as having potential to improve

accessibility within the open space (see Figure 10.6). Such sites were identified because they

have barriers to pedestrians, cyclists or those with mobility difficulties which preclude or

discourage potential users from the space, or because the condition of existing paths and

routes through the space are inadequate. Another reason for identifying the potential for

improving access was the number and attractiveness of entrances to the open space.

Potential to Improve Historic Value

10.48 Some seven sites (2% of open spaces) have been identified as having the potential to

improve historic value within the open space. The open spaces of cultural heritage value

within the Borough should be seen as key interpretation assets for schools and lifelong

learning programmes. Improved intelligibility of the open spaces can be achieved through

enhancements such as planting and modern landscaping which reflects / copies the original

forms, and also through the use or sensitive and appropriate interpretation facilities. These

can take the form of portable media such as pamphlets or even tours or simple display

boards.

10.49 At present disparities are evident in relation to the interpretation facilities amongst the various

sites across the Borough. In most cases where interpretation facilities exist they consist of

display boards summarising the historic development of the site. Some of the sites identified

in the assessment as being good examples of well preserved designed landscapes, that are

also well-maintained, disappoint by the quality or lack of interpretation facilities. Such sites

include the New River (site 333), Boxer‟s Lake Open Space (site 228) Cheyne Walk Open

Space (site 209) and parts of Trent Park (site 224).

Conclusions and Recommendations 10.50 The value placed on open space is multi-functional and relates to a range of roles. Each

open space will have a different mix of values to each individual user.

10.51 The 2006 assessment and 2011 update have shown that many of the spaces surveyed are

being used by schools and communities as an educational resource and location for social

events.

10.52 The network of open spaces also provides a valuable ecological resource. Enfield benefits

from a number of areas of nature conservation interest or importance and such areas offer

opportunities for the conservation of wildlife and for raising environmental awareness.

10.53 There are areas of the Borough which are deficient in accessible natural or semi-natural

greenspace provision.

10.54 80 spaces within the Borough (22.9%) have been assessed as being of high quality of high

value to the community. Many of the high quality low value spaces represent mono-functional

open spaces which only contribute to the community in a limited way. Within areas of

identified deficiency (in terms of quantity, quality or access) it is important that such spaces

do not under perform in terms of their potential value and multi-functionality and are improved

to fulfil their potential.


Final Report 126


Final Report 127

11. Provision for Pitch Sports within Enfield

Introduction 11.1 Playing pitch supply within the London Borough of Enfield has been assessed following a

comprehensive update to the Sports Assessment (2006). Those sites identified in the Sports

Assessment (2006) as being a location for outdoor pitch provision were re-assessed in the

spring of 2011. The visits included 104 sites assessed as part of the Sports Assessment

(2006) as being in either „Secured Community Use‟, „No Public Access‟ or „Casual Use‟ as

well as an additional three sites not included in the Sports Assessment (2006).

11.2 The 2011 update identified that of the 107 sites assessed, 94 open spaces within the

Borough had provision for outdoor pitch sports while 84 open spaces had provision for grass

pitches.

11.3 The findings of the updated site appraisals were verified using data from Sport England‟s

Active Places database and Council pitch booking records. This verification process was

particularly important given that the 2011 update of site appraisals was completed towards

the end of the football season and the beginning of the cricket season. The timing of the site

visits meant that those sites with a dual sports use (i.e. venues that cater for winter and

summer sports at the same location) were in the process of changing line markings to reflect

the end of the football/rugby season and the start of the cricket/athletics season. This made it

important to complete a cross-check to ensure pitches were not missed during the

appraisals due to poorly visible line markings, no posts etc.

Assessment of Playing Pitch Supply 11.4 The findings of the updated playing pitch audit are shown in Table 11.1. However, the pitch

assessment findings later in the chapter focus upon full size, junior and mini outdoor grass

pitches which are in secure community use. This is consistent with the requirements of

Sports England guidance Towards a Level Playing Field, and enables the results of the study

to be compared with national standards and provision within other local authorities. Those

sites providing pitches that are not accessible to the general public were also assessed as

part of the study. However, in accordance with the Sport England methodology, these sites

have been considered in terms of their potential role in meeting future needs.

11.5 Other types of pitch provision such as artificial turf pitches as well as consideration of casual

use and hard surface training facilities have been treated separately.

Scope of the Supply Assessment

11.6 The key definitions of pitch supply used within the chapter are outlined below.

Sports Covered

11.7 The open space site survey included the identification of all outdoor sports facilities in Enfield.

In relation to pitch sports, this chapter has concentrated its analysis on the four most popular

pitch sports which require access to extensive marked out areas of open space. These sports

in terms of land take and participation are football, cricket, rugby union and hockey. Provision

relating to other outdoor sports is considered later in this chapter.

Pitch Identification

11.8 Within planning legislation the Statutory Instrument 1817 The Town and Country (General

Development Procedure) (Amendment) Order 1996 defines a playing field as „a delineated


Final Report 128

area which, together with any run-off area, is of 0.4 hectares (1 acre) or more and which is

used for association football, American football, cricket, rugby, hockey, lacrosse, rounder‟s,

baseball, softball, Australian Rules football, Gaelic football, shinty, hurling, polo or cycle polo

(grass or artificial surface).

11.9 Subsequently, guidance from the Department for Education and Science (DfES) defined a

minimum pitch size of 0.2 ha2. In order to maintain conformity with current legislation all sites

with pitches of at least 0.2 ha were identified as part of this study.

Scope of the Pitch Supply Survey

11.10 The updated site survey assessment and review of playing pitch demand included

assessment of a wide range of attributes associated with outdoor playing pitches including:

the number, type and surface of sports pitches including floodlighting and enclosure;

the condition of pitches;

the quality of pitch drainage;

the existence and quality of changing accommodation;

the accessibility of open spaces containing playing pitches;

the usage of pitches; and

pitch ownership and access arrangements.

11.11 A copy of the site pro-forma used within the assessment and the survey guidelines used to

assess pitch condition are included in Appendices A and B.

Analysis of Existing Provision

Overall Pitch Provision

11.12 Provision for a range of outdoor sport pitches exists within the London Borough of Enfield

(see Table 11.1), spread across a total of 318 pitches. Provision for football far outweighs

other outdoor pitch sports within the Borough in quantitative terms. Analysis of the data

obtained from site surveys (2011) revealed that there are a total of 248 football pitches

(including full size, junior and mini pitches), 33 cricket pitches (full size and junior), 21 rugby

pitches and 15 hockey pitches. It is important to note that this study defines a cricket pitch as

the overall cricket „square‟ rather than the number of wickets within the „square‟. One pitch

was identified with provision for baseball. Within the provision figures outlined in Table 11.1

there is dedicated provision for junior football, including 69 junior (6-a-side and 7-a-side)

football pitches and 43 5-a-side (mini) pitches, reflecting the relative popularity of junior

football within the Borough. However, of the 43 5-a-side pitches identified only 12 were

assessed as having a grass surface.

11.13 The updated assessment also highlights that provision for junior participation exists in other

pitch sports, including five junior cricket pitches, although no junior rugby pitches were

identified. A further finding that can be drawn from Table 11.1 is that only 47 pitches within

the Borough were identified on a surface other than grass (27 all weather pitches and 20

hard surface pitches). No pitches were assessed to consist of a redgra surface, which is a

form of impact absorbent hard surface. These figures refer to the total number of pitches

regardless of site access arrangements and the surface of the pitch. Appendix L provides a

breakdown of the total number of pitches at each site by type, surface, access and

ownership.

2 The protection of School Playing Fields and Land for city Academies, Ref. DfES 0580/2001, Annex B.


Final Report 129

Table 11.1 – All Pitches by Surface

Pitch Type Grass All

weather Hard

Surface Total

Football Full Size 130 6 0 136

Football Junior 68 1 0 69

Football 5-aside (mini) 12 13 18 43

Cricket Full size 28 0 0 28

Cricket Junior 5 0 0 5

Rugby Full Size 21 0 0 21

Rugby Junior 0 0 0 0

Hockey 6 7 2 15

Baseball 1 0 0 1

Total 271 27 20 318

Pitch Access, Availability and usage

11.14 In considering the overall scale of pitch provision it is vital to consider the status of playing

pitch sites with regards to their accessibility and availability. In order for the study to be

consistent with Sport England guidance all pitches and casual playing areas were classified

into a number of categories to reflect their status. This included consideration of site

management arrangements, including levels of access, ownership and usage. The status of

pitch sites draws from the findings of the Sports Assessment (2006) which verified a

preliminary assessment, undertaken during site assessments, with demand information

obtained from Pitch Sports Club and Schools Questionnaires. For the purposes of this

update, the following categories of use, as defined by Sport England in page 43 of Towards a

Level Playing Field: A Guide to the production of Playing Pitch Strategies, have been used.

Secured Community Use

11.15 The term „secured community use‟ is generally accepted to embrace the following:

all local authority parks and playing fields;

educational facilities where they are subject to formal dual use / community use

agreements. Although some school sites are available for purposes other than

education, others are currently not open for community use;

any other institutional facilities which are available to the public; and

any facilities owned, used or maintained by clubs / private organisations or

individuals which as a matter of policy or practice are available for use by large

sections of the public through membership or a club or admission fee. In either case

the cost of use must be reasonable and affordable for the majority of the community.

This category may include facilities to which there is restricted physical access

during part of the week.

11.16 The cost of using the facilities described above must be considered reasonable and

affordable by the majority of the community. As such, the adopted methodology excludes any

sites that are used predominately for professional / elite sporting activities and are only

available to the wider community on an infrequent basis. The site survey work identified no

such sites currently operating in the London Borough of Enfield although Tottenham Hotspur

training ground is currently under development.

Sites not open for community use (No Public Access)

11.17 Sites where one or more pitches are provided but where as a matter of policy or practice are

not available for hire by the public. This category includes a large number of school sites that


Final Report 130

have dedicated pitches for educational use, and are not used for league fixtures during the

evenings or weekends.

Sites with kick-about Areas or Pitches in Casual Use (Casual Use)

11.18 In addition to sites that contain marked pitches, some open space sites have marked pitches

for casual use or other pitch sport opportunities typically consisting of informal kick-about

areas with one or more goal posts. These sites are unsuitable for league games due to lack

of facilities, site topography, insufficient pitch size and lack of space for the run of the ball,

maintenance or other management issues.

11.19 Table 11.2 provides a breakdown of the number of pitches within the Borough using the site

status categories provided above. The distribution of pitch sites within the Borough by access

is identified by Figure 11.1. For the purposes of the demand assessment only demand for

grass pitches in secured public use has been considered.

Table 11.2 – All Pitches by Status (No. Pitches)

Status Pitch Type Grass All Weather Hard Surface Total

Secured Community Use Football Full Size 113 5 0 118

(49 sites) Football Junior 42 0 0 42






Hockey 3 4 0 7

Baseball 1 0 0 1

No Public Access Football Full Size 11 1 0 12







Hockey 3 3 2 8

Baseball 0 0 0 0

Casual Use Football Full Size 6 0 0 6







Hockey 0 0 0 0

Baseball 0 0 0 0

Total 271 27 20 318

11.20 A summary of pitch provision in percentage terms is shown in Table 11.3. The majority of

pitches identified by the study are in secure community use (70.8%). Over 26% of pitches are

found in sites that are not accessible to the general public at present while only 2.5% of

pitches within Enfield were in casual use.


Final Report 131

Table 11.3 – Pitch Status Summary

Status % Pitches

Secured Community Use 70.8

No Public Access 26.7

Casual Use 2.5

Total 100

Pitch Provision in Secured Community Use

11.21 A more detailed analysis of pitches that are in secure community use is provided in Table

11.4 below.

Table 11.4 – Pitches in Secure Community Use by Type

Pitch Type Grass (%) All Weather

(%) Hard Surface

(%)

Total Number of

Pitches

Football Full size 96 4 0 118

Football Junior 100 0 0 42

Football 5-a-side 9 91 0 11





Hockey 43 57 0 7

Baseball 100 0 0 1

Total 92 8 0 225

11.22 Table 11.4 identifies the proportion of each pitch type in secure community use. The majority

of pitches that fall into this category are provided for on grass pitches. Just 4% of full size

football pitches in the Borough were identified on a surface other than grass. 91% of 5-a-side

football pitches have all weather surfaces with the remaining having grass surfaces. All

cricket pitches are provided on grass with no artificial wickets identified. As expected, no

provision is made for rugby on artificial pitches. 57% of hockey pitches within the Borough

are provided on all weather pitches.

Access

11.23 Access arrangements to pitches in secure public use vary according to the type of open

space that they are located in. Table 11.5 identifies the ownership of open spaces, playing

pitches are located within. Although the majority (55%) of open spaces in the Borough

hosting pitch provision in secure community use are found in public parks and other publically

owned spaces, a significant proportion of sites containing pitches have alternative ownership

/ maintenance arrangements. 20% of sites are owned and managed by Enfield Borough

Council Education, whilst 20% are privately owned and managed. The ownership

arrangements for the remainder of sites can also be seen Table 11.5.


Final Report 132

Table 11.5 – Pitches in Secure Community Use by Ownership

Ownership Total Sites %

LB Enfield Park / Open Space 27 55

LB Enfield Education 10 20

Private sector owned and managed 10 20

Publically owned and voluntary sector managed 0 0

Other publicly owned and managed 0 0

Publicly owned and private sector managed 0 0

Voluntary sector owned and managed 2 4

Total Sites in Secure Community Use 49 100

11.24 A strong relationship exists between the type of open space and its access arrangements.

Some open spaces contain pitches that have unlimited access to the public, these pitches

are almost exclusively located within public parks and open spaces owned by the Council.

Pitches located within school grounds and private open spaces tend to have more restricted

access arrangements and may only be available to clubs at limited times during the week.

These open spaces tend to be more mono-functional with outdoor sports often the only

recreational activity taking place within such spaces.

11.25 Table 11.6 indicates the number and percentage of sites in secure community use that are

subject to particular arrangements. Over half (51%) of sites in secure community use and

hosting sports pitches have general public access. 45% of sites are accessible to individual

teams although cannot be accessed by members of the general public for the majority of the

week. The condition of the playing surface at these sites can generally be maintained to a

higher standard than in public parks and other open spaces, which tend to be more

susceptible to problems such as dog fouling, vandalism, and other unauthorised activities.

Table 11.6 – Access to Sites in Secure Community Use

Access Total Sites %

General Public Access 25 51

De facto public access 1 2

Shared / Dual use 1 2

Restricted Access 22 45

No Public Access 0 0

Total sites in secure community use 49 100

Ratio of Pitches per Person

11.26 Out of a total 318 outdoor sports pitches identified by the updated assessment, 194 are full

size football, cricket, rugby and hockey pitches (Table 11.7). This figure includes all known

public, private, school and other pitches, irrespective of whether or not they are in secure

community use. This total equates to one pitch for every 1,194 adults within the study area

(based on ONS Rounded Mid-year Population Estimates 2009). Enfield therefore has a

slightly lower level of provision when compared against the equivalent national figure of one

pitch for every 989 adults3 . However, it should be recognised that the national figure of one

pitch for every 989 adults is derived using pitch and population data collected in 1991 and so

any comparison with current provision should be treated with caution.

3 Register of recreation land, Department of National Heritage, 1994


Final Report 133

11.27 Potential difficulties exist in comparing 1991 with recent data as in 1991 full sized pitches

were normally used for junior fixtures (if it can be assumed that current junior pitches were

marked as full sized pitches in 1991) prior to the introduction of the UEFA directive.

Table 11.7 – Local Pitch / Per Person for Individual Sports

Sport No. Pitches* Enfield

(pitches/person)** England

(pitches/person)

Senior Football 130 1 : 1,782 1 : 1,840

Cricket 28 1 : 8,275 1 : 4,243

Rugby 21 1 : 11,033 1 : 8,271

Hockey 15 1 : 15,447 1 : 8,968

*Includes full size grass pitches only (hockey and cricket includes artificial surface pitches)

** ONS Rounded Mid-year Population Estimates 2009

11.28 Table 11.7 provides a useful supply comparator based upon population data with which to

compare demand related indicators derived from club survey and national participation rates.

However, due to problems of comparing data over time it only represents a supplementary

indicator to verify the findings of the main assessment. It identifies that Enfield performs only

slightly worse than the English average overall. However, the Borough performs better than

the English average in terms of the provision of full size football pitches per person.

Distribution and Access to Outdoor Playing Pitches

11.29 The distribution of pitches within the Borough is uneven and a reflection of a number of

factors, including the historical development of the Borough, topography, and other factors. In

order to consider whether the distribution of playing field provision is adequate it is necessary

to analyse the spatial distribution of the playing pitch sites within the Borough.

11.30 Figure 11.2 shows the distribution of open spaces containing outdoor playing pitches in

secure community use within Enfield. The overall distribution of pitches is fairly even across

the Borough, those areas without a playing pitch in secure community use are generally on

the urban fringe, where the population density is unlikely to be sufficient to justify an

additional pitch. In built-up areas, Jubilee and Lower Edmonton wards have the lowest

provision of pitches in secure community use.

11.31 Figure 11.2 also illustrates that the distribution of cricket pitches is fairly uneven, with most of

the Borough‟s cricket pitches located west of the A10.

11.32 To provide a robust assessment of playing pitch provision within the London Borough of

Enfield it has been necessary to gain a greater appreciation of the various modes of travel

that playing pitch users utilise to access the various playing pitch sites in the Borough.

Table 11.8 – Mode of Transport to Outdoor Playing Pitches

Mode Total Male Female

Car 38 41 22 39 16 43

Bus 6 6 3 5 3 8

Train 0 0 0 0 0 0

On foot 47 51 29 52 18 49

Cycle 2 2 2 4 0 0

Other 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 93 100% 56 100% 37 100% Source: Resident‟s Survey (Sports Assessment 2006). Refers to adults aged 16+

11.33 Table 11.8 uses information obtained from the Open Space Needs Assessment (2006)

Resident‟s Survey. Table 11.8 demonstrates that the majority (51%) of adult outdoor playing

pitch users travel by foot to pitch venues, with roughly 41% travelling by private car. Men


Final Report 134

have a greater tendency to walk to outdoor playing pitches in comparison to women.

Conversely, women are more likely to travel to a playing pitch venue by public transport.

Table 11.9 – Travel Time to Outdoor Playing Pitches

Travel Time Total Male Female

About 5 minutes 40 43 21 38 19 51

6 - 10 minutes 18 19 11 20 7 19

11 - 15 minutes 17 18 11 20 6 16

16 - 20 minutes 9 10 6 11 3 8

21 - 30 minutes 7 8 5 9 2 5

31 - 45 minutes 1 1 1 2 0 0

46 - 60 minutes 0 0 0 0 0 0

Over an hour 1 1 1 2 0 0

Total 93 100% 56 100% 37 100% Source: Resident‟s Survey (Sports Assessment 2006). Refers to adults aged 16+

11.34 An effective catchment area for playing fields can be derived by examining the area from

which 70-80% of users are drawn from. Table 12.9 demonstrates that 80% of respondents

stated that they travel less than 15 minutes to get to a playing pitch site, with 62% travelling

under 10 minutes. Men are more likely than women to travel a greater distance to this type of

open space: whereas 24% of men stated that they travel more than 15 minutes, around 13%

of women gave the same response to the question. Therefore a 15 minute travel time

represents the effective catchment area for playing fields in Enfield. This represents a

1,200m pedestrian catchment (distance as the crow flies).

11.35 In order to account for the urban form and physical barriers such as roads and railway lines,

pedestrian catchments have been adjusted to 840m to better reflect the pedestrian

catchment areas from home to open space (this distance is used within Figure 11.3 to

represent 1,200m on the ground).

11.36 Although pedestrian catchments identified above may reflect catchment areas for casual use,

findings from the club survey (Sports Assessment 2006) indicated that sports clubs draw their

membership from much wider catchment areas. The findings show that whilst the pedestrian

accessibility catchments are relevant to general open space areas, they are not necessarily

applicable to patterns of playing pitch demand in Enfield.

Figure 11.3 illustrates the 1,200m pedestrian catchments as derived from the

methodology described above for playing pitches in secure community use.

Catchments are not shown for pitches where there is no public access or marked

pitches in casual use. Although some sites are more than 2 hectares in size, the

propensity to travel to these sites for pitch sport use is likely to be similar to small

sites.

Figure 11.3 illustrates the 1,200m catchment area as applied to all pitches in secure

community use. Only a small area, just south east of Oakwood station, in addition to

a small part of the east of Jubilee ward are deficient in pedestrian access according

to the methodology described above.

11.37 The above analysis indentifies a number of areas that are not immediately served by sites

which are actively managed for outdoor pitch sports. The implications of growth in the

number of households within areas where deficiencies in outdoor sports is greatest must also

be considered.

11.38 Some of the pitches located in the north and west of the Borough, suffer from poor

accessibility by public transport. The best public transport links, according to the Public


Final Report 135

Transport Accessibility (PTAL) map produced by Transport for London, tend to be found in

the Enfield Town area, as well as towards Edmonton Green. As a consequence, those

residents who rely on public transport to reach an open space containing a playing pitch may

find accessibility an issue.

11.39 Expressed demand at each playing field site is influenced by movements of players from

different parts of the Borough and from outside the Borough. In order to make an assessment

of these patterns, the club survey (Sports Assessment 2006) asked clubs to provide an

estimate of the percentage of regular playing members which live within different areas of the

Borough, neighbouring Boroughs and further afield.

11.40 Table 11.10 identifies the percentage of club members which are drawn from within the

Borough (including particular sub areas) and outside the Borough for each sport. It should be

noted that the sample size for the analysis of team catchments is small as not all clubs

provided this information. No hockey clubs were able to provide information on the location of

their club members.

11.41 Around 65% of regular participants in football reside in the London Borough of Enfield.

Conversely, the proportion of players for cricket which reside in the Borough (90%) is

significantly higher. The sample is too small for rugby union to draw any conclusions from

these results.

Table 11.10 – Location of Club Members by Sport %

Sport Football Rugby Cricket

Total of Clubs that responded 11 1 4

Members from Enfield Borough 66.19 60 90.29

Bush Hill Park, Palmers Green, Winchmore Hill

7.89 10 7.09

Cockfosters, Oakwood, Grange Park and Hadley Wood

1.83 10 21.25

Enfield Chase, Enfield Town, Gordon Hill, Forty Hill and Southbury

5.07 10 7.36

Enfield Highway, Enfield Lock, Brimsdown and Freezywater

25.66 10 1.08

Jubilee Park, Lower Edmonton and Ponders End

18.38 10 0.54

Edmonton Green, Haselbury, Silver Street and Upper Edmonton

4.27 5 0.54

Bowes Park, Amos Grove, Southgate and Bounds Green

3.08 5 52.42

Outside of Borough 33.81 40 9.71 Source: Club Questionnaire (Sports Assessment 2006)

11.42 The finding that some club members come from outside the Borough is not surprising since

membership of a given club can depend a great deal on social ties which will not necessarily

accord with the club based at the nearest ground to a player‟s place of residence, particularly

if such ties are formed through work, family or other affiliations.

11.43 The findings of the analysis of club catchments have implications for identifying appropriate

sports provision in order to serve the needs generated by new housing development as

although there should be a playing field within walking distance for at least casual

participation, residents are prepared to travel to play pitch sports. However, in order to

encourage sustainable travel patterns it is important that wherever possible playing fields are

accessible by transport modes other than the private car.


Final Report 136

Defining an Appropriate Pitch Access Standard

11.44 In defining an appropriate standard for pitch access it is important to consider the distribution

of existing pitch provision, the patterns of demand within the Borough (in terms of the various

population densities) and the potential to change or influence the existing distribution of pitch

provision within the Borough. Other strategic objectives include reducing the need to travel by

non-motorised forms of transport and maximising the sustainable use of the existing facilities

to make the most efficient use of land and buildings.

11.45 Deficiencies in access to pitches in secure community use also need to be considered in

relation to population distribution and demand which are unevenly spread across the

Borough. Table 11.11 shows the relationship between the total area of open spaces including

one or more pitches in secure community use and population by ward. The indicator of area

of pitch sites (in secure community use) per 1,000 / population needs to be carefully

considered as the results are influenced by ward boundaries which arbitrarily divide the

Borough.

Table 11.11 – Area of Pitches in Secure Community Use per 1,000 / Population

Ward Population Mid-2009

Area of Pitch Sites in Secure

Community Use (Ha)

Total Pitch Sites per 1,000 population (Ha)

Bowes 11,631 10.31 0.89

Bush Hill Park 13,690 31.07 2.27

Chase 13,102 15.82 1.21

Cockfosters 13,151 25.22 1.92

Edmonton Green 16,043 24.27 1.51

Enfield Highway 15,005 50.82 3.39

Enfield Lock 15,225 3.60 0.24

Grange 12,565 9.67 0.77

Haselbury 15,187 25.20 1.66

Highlands 12,625 3.20 0.25

Jubilee 14,110 19.91 1.41

Lower Edmonton 15,134 0.00 0.00 Palmers Green 13,493 5.04 0.37 Ponders End 13,774 5.30 0.38

Southbury 13,323 56.47 4.24

Southgate 13,614 7.52 0.55

Southgate Green 13,201 24.24 1.84

Town 14,517 7.24 0.50

Turkey Street 13,466 10.58 0.79

Upper Edmonton 15,795 2.76 0.17

Winchmore Hill 12,579 43.23 3.44

Total 291,230 381.46 1.31 Source: 2010 Ward Population Estimates for England and Wales, mid-2009 (experimental statistics)

11.46 With reference to Table 11.11, it is evident that the total open space with at least one pitch in

secure community use per 1,000 / population is not evenly distributed across all wards in

Enfield. Whilst the Southbury Ward, which includes Bush Hill Park and Enfield Playing Fields,

has 4.24 ha of sites containing at least one pitch per 1,000 / population, Lower Edmonton has

no sites containing pitches in secure community use.


Final Report 137

Pitch Quality and Facilities

11.47 In addition to pitch availability and accessibility, the quality of the pitch and supporting

facilities has a strong influence on the attractiveness of a particular facility to prospective

clubs. Within the London Borough of Enfield there are differences in the condition of pitches

and the quality of ancillary facilities between different grounds.

Pitch Surface and Type

11.48 The provision of pitches within the Borough includes grass, all weather and hard surface

facilities. For football, cricket and rugby matches governing bodies stipulate that matches

must be played on grass pitches. Other surfaces normally support training and more casual

use. For competitive Hockey matches, an all weather artificial surface is the preferred playing

surface.

11.49 Following a binding directive from UEFA, the Football Association (FA) introduced new

regulations in 1999 which now mean that only mini soccer will now be promoted amongst

children under the age of 12. The main implication of this for the planning and provision of

sports pitches is the need to provide small sides for specific age groups.

11.50 The site assessment identified 42 junior sized grass pitches and one 5-a-side grass pitch in

secure community use. In addition there are also 25 junior pitches with no public access in

Borough. Potentially, additional but temporary small sided pitches may exist in the form of full

sized pitches which are converted on a temporary basis for small sided games. The

maximum dimensions of each pitch type shown in Table 11.12.

Table 11.12 – Dimensions of Small Sided Pitches

Age Group Number per team

Recommended pitch size

Category used in

database

Under 7's 4 a side 37 x 28 m 5 a side

Under 8's 5 a side 37 x 28 m 5 a side

Under 9's - under 12's 6-7 a side 55 x 37m Junior

Under 13's - under 18's 11 a side Full size Full size Source: Sport England (2003) Towards a Level Playing Field (Appendix to annex „Undertaking Pitch Quality

Assessments‟)

Playing Pitch Assessment

11.51 The methodology outlined in Towards a Level Playing Field (Sport England, 2003) informed

the site appraisal process. Table 11.13 shows the quality of pitches in the London Borough of

Enfield. The condition assessment was based upon a visual assessment at the time of the

survey in spring 2011. A pitch quality appraisal was undertaken for every known outdoor

pitch in the Borough and considered the following aspects of pitch condition:

- grass cover;

- length of grass;

- size of pitch;

- adequacy of safety margins;

- slope of pitch / cricket outfield;

- evenness of pitch;

- evidence of dog fouling, litter etc;

- evidence of unofficial use;


Final Report 138

- estimated number of hours per week in season;

- evidence of damage to surface;

- drainage problems;

- changing accommodation; and

- quality of equipment / line markings / training areas.

11.52 The pitch appraisals rated the various factors listed above according to the criteria

established by Sport England. Each of the 15 factors was allocated a score, weighted

according to the standard of each pitch. To generate a single quantitative score for each

pitch, the scores were added together. The total scores were then turned into a percentage

so that each pitch could be classified into the following categories: Excellent (pitches with a

final score over 90%); Good (pitches with a final score of 64-90%); Average (pitches with a

final score of 55-64%); Below Average (pitches with a final score of 30-54%) and Poor

(pitches with a final score less than 30%). A more detailed breakdown of the adopted Sport

England good practice guidance is provided in the pro-forma site survey guide that can be

found in Appendix B.

Table 11.13 – Quality of Playing Pitches in Secure Community Use

Pitch Type

Excellent (>90%)

Good (64-90%)

Average (55% - 64%)

Below Average

(33 - 54%)

Poor (<30%)

Total Pitches

Average Pitch

Score % No. % No. % No. % No.* % No. % No.*

Football (full size) 0 N/A 65 58 34 30 14 12 0 0 113 63.5

Football (junior) 0 N/A 15 36 17 40 10 24 0 0 42 60.0

Football (5-a-side) 0 N/A 1 100 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 67.2

Cricket (full size) 0 N/A 20 87 3 13 0 0 0 0 23 69.2

Cricket (junior) 0 N/A 4 100 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 4 67.9

Rugby (full size) 0 N/A 14 74 5 26 0 0 0 0 19 65.5

Rugby (junior) 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N/A

Baseball (full size) 0 N/A 1 100 0 N/A 0 0 0 0 1 74.6

Total 0 N/A 120 59 59 29 24 12 0 0 203 63.7

11.53 Table 11.13 demonstrates that the standard of pitches is fairly similar across the Borough.

According to the Sport England pitch assessment methodology, the average score for the

Borough (63.7%) is „average‟, although only narrowly short of „good‟. 41% of all pitches in

Enfield were classified as „average‟ or „below average‟. No pitches were classified as

„excellent‟ or „poor‟. It should be noted that the condition of pitches can vary significantly

throughout the course of the season. Given that the 2011 pitch inspections were undertaken

towards the end of the football and rugby seasons, it is likely that the pitches were seen close

to their „poorest‟ condition. It can therefore be argued that if the inspections had been

undertaken nearer the beginning of the season the overall assessment regarding the quality

of playing pitches may have been higher.

11.54 The club survey (Sports Assessment 2006) requested clubs to provide information on the

three best and worst pitches, in terms of playing pitch condition, which they had played on

during the previous season. Most football clubs listed pitches which are located outside of the

Borough when asked for their views on the worst quality pitches they had played on, whilst a

majority of football clubs rated pitches from within the Borough as some of the best they had

played on. This reinforces the findings presented in Table 11.13.

11.55 Those football pitches from within the Borough that were listed as amongst the worst

included:


Final Report 139

Enfield Playing Fields – responses from the club survey reported an uneven pitch. In

addition some responses reported that the grass is often too long at many pitches at

this site;

Grovelands Park – One response from the club survey reported a sloping pitch, poor

grass coverage, poor markings and, due to the close proximity of trees to the pitch,

lots of twigs / branches on the pitch;

Brimsdown Rovers – Response from the club survey reported a poor quality pitch

and poor quality changing facilities; and

Aylands Open Space – One response from the club survey identified this site as

having poor grass coverage and poor quality markings.

11.56 Four cricket clubs listed the best or worst pitches they had played on but only one club, the

Titanic Cricket Club, stated that any of Enfield‟s cricket pitches were amongst the worst they

had played on. However, three clubs reported general problems with the standard of Council

run cricket pitches and state that privately owned facilities are of a much better condition.

11.57 The condition of pitches is also strongly influenced by the presence or absence of a pitch

drainage system, how intensively pitches are used, maintenance regimes and other factors

such as the hydrological condition influenced by geology and topography. Only site 146,

Aylands Open Space, was identified as having evidence of poor drainage during site visits in

2011.

11.58 Drainage issues were not identified as a particular issue by any of the clubs that responded

to the club survey. However, the surveys did identify the number of fixtures at each club‟s

main home ground which were cancelled last season due to the pitch condition (excluding

frozen pitches). About 50% of clubs reported no cancelled matches, whilst about 40% of

respondents experienced minimal cancellations due to pitch condition (one or two games

cancelled), most of which were cricket clubs where games were cancelled due to rain.

However, ten of Saracens Amateur Rugby Club‟s games were cancelled and six of Old

Michendenians Football Club‟s games were cancelled. Both of these teams play at Bramley

Road which suggests that the quality of the pitch /drainage issues are a particular problem at

this site.

Table 11.14 – No. Of Pitches which are Floodlit or Enclosed

Pitch Type No.

Pitches Floodlit

% Pitches Floodlit

No. Enclosed pitches

% Enclosed Pitches

Football (full size) 7 5.9 7 5.9

Football (junior) 0 0 1 2

Football (5 a side) 5 45.5 9 81.8

Cricket (full size) 0 0 0 0

Cricket (junior) 0 0 0 0

Rugby (full size) 2 10.5 0 0

Rugby (junior) 0 0 0 0

Baseball (full size) 0 0 0 0

Hockey 3 42.9 4 57.1

Total 14 N/A 17 N/A

11.59 Table 11.14 illustrates that few pitches within the London Borough of Enfield, in secure

community use are floodlit. This may limit the capacity for teams to undertake evening or

mid-week training matches outside and could place undue pressure on indoor facilities in the

Borough. Seven full size football pitches, five 5-a-side football pitches, two rugby pitches and

three full size hockey pitches have floodlighting. The number of floodlit pitches in the north


Final Report 140

west of the Borough is likely to be constrained due to the fact that the majority of the Borough

is situated in the Green Belt, where it is much harder to obtain planning permission for such

facilities.

11.60 Relatively few pitches in the Borough are enclosed by a boundary fence. The most likely

facilities to be enclosed are hockey and full sized as well as 5-a-side football pitches,

reflecting the nature of these sports.

Changing Facilities

11.61 The level of ancillary facilities associated with playing field sites in Enfield varies between

sites. Of the 47 sites that accommodate grass pitches and are in secure community use, 22

have provision for changing facilities. Details of individual facilities are provided in Appendix

K.

11.62 A total of 123 grass pitches are available at sites with provision for changing facilities (60.6%

of all grass pitches in secure community use). Table 11.15 identifies the proportion of grass

pitches in secure community use that have access to changing facilities by pitch type.

Table 11.15 – Pitches in SCU with access to changing facilities

Pitch Type

Total Grass

Pitches in SCU

Total pitches with access to

changing facilities

% of pitches with access to changing facilities

Football 156 85 54.5

Cricket 27 22 81.5

Rugby 19 15 78.9

Baseball 1 1 100.0

Total 203 123 60.6

11.63 Table 11.15 shows that cricket and rugby pitches are particularly well provided for with 81.5%

and 78.9% (respectively) of pitches having access to changing accommodation. This

compares to football for which 54.5% of pitches have access to changing facilities.

11.64 A changing room assessment was completed for each of the 22 changing facilities in secure

community use, however in ten instances where full access to the facilities was not possible

the assessment was partially completed. Changing room facilities were not assessed at

school sites as these were often part of existing school buildings.

11.65 While it was not possible to carry out an internal assessment at changing facilities,

information on the external quality as well as security, parking, vandalism and links to public

transport was however collected for all 22 changing facilities in secure community use.

Table 11.16 – Overall Quality of Changing Facilities by Pitch Type

Overall Quality Sites Total Pitches Football Cricket Rugby Baseball

Excellent 6 20 9 8 3 0

Good 7 38 22 12 4 0

Average 6 59 48 2 8 1

Poor 3 6 6 0 0 0

11.66 Table 11.16 identifies the number of (grass) pitches in secure community use with changing

facilities alongside the overall quality of provision. The majority of football pitches with

changing accommodation were assessed to have average quality changing facilities (48

pitches or 56.5% of all pitches with changing accommodation). This contrasts with cricket


Final Report 141

pitches where 91% of all pitches were assessed to have good or excellent provision. This

may be because a higher proportion of cricket pitches are in private ownership.

11.67 The pitch sites where the overall quality of changing facilities was considered to be poor were

Aylands Open Space (146), Broomfield Park (219) and Brimsdown Sports Ground (123).

11.68 Some evidence of vandalism was found at three changing room facilities in secure

community use, including Aylands Open Space (146), Broomfield Park (219) and Jubilee

Park (162). These sites accommodate 12 football pitches between them. All of these open

spaces are publicly managed.

Table 11.17 – Evidence of Vandalism to Changing Facilities by Pitch Type

Vandalism Sites Total

Pitches Football Cricket Rugby Baseball

Yes some 3 12 12 0 0 0

None 19 111 73 22 15 1

11.69 Table 11.17 identifies the number of grass pitches in secure community use with changing

facilities as well as signs of vandalism. Evidence of vandalism was recorded at three sites

affecting football pitches only.

11.70 Parking facilities were assessed at 22 open spaces in secure community use. Parking

facilities were assessed to be of good quality at 12 of the 22 sites while access to public

transport was considered poor at Aylands Open Space (146) and Botany Bay Cricket Club

(120).

Table 11.18 – Parking Provision at Changing Room Facilities

Parking Sites Total Pitches Football Cricket Rugby Baseball

Good 12 81 48 17 15 1

OK 5 18 15 3 0 0

Poor 5 24 22 2 0 0

11.71 The security of changing facilities was assessed to be of good quality at 12 of the 22 sites

with changing facilities. No sites were assessed as having poor security. As has been the

case of other changing facilities quality indicators football pitches fared worse than other

sports with 53 pitches falling within sites assessed as having „OK‟ security.

Table 11.19 – Security Provision at Changing Facilities

Security Sites Total Pitches Football Cricket Rugby Baseball

Good 14 60 32 20 8 0

OK 8 63 53 2 7 1

Conclusion 11.72 This chapter identifies playing pitch supply within the London Borough of Enfield. Out of a

total of 107 sites surveyed in spring 2011, 94 open spaces had provision for outdoor pitch

sports while 84 open spaces had provision for grass pitches.

11.73 This chapter focused on an analysis of the four most popular sports requiring access to

extensive marked out areas. These sports in terms of land take and participation are football,

cricket, rugby union and hockey.

11.74 In total 318 pitches were identified including 248 football pitches (full size, junior, mini), 33

cricket pitches (full size and junior), 21 rugby pitches and 15 hockey pitches. 70.8% of all


Final Report 142

pitches were assessed as being in secure community use. Of these, 92% are grass pitches

including 156 football pitches (full size, junior, mini), 27 cricket pitches, 18 rugby union

pitches and 3 hockey pitches.

11.75 Pitches in secure community use were assessed in relation to their distribution and access,

ownership, ratio of pitches per person, pitch quality and the provision and quality of changing

facilities across the London Borough of Enfield.


Final Report 143

12. Analysing Demand for Outdoor Pitch

Sports

Introduction 12.1 For the purposes of policy development PPG17, recommends that local authorities derive

standards for the provision of sports and recreation facilities for inclusion within statutory

development plan. These standards should be based on local assessments of need. The

PPG17 Companion Guide: Assessing Needs and Opportunities recommends that the Sport

England guidelines Towards a Level Playing Field (2003) should be used to provide a robust

basis for preparing such an assessment.

12.2 This assessment follows the approach recommended within Towards a Level Playing Field

for reasons of robustness and to enable comparison with other authorities.

12.3 The primary data collected to inform the demand assessment was derived from surveys of

pitch sports clubs, league secretaries, schools and other facilities providers undertaken in the

spring of 2005 for the Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006). This data has

been supplemented by other sources including data available at the national level such as

the Football Foundation data, Register of Recreation Land and information from Sport

England‟s Active People Survey and other market research on participation rates and trends.

Scope of the Assessment

12.4 The objectives of the playing pitch demand assessment refresh follow (see below).

To assess current playing pitch demand and supply in the London Borough of

Enfield including:

an assessment of the adequacy of existing provision in terms of quantity and quality

of pitches;

to provide information on participation characteristics and trends within the Borough;

to provide an assessment of latent demand for football, cricket, rugby and hockey

within Enfield;

to consider cross border issues associated with demand and supply in adjacent

Borough‟s; and

to identify issues associated with pitch ownership and management.

To forecast future playing pitch demand and assess the adequacy of existing

provision to meet this demand.

To derive local standards of outdoor pitch provision.

To identify options to address areas deficient in pitch provision and management

options in areas of the Borough where minimum standards of provision have been

met.

To provide a tool to support the development control process when evaluating

planning applications associated with outdoor playing pitch sites.

To provide the basis for identifying future priorities for investment and funding bids to

improve local sports provision.


Final Report 144

Sport England Playing Pitch Assessment

12.5 To provide an in depth assessment of local playing pitch needs, an assessment following the

Sport England Playing Pitch Model has been undertaken to update the findings of the Open

Space and Sports Assessment (2006). This approach uses surveys of actual demand to

assess the number of pitches required to meet local needs. Stages within the Sport England

assessment include:

(i) identifying teams / team equivalents;

(ii) calculating home games per team per week;

(iii) assessing total home games per week;

(iv) establishing temporal demand for games;

(v) defining pitches used / required on each day;

(vi) establishing pitches available (refer to Chapter 11);

(vii) assessing the findings; and

(viii) identifying policy options and solutions.

12.6 The results serve to model the existing demand for playing pitches on the ground and can

also be used to determine the adequacy of existing provision and predict future demand and

supply scenarios.

12.7 This methodology provides a relatively sophisticated tool for modelling playing pitch demand.

However, there are a number of issues and limitations associated with the model which

should be considered when interpreting the findings, including the following (see below).

The model is reliant on the collection of large volumes of information relating to

sports clubs, sports teams and sports pitches. The methodology recommends that

ideally primary data should be collected over a year in order to cover an entire

season length for each of the pitch sports.

To ensure that demand is modelled as accurately as possible, the importance of

data quality is paramount. The identification of clubs is often difficult as local sport

representatives, club handbooks and league organisers tend to not have

comprehensive and up to date records relating to the existence of clubs or teams in

their leagues, contact details of club secretaries or details of their home ground. A

low response rate by clubs or gaps in the information provided could reduce the

number of useable responses for some aspects of the model or skew the demand

profile of the Borough. Within this study we have acknowledged and accounted for

these issues. In some cases a number of clearly stated assumptions have been

used to overcome the date limitations.

Another issue is the extent of the study area and cross boundary issues. Some of

the demand generated from within the Borough is likely to be satisfied by pitches

within adjacent local authorities. Conversely, Enfield pitches are also likely to

accommodate demand generated elsewhere. This issue is addressed in Chapter 15.

The assessment does not consider demand for pitches generated by non-residents

working or visiting the Borough.

The assessment includes an assumption relating to the physical capacity of pitches

to accommodate matches which has the potential to distort the true picture of

supply. This issue has been overcome within this study by considering the Council‟s

approach to pitch maintenance, a visual assessment of pitches within the Borough


Final Report 145

and consideration of Sport England guidance on the match capacity of different

playing surfaces.

The methodology can create a circular argument that supply of pitches is just about

adequate as the number of teams and matches within the Borough is constrained by

the number of pitches. The Consultants have recognised this potential limitation and

have considered issues including suppressed and potential demand, cross boundary

issues and recommended that a precautionary approach be taken to pitch supply.

12.8 There are several forms of sports participation which are not considered within this study and

are not included within the Playing Pitch Model, these include:

curricular requirements;

professional and semi-professional sport;

teams which have informal arrangements to use school playing fields;

groups who participate casually in pitch sports on open space within the Borough;

and

the training and practice needs of clubs.

12.9 However, pitch needs relating to training and casual usage are considered as part of the

strategic reserve of pitches defined in Chapter 16.

The Consultants Approach 12.10 The approach followed by the Consultants mirrors that of the Sport England Playing Pitch

methodology outlined in „Towards a Level Playing Field’ (2003). The particular assumptions

used within the assessment to reflect the Enfield context are described below in broad terms.

Any specific assumptions made relating to the data collected are included with the relevant

tables in below.

The Club Survey (2006)

12.11 In order to assess demand for pitch sports within the London Borough of Enfield information

was analysed from several sources including Council club records and information from

county secretaries of the national governing bodies for each of the selected sports. From

these sources, a list of clubs based in the Borough was drawn up, clubs were incorporated

into the survey sample if they were known to play in the Borough (from existing records and

local knowledge, club names with geographic associations with the Borough, played within

leagues with geographic associations with the Borough). All schools and other outdoor

facilities providers were also asked to provide details of clubs playing regularly on their

pitches. From this sample only those teams playing within the Borough were included within

the analysis.

12.12 Using this method a total of 106 football, 26 cricket, six rugby union and three hockey clubs

were identified where it could be directly established that clubs played on pitches in the

Borough in 2005 / 2006.

12.13 A questionnaire survey was sent to each club to request basic information, including:

club name;

type of sport(s) played;

location of home ground;

number of regular playing members within the club;


Final Report 146

number of teams fielded;

type of teams within the club (adult, women‟s, youth, mixed);

name of leagues played in;

number of games per season for each time;

day(s) of the week each team normally plays its matches;

whether teams had a waiting list for new members;

whether clubs had plans to field additional teams next season; and

whether clubs planned to relocate from their existing home ground.

12.14 Clubs were also asked to raise any issues concerning pitch provision and quality within the

Borough. A copy of the questionnaires used is included in Appendix L. The information

collected was combined with data from the open space site visits relating to the facilities at

each ground, the quality and condition of the pitches. Where clubs did not respond to the

survey data from league secretaries and pitch providers was used where possible to enable a

basic level of assessment for these clubs.

12.15 The postal survey was distributed to clubs in March 2005 and a follow up reminder sent in

April 2005. The response rates for each sport are highlighted in Table 12.1 which also shows

the number of results incorporated into the database from other sources rather than directly

from the club (from Council pitch booking records and from the internet home pages of some

clubs). Appendix M also includes a list of clubs surveyed and whether they responded to the

survey or not.

Table 12.1 – Proportion of Clubs where information regarding Team Generation was identified

Source Football Cricket Rugby Hockey

No. Clubs in initial survey sample (including clubs from Council pitch booking records)

106 26 6 3

Responses to club survey 17 7 2 0

No. of clubs where information was gathered from Council Pitch Booking Records

37 9 3 0

No. of clubs where info was obtained from the internet

2 5 1 3

Total no. Of clubs where info was gathered on team generation

56 21 6 3

% of clubs where info was gathered on team generation

52.8 80.8 100 100

Source: Club Survey (2006), Council pitch booking records and internet home pages of clubs

12.16 Although the club survey (2006) did not provide comprehensive coverage of all clubs within

the Borough, with a 16% response rate for football, 27% response rate for cricket and 33%

response rate for rugby. While the responses to the club survey did not provide

comprehensive coverage of all clubs within the Borough it provided a sound basis for

undertaking the Sport England Assessment

12.17 For the 50 football and 5 cricket clubs who did not respond to the survey and were not

contactable nor for which secondary information was available, assumptions were made

relating to the number of playing members and teams based upon the average profile for the

Borough in order to account for demand associated with these clubs.


Final Report 147

Updated Club List (2011)

12.18 To prepare an updated assessment of the demand for outdoor pitches within the London

Borough of Enfield the club list (Table 12.1) was updated in the spring of 2011. This refresh

took the club survey (2006) as its base and drew from a range of sources to provide an

updated list of clubs and teams located within the Borough.

12.19 Information was collected from a range of sources including Enfield Council records, National

sports governing bodies and club websites. This refreshed information has been used to

update the club and team lists identified by the club survey (2006). The refreshed

assessment of clubs and teams in 2011 has identified 110 football clubs, 7 rugby union clubs,

23 cricket clubs and 3 hockey clubs.

Existing Pitch Demand 12.1 This section sets out the various stages of the playing pitch assessment which follow the

method identified by Sport England in „Towards a Level Playing Field’ (2003). This

methodology was described above.

Identifying Teams / Team Equivalents 12.2 The number of teams based in Enfield is identified in Table 12.2. Teams were identified from

a variety of sources. Refreshed team information for Rugby, Cricket and Hockey was

identified from a range of sources including national sports governing bodies and Enfield

Council records. Using this information it has been possible to determine accurate team

figures for each of these sports. Updated team information for Football was determined by

cross referencing the Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment Club Survey (2006) with

updated Council records and London Football Association records (London Football

Association 2010/2011 Handbook and Directory). Teams based at football clubs where

information was not available was derived based upon the average for all clubs in the

Borough.

Table 12.2 – No. of Teams by Sport

Total Teams Sport Football Cricket Rugby Hockey

Male Mini 18 5 0 10 Junior (<16) 133 13 9 9

Senior 196 68 21 19

Veteran (>40) 2 1 0 1

Female Mini 1 0 0 0

Junior (<16) 10 0 2 8

Senior 6 0 3 7

Veteran (>40) 0 0 0 0

Mixed Mini 0 0 16 0

Junior (<16) 0 0 0 0

Senior 0 0 0 0

Veteran (>40) 0 0 0 0

Total Mini 19 5 16 10

Junior (<16) 143 13 11 17

Senior 202 68 24 26

Veteran (>40) 2 1 0 1

Total by Sport 366 87 51 54


Final Report 148

Football

12.3 Football is the most popular of the outdoor sports played in Enfield, some 366 teams have

been identified as playing within the Borough (from a total of 110 clubs). This includes a total

of 198 men‟s teams, 6 women‟s and 162 junior / mini football teams.

12.4 Enfield accommodates demand from a large number of leagues associated with the

Middlesex and London Football Association. The Club Survey (2006) identified the leagues

identified below.

Adult Teams:

Greek Cypriot League.

North London / South Herts Football League.

Spartan South Midlands Football League.

Mercury Waltham Sunday League.

Amateur Football Combination.

Edmonton & District League.

Enfield Football Alliance League.

The Watford Friendly League.

Junior Leagues:

Rural Friendly League.

Cheshunt Youth Football League.

Waltham Forest Youth League.

Harrow Youth League.

12.5 In addition, football teams who responded to the Club Survey (2006) also listed the following

cup competitions in which they participate:

Middlesex F.A. Sunday Cups.

Veterans Challenge Cup.

London Junior Sunday Football Cup.

12.6 Enfield also has a number of casual football teams that do not belong to any formal league

but which hire pitches from the Council on an informal basis.

12.7 A summary of the estimated number of teams within each age range is indicated in Table

12.3. Only one club provided a breakdown of the number of teams within each specific age

group (Club Survey 2006). The total number of teams has therefore been derived by applying

the demographic profile of the Borough to total number of junior teams.


Final Report 149

Table 12.3 – Estimated Football Teams by Age Group*

Age Cohort Total Teams Size of Teams

Total Senior Teams 204 11

Total Junior Teams 162 N/A

U7 10 4

U8 9 5

U9 18 6

U10 18 6

U11 18 6

U12 17 6

U13 18 11

U14 18 11

U15 18 11

U16 18 11 *Information on the age of junior teams was not available for all junior and youth teams. The total no. of

teams in each age group has been derived from the demographic profile of the Borough.

12.8 Participation in football generally decreases into adulthood. This national pattern of

participation is also reflected in Enfield, where, although there are 204 adult teams compared

to 162 junior teams, adult teams draw from an age range between 18 and 45 whilst junior

teams draw from ages 6 to 16.

Cricket

12.9 Cricket is the second most popular outdoor team sport played in the Borough. There are 23

cricket clubs based within Enfield. Between these clubs there are 87 teams, including 13

junior teams which play in the following leagues outlined below.

Saracens Herts League.

Middlesex County Cricket League.

North Herts Sunday Cricket League.

Slazenger Sunday League.

12.10 Of the total number of teams, 68 are senior teams, 18 are either junior or mini teams in

addition to the single veteran team.

Rugby

12.11 Rugby Union is the third most popular team sport within the Borough. There are even rugby

union clubs based within Enfield. Although the number of rugby clubs is relatively small in

comparison to the number of football club, rugby clubs tend to have a relatively large number

of teams per club. In total 51 rugby teams have been identified in the Borough, including 24

senior teams, 11 junior and 16 mixed mini sides.

Hockey

12.12 As with Rugby, although the number of hockey clubs is relatively small (just three identified in

the Borough) in comparison to the number of football clubs, hockey clubs tend to have a

relatively large number of teams per club. In total 54 hockey teams were identified in the

Borough, including 26 senior teams, one veteran team, 17 junior teams and 10 mini sides.


Final Report 150

Assessment of Home Games per Team per

Week 12.13 This stage of the assessment derives the average number of home games per week by

calculating the average number of games per week for each team within the Borough. The

Club Survey (2006) indicated that in almost all cases clubs played half of their fixtures at their

home ground, although mini football teams do not generally play at a venue away from their

home ground. Generally for most football clubs the season lasts 26 weeks (adults), junior

clubs tend to play fewer fixtures and have an average of 24 weeks per season. For other

pitch sports the cricket season lasts 22 weeks (10 weeks junior) and rugby union 24 weeks.

The length of time pitches may be marked out and hired for pitch sports is slightly longer to

account for match cancellations and accommodate re-organised fixtures.

Table 12.4 – Home Games per Week*

Sport Total

Teams Season (weeks)

Total Home Games Per

Week

Total Home Games Per

Season

Football (full size) 276 26 138 3,590

Football (youth) 71 24 35 852

Football (Mini) 19 24 10 228

Cricket Adult 69 22 35 759


Rugby Adult 24 24 12 288


Hockey 54 24 27 648 *Assumes teams play in fixtures at home on alternative weeks. It is assumed that all mini football teams play at

home.

12.14 Table 12.4 indicates that at present demand exists for some 138 home league matches per

week on full sized football pitches, 35 on youth (6-a-side) pitches and 10 mini football pitches

within Enfield. For cricket there is demand for some 35 adult home games per week and 9

junior matches. For rugby there are 12 adult home games per week and 14 junior matches.

There is also demand for a total of 27 hockey matches a week, all of which take place on

ATPs.

Temporal Demand for Games

12.15 The next stage of the assessment looked at the proportion of teams playing on each of the

main match days to assess the proportion of league matches played during particular periods

during the week based upon information provided by the Club Survey (2006) and Council

pitch booking records. This information has been used to derive pitch requirements for each

day during the weekend peak period (Table 12.6).

Table 12.5 – Proportion of Games Played on Each Day (%)

Team Type Sat AM

Sat PM

Sun AM

Sun PM

Midweek

Football Adult* 0 40.40 59.60 0 0

Football Youth and Mini 0 45.16 54.84 0 0

Cricket 0 43.90 0 51.22 4.88

Rugby 0 83.33 0 0 16.67

Hockey 0 100 0 0 0 Source: Based on 20 teams that gave details relating to when they usually play their games from the Club

Survey (2006) in addition to Council pitch booking records.


Final Report 151

Table 12.6 – Pitch Requirements for Each Day (no. Games)

Team Type Sat AM

Sat PM

Sun AM

Sun PM

Midweek Total

Football Adult 0 56 82 0 0 138 Football Youth 0 16 19 0 0 35

Football Mini 0 4 5 0 0 9

Cricket 0 19 0 22 2 43

Rugby 0 21 0 0 4 25

Hockey 0 27 0 0 0 27

12.16 Tables 12.5 and 12.6 indicate that peak demand for pitches for each of the selected sports is

at the weekend, specifically Saturday afternoon and Sunday morning. The study identifies

that nearly 5% of cricket and 17% of rugby pitch requirements are accommodated during the

week. However, this does not take into account midweek training sessions or informal

matches which may take place during the week. School matches also generally take place

during the week rather than at weekends.

12.17 For adult football the peak demand for fixtures is on Sunday mornings and Saturday

afternoons, with demand for fixtures being especially high during the Sunday morning period.

Several teams also hold mid week training sessions most often on all weather pitches which

have floodlighting facilities. Demand for both junior and mini football matches is also higher

on Sundays.

12.18 Cricket fixtures are spread predominately over Saturday and Sunday afternoons, although a

small percentage take place during the week. Although no demand is identified in Tables

12.5 and 12.6 for cricket during morning periods, it may not be possible to accommodate any

further fixtures at existing venues due to the relatively long period that it takes to play a

cricket match and to allow sufficient time for the wicket to recover between matches. Some

clubs also hold cricket training sessions during the week.

12.19 Most rugby union fixtures in the Borough take place on Saturday afternoons with some junior

fixtures taking place mid-week.

12.20 The relatively concentrated distribution of fixtures during the week for football and rugby

shows that the majority of leagues within the Borough are able to stage almost all of their

fixtures concurrently or on the same day. This trend runs contrary to experience nationally

where there is an increasing tendency for matches to be spread over the weekend period.

Pitch Capacities 12.21 With the exception of all weather pitches which are considered later in this report, outdoor

sports pitches within the Borough are only able to accommodate a finite number of games

each week. The capacity of each pitch is derived from a combination of factors including

access arrangements, facility opening times, the availability of floodlighting for evening

games and the need to rest pitches between games in order to avoid deterioration of the

playing surface.

12.22 Whilst the capacity of pitches and the quality of the playing surface varies enormously

between individual pitches, for the purposes of the assessment an assumption has been

made on the maximum number of games which each pitch (on average) can support each

week. The capacities are:

Two games per week for adult and junior football and rugby pitches and cricket

given the demand is spread over the weekend period (different leagues operate on


Final Report 152

different days). This level of pitch capacity reflects maintenance arrangements

relating to Council managed pitches; and

Six games per week for mini football. The number of matches a mini pitch can

sustainably accommodate is greater than a full size pitch. This is because the length

of small sided games is shorter due to lower levels of wear associated with junior

fixtures. We have also made the assumption that a maximum of six matches per day

can be played on a single pitch based upon the length of each match, allowance for

changeover times and availability of natural daylight.

12.23 All of the above capacities are consistent with the guidance contained in „Towards a Level

Playing Field’ and is a realistic view of the general capacity of pitches within the Borough

given actual patterns of demand and usage at individual sites within the Enfield context. The

estimates assumed that there are some opportunities for pitch rotation and that pitches will

not necessarily be used for games every week during the season.

12.24 Table 12.7 shows the derivation of pitch capacity (games per week) taking account of the

number of games which can be supported on existing pitches (No. pitches in secure

community use pitch capacity per week) and demand forecasts relating to the number of

home games per week (From Table 12.6) Net capacity per week is derived by subtracting

column 5 from column 4. The implications of the findings for each sport are discussed below.

Table 12.7 – Pitch Capacity and Usage 2011

Pitch Type Total Grass

Pitches in Secured Community Use

Capacity per Pitch

Total Pitch

Capacity

Demand (matches per week)

Net Capacity per week

Football Senior 113 2 226 138.1 87.9

Football Youth 42 2 84 35.5 48.5

Football Mini 1 6 6 9.5 -3.5

Cricket 27 2 54 43.5 10.5

Rugby 19 2 38 25.5 12.5

Hockey 3 6 18 27.0 -9.0

12.25 The capacity estimates contained in Table 12.7 indicate that in general there is sufficient

capacity within the Borough to accommodate existing manifest demand whilst sustaining

pitch supply for the majority of sports. However, a shortfall has been determined for mini

football and hockey although it should be noted that these figures do not take into account

the provision of ATPs and all weather / hard surface 5-a-side pitches. The estimates of pitch

capacity and available match slots identified assumes that teams can play fixtures when a

slot is available and that additional capacity is available at a playing field which is accessible,

available for hire and which has suitable facilities for the needs of the team.

12.26 Given that most matches for all pitch sports take place at weekends and that leagues

normally stipulate the days on which matches should be played, there is a need to consider

the additional capacity available during peak days for each sport. This is shown in Table

12.8.

Table 12.8 – Peak Day Capacity

Pitch Type

Total Grass

Pitches in SCU

Slots per Pitch per Half Day

Net Capacity Sat AM

Net Capacity Sat PM

Net Capacity Sun AM

Net Capacity Sun PM

Football Senior 113 1 113 57 31 113

Football Junior 42 1 42 26 23 42

Football Mini 1 3 3 -1 -2 3

Cricket 27 1 27 8 27 5


Final Report 153

Rugby 19 1 19 -2 19 19

Hockey 3 3 9 -18 9 9

12.27 This table shows that for football played on full sized pitches there is sufficient capacity

throughout the weekend to accommodate current demand. However, net capacity falls to its

lowest during Sunday mornings when demand for full size football pitches is greatest. A

shortfall in supply has been identified for mini football, rugby and hockey on Saturday

mornings while a shortfall has been identified for mini football on Sunday mornings.

Conclusion 12.28 This chapter sets out the various stages of the playing pitch assessment. A number of teams

were identified for the assessment (mini, junior, senior and veteran) including 366 football, 87

cricket, 51 rugby and 54 hockey teams.

Football

Full Size

12.29 At present there is an over-supply of full sized pitches within the Borough of some 31 match

slots during Sunday morning when demand is at its greatest, which means that 27% of

existing capacity remains during this part of the weekend. Demand for football on full size

pitches is concentrated on Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings, with no pitches within

Council ownership currently available for hire outside these slots.

12.30 The available capacity identified above excludes consideration of issues relating to latent and

future demand. It also does not consider the distribution of demand for pitch provision within

the Borough.

Youth

12.31 Youth football matches are also played solely on Saturday afternoons and Sunday mornings,

meaning that 100% of capacity exists during Saturday mornings and Sunday afternoons.

Demand for youth football pitches is at its greatest during Sunday mornings, although

capacity for some 23 pitch slots remains during this time, meaning that just over 55% of

pitches are available during this period.

Mini

12.32 At present there is only one grass, mini football pitch in secure community use within the

Borough, located at Botany Bay Cricket Club. As with full size and youth football pitches peak

demand for matches is either on Saturday afternoons or Sunday mornings while 100% of

capacity is free outside these periods. At present there is an under supply of mini pitches

during peak periods, although this is not surprising as only a single grass 5-a-side pitch within

secure community use was identified by the updated site assessment (2011).

12.33 Despite the low manifest demand for youth / mini football pitches it is possible that there is

significant latent and potential demand for mini / youth football provision.

12.34 It should be recognised that the assessment of existing pitch capacity does not reflect the

organisational or logistical needs associated with youth football. It is often essential for clubs /

leagues to run several matches concurrently at a single ground in order to make best use of

facilities and coaching volunteers. In order to meet these needs it is important that the

following criteria are considered (see below).

The need for facilities to be located close to the source of demand.


Final Report 154

The need to accommodate multiple junior / mini pitches at a single site or a number

of sites located in close proximity in order to make the organisation of leagues

practicable.

The need for pitches to be accompanied by changing facilities of adequate size and

quality.

12.35 As a result of the above criteria, it is considered that the following sites would be best suited

for the introduction of further mini football pitches:

Enfield Playing Fields (site 197); and

Firs Farm (site 191).

Cricket

12.36 Overall, available capacity for cricket in the Borough exceeds demand by some 11 matches

per week. However, cricket demand is concentrated on weekend afternoons, specifically on

Sunday afternoons during which time there is capacity for five additional match slots.

Rugby

12.37 Demand for rugby union matches takes place solely on Saturday afternoons which means

there is a shortage of capacity amounting to two matches during this period. However, there

is significant spare capacity during the rest of the weekend therefore the potential exists for

clubs to spread their fixtures across the weekend such as Saturday mornings or Sunday.

Alternatively, there may be a need to bring forward additional provision on sites which have

room for additional pitches and are easily accessible, such as Enfield Playing Fields (site

197). The current limited capacity on Saturday afternoons means that there is likely to be

limited potential for expansion given latent and potential demand has not been accounted for

in this figure.

Hockey

12.38 There are three grass hockey pitches in secure community use within the Borough. These

grass pitches are located at Trent Park Sports Ground (site 258), Broomfield Secondary

School (site 274) and Edmonton County Lower School Field (site 323). It has been assumed

that these pitches can be programmed for six match slots per day at weekends and that

these pitch slots are not already being utilised for other sports (e.g. 5-a-side football). Based

upon these assumptions demand exceeds capacity by nine matches per week. However, as

all hockey fixtures take place on Saturday afternoons, demand exceeds capacity by 18

matches during this period.

12.39 Chapter 15 considers Artificial Turf Pitches (ATPs) of which four have been assessed as

hockey pitches in secure community use. These pitches are located at Paulin Sports Ground

(site 126), Trent Park Sports Ground (two pitches) (site 258) and Broomfield Secondary

School (site 282). These four hockey pitches provide capacity for an additional 24 slots per

day in total. During the peak period on Saturday afternoons they provide 12 additional slots

reducing the capacity shortfall on a Saturday afternoon to six matches.


Final Report 155

13. Latent Demand for Outdoor Sports

Introduction 13.1 This section of the report recognises that existing levels of expressed demand may be

influenced by factors not directly related to clubs, pitch provision or quality. These other

factors may have the effect of inflating or suppressing participation within the London

Borough of Enfield and are expressed as latent demand.

Cross Boundary Demand and Supply 13.2 Demand for pitches in Enfield is potentially sensitive to the movement of teams into and out

of the Borough. Table 11.10 highlighted the relatively high proportion of club members that

travel from outside the Borough (compared to other outer London Borough‟s). On average,

over 30% of the members affiliated to football, cricket clubs and rugby clubs reside outside of

the Borough.

13.3 It will be important for the Council to consider the impact of possible future pitch losses in

adjacent Borough‟s on pitch demand and capacity within Enfield. Population growth within

neighbouring authorities which is not accompanied by the provision of outdoor sports pitches

where sufficient demand is generated could potentially have an impact on pitch availability in

Enfield.

Suppressed Demand 13.1 Suppressed demand is defined as potential participants who have expressed a desire to play

but cannot join a club at present. Three indicators were used in the Enfield Open Space and

Sports Assessment (2006) to assess the extent of suppressed demand for pitch sports within

Enfield; club membership trends, future trends and relocation plans. These indicators were

derived from the findings of the Club Survey (2006).

13.2 The Club Survey (2006) asked clubs located in the Borough whether membership of their

club had increased or decreased or remained static over the preceding three years. Table

13.1 presents the results to this question. It should be noted that not all clubs responded to

the question.

Table 13.1 – Membership Trends of Pitch Sports Clubs

Pitch Type Increased Decreased Remained Static Total

Number No. % No. % No. %

Football Full size 6 50 3 25 3 25 12

Football Junior 2 50 1 25 1 25 4

Cricket 0 0 1 14 6 86 7

Rugby 1 50 0 0 1 50 2 Base: 12 senior football clubs, 4 junior football clubs, 7 cricket clubs and 2 rugby clubs

13.3 Analysis of Table 13.1 suggests a mixed picture across the Borough regarding the

membership trends of pitch sport clubs. Based on the relatively small number of clubs that

responded to this question (12 senior football clubs, four junior football clubs, seven cricket

clubs and two rugby clubs), the overall picture is that cricket and rugby club membership was

stable whilst football club membership, both full size and junior was increasing. The low

response rate to this question made it difficult to draw firm conclusions.

13.4 To gain a greater appreciation of the future plans that sports clubs have in the Borough, the

Club Survey (2006) asked further questions relating to the issue (Table 13.2). It should be

noted that many clubs did not respond to all questions. As a result 12 senior football clubs


Final Report 156

were included in the analysis of membership trends (Table 13.1) and 13 senior clubs were

included in the analysis of future club plans (Table 13.2).

13.5 Results from the survey suggested that most clubs were generally more concerned about

increasing membership from making improvements to, or expanding their facilities. Whereas

over 84% of football clubs that answered this question stated that expanding the range of

facilities was a top priority. Around 39% planned to relocate to different facilities .Again, the

relatively low response rate to this question made it difficult to draw conclusions.

13.6 Increasing the number of members was also the main priority for the junior football, cricket

and rugby clubs within the Borough. Rugby clubs were most likely to want to expand the

range of facilities provided (100% of respondents) with a relatively high proportion of cricket

and rugby clubs also expressing a desire to expand their facilities.

Table 13.2 – Future Plans for Pitch Sports Clubs

Type of Change Envisaged

Football Senior

Football Junior

Cricket Rugby

No. % No. % No. % No. %

Increased no. of members

11 85 2 100 6 86 2 100

Expanded range of facilities provided

1 8 1 50 3 43 2 100

Refurbish existing facilities

1 8 1 50 3 43 2 100

Relocation to different facilities

5 39 0 0 1 14 0 0

None 0 0 1 50 0 0 0 0 Base: 7 cricket clubs, 13 senior football clubs and 4 junior football clubs

13.7 Pitch sports clubs were also asked whether any additional teams would be fielded in the

season (2006 / 07). Six clubs had firm plans to expand:

Apoel FC – Additional girls under 7‟s and under 9‟s football teams as well as an

additional Under 14‟s boys side;

Cockfosters FC – Possible one to three additional youth teams as well as one

additional senior team;

Old Ignatian FC – Planned to introduce a 6th team in cup competitions only;

Vita Pax Knights – Additional boys under 9‟s side;

North Enfield Cricket Club – Additional Colts team; and

Middlesex University – Could state specifically what form additional teams may take

in the future but expect to field additional teams based upon the needs and demands

of students.

Team Generation Rates 13.8 An alternative indicator used to express demand for pitch sports are Team Generation Rates

(TGRs). These rates provide an estimate of the number of people required within a particular

age cohort to form one team. They are calculated by dividing the total population for a given

age cohort by the total number of teams relating to that age group. The TGRs for Enfield are

shown in Table 13.3.

13.9 These rates can, when considered with other indicators support comparisons between

different local authority areas. An average TGR for sport is 1:500. A high team generation

rate of 1:100 indicates a relatively low level latent (unmet) demand. A low team generation

rate of 1:1,000 indicates relatively high latent (unmet) demand.


Final Report 157

13.10 The popularity of league football in the London Borough of Enfield is demonstrated in Table

13.3. The overall TGR for football in the Borough is 428, indicating relatively low levels of

unmet demand for the sport. In particular the popularity of boy‟s football in the Borough is

demonstrated with a TGR of 81, compared to girls TGR of over 1,030.


Final Report 158

Table 13.3 – Team Generation Rates

Age

Groups

Population within Age

group

Age group as a % of total

active population

Number of Teams

within age group

Teams generated per 1,000

pop

TGR = Pop in age group needed to generate 1 team

Football: Mini-soccer (U7-U10s) - mixed 6-9yrs

14,702 7.3% 19 1.3 774

Junior football - boys 10-15yrs 10,747 5.4% 133 12.4 81 Junior football - girls 10-15yrs 10,370 5.2% 10 1.0 1,037 Men‟s football 16-45yrs 63,191 31.5% 196 3.1 322 Women‟s football 16-45yrs 63,498 31.6% 6 0.1 10,583 Totals for football (excluding mini)

147,806 73.6% 345 2.3 428

Cricket: Junior cricket - boys 11-17yrs 12,757 6.4% 13 1.0 981 Junior cricket - girls 11-17yrs 8,669 4.3% 0 N/A M/A Men‟s cricket 18-55yrs 78,309 39.0% 68 0.9 1,152 Women‟s cricket 18-55yrs 79,116 39.4% 0 N/A N/A Totals for Cricket 178,851 89.1% 81 0.5 2,208

Hockey: Junior hockey – boys 11-15yrs 8,947 4.5% 9 1.0 994 Junior hockey – girls 11-15yrs 8,669 4.3% 8 0.9 1,084 Men‟s hockey 16-45yrs 63,191 31.5% 19 0.3 3,326 Women‟s hockey 16-45yrs 63,498 31.6% 7 0.1 9,071 Totals for Hockey 144,305 71.9% 43 0.3 3,356

Rugby Union: Mini-rugby - mixed 8-12yrs 17,596 8.8% 16 0.9 1,100 Junior rugby - boys 13-17yrs 9,242 4.6% 9 1.0 1,027 Junior rugby - girls 16-17yrs 3,699 1.8% 2 N/A 1,850 Men‟s rugby 18-45yrs 59,381 29.6% 21 0.4 2,828 Women‟s rugby 18-45yrs 59,799 29.8% 3 0.1 19,933 Totals for Rugby (ex mini)

132,121 65.8% 35 0.3 3,775

All sports

200,753 100% 504 2.5 398


Final Report 159

13.11 Although adult football is not as popular as junior football, adult football in Enfield still has a

low TGR relative to other sports with a TGR of 322. The contrast between male and female

football in the Borough is marked: whereas 322 adults within the active population are

required to generate a single male (adult) football team, over 10,500 women are required to

generate a ladies (adult) football team.

13.12 Table 13.3 identifies that there may be significant levels of unmet demand within the

population for cricket as overall TGRs are over 2,200 although this total figure masks

significant variations between age groups and the sexes, due to the unpopularity of cricket

amongst women in comparison to men. When male cricket is considered in isolation, boy‟s

cricket has a healthier TGR of 981, while men‟s cricket has a TGR of just over 1,500.

13.13 Rugby is also less popular when TGR‟s are compared against football. Men‟s rugby has a

TGR of 2,828 indicating substantial unmet demand for men‟s rugby within the Borough. This

finding is reflected in boy‟s rugby, albeit to a lesser extent, registering a TGR of 1,027.

Women‟s rugby union has a substantially higher TGR of 19,933 adult females required to

form a team. The Club Survey (2006) also indicated potential for growth in both men‟s and

women‟s rugby.

Table 13.4 – Comparative Team Generation Rates – Selected Local Authorities

Enfield Havering Haringey Greenwich

Waltham Forest

Average TGR

Football 428 369 641 193 636 451

Cricket 2,208 3,331 2,462 1,575 1,548 2,190

Rugby 3,775 3,177 23,183 1,740 51,466 16,859

13.14 Team generation rates for Enfield have been benchmarked with those of other local

authorities to provide a comparison with levels of participation in other areas (Table 13.4).

TGRs for four other local authorities in London were compared (Haringey, Greenwich,

Havering and Waltham Forest). The listed authorities have entries in the national register of

TGRs and share a comparable socio-economic profile to Enfield.

13.15 The TGRs shown in Table 13.4 for comparable local authorities are not shown in the same

level of detail as those for Enfield (Table 13.3). Comparison off aggregated TGR results

should be treated with care as they can mask trends that can only be seen then analysing

more detailed categories.

13.16 For football, Enfield‟s TGR is similar to the average TGR taken from the sample of authorities

listed above. It is lower than the neighbouring Borough‟s of Haringey and Waltham Forest,

but higher than Greenwich and Havering.

13.17 TGRs for cricket in Enfield are slightly above the average (average taken from sample

authorities listed in Table 13.4) where Greenwich and Waltham Forest are both below the

average, Enfield, Havering and Haringey are above while TGRs for rugby are well below the

average (16,859) although the average for all listed Borough‟s has been inflated by Waltham

Forest (51,466).

Future Pitch Demand 13.18 Future playing pitch demand is influenced by three sets of key drivers which could impact on

the number of outdoor sport participants in the Borough. These are factors linked to latent

potential demand which may trigger an increase in sports participation and changes to the

size of the population of the Borough and its demographic structure.


Final Report 160

Factors linked to Latent Potential Demand

13.19 The potential demand of sport in Enfield is affected by several factors.

The influence of Sports Development Campaigns

13.20 Initiatives taken by the governing bodies of sport, schools and local authorities may lead to

an increased demand to take part in a given sport. Recent examples of campaigns include

the Football Associations Mini Soccer initiative and the English Sports Councils „cross-

community‟ initiatives. It is difficult to predict the effect of such initiatives in advance.

The Influence of New Facilities

13.21 New or improved facilities can stimulate demand which was not previously evident. Examples

include the development of local authority leisure centres and the development of 5-a-side

football facilities.

Management Arrangements

13.22 The management of facilities can affect demand. Changes in opening hours, pricing

structures and access to supporting facilities could affect the demand for particular facilities.

Media Exposure of Individual Sports

13.23 The national success at events such as the football and rugby world cups will invariably

attract young people into sports. Specific local marketing initiatives have also had a similar

effect.

Improved access to Sport Amongst Socially Excluded Groups

13.24 Certain groups in society are currently socially excluded from participating in sport. This could

be for a number of reasons including the inaccessibility of pitches, the cost of participating or

other barriers affecting membership of sports clubs. The Sport England Sports Equity Index

for Regular Participation provides a possible basis to identify and account for social groups

within the Borough which have lower than average participation rates.

13.25 A number of recent initiatives developed by the Government and Sport England have

identified the potential role sport can play in regenerating local areas and reducing levels of

social exclusion. The findings of the Social Exclusion Unit PAT 10 report identified sport can

contribute to neighbourhood renewal as we as improve health, crime, employment, education

and quality of life within deprived communities.

Changes in Population and Demographic Structure

13.26 One of the most significant determinants of future demand is likely to be future population

changes within the Borough. The Borough has experienced significant population growth in

the past and is likely to continue to do so in the future. Between 2009 and 2026 it is expected

that the Borough‟s population will increase from 291,300 (ONS Rounded Mid-year Population

Estimates 2009) to 304,705 (GLA 2010 Round Ethnic Group Population Projections using the

SHLAA) an increase of 4.6%. The increase in population and the changing demographic

structure will influence demand for outdoor pitch sports.


Final Report 161

Impact of Latent and Future Demand on Pitch Capacity

13.27 Table 13.5 identifies forecasts for the total number of teams for each of the main pitch sports

for 2026.

Table 13.5 – Estimated Teams 2026

Sport Total

Teams (2011)

Projected Teams due

to population increase

Growth Factor

Total Teams (2026)

Football Full Size 204 195 10% 214

Football Junior 143 162 10% 178

Football Mini 19 21 10% 23

Cricket Adult 69 65 10% 71

Cricket Junior 13 14 10% 16

Rugby Adult 24 18 10% 20

Rugby Junior 11 12 10% 13

Hockey 54 44 10% 49

13.28 The estimates of future teams were derived by using the following methodology:

projected population / Team Generation Rate (refer to Table 13.3); and

apply growth factor to total number of teams to account for enhanced participation /

sports development initiatives.

13.29 It has been assumed that a 10% growth in the number of regular participants could be

expected over the course of the LDF period to reflect potential growth in pitch sports

nationally and forthcoming sports development initiatives. This 10% growth rate was derived

by looking at the number of clubs with future plans for expansion as well as considering

sports development initiatives at the national and local level.

Table 13.6 – Weekly Pitch Demand and Capacity 2026

Sport

Total Grass Pitches in

Secure Community Use

Pitch Capacity

per Pitch*

Total Capacity

per Week

Total Demand

Net Capacity Matches

per Week

Football Adult (Full size)

113 2 226 107 119

Football Junior 42 2 84 89 -5

Football Mini 1 6 6 11 -5

Cricket 27 2 54 44 11

Rugby 19 2 38 17 21

Hockey 3 6 18 25 -7 *Number of competitive fixtures each pitch type can support each week without compromising pitch quality

Overall Capacity

13.30 The total teams information (Table 13.5) was then used to derive demand and weekly net

capacity for 2026 (refer to Table 13.6). It is assumed that there will be no net change in the

supply of pitches in secure community use. The assumptions used to derive demand and net

capacity are the same as those used to derive estimates of existing demand and capacity

(refer to Table 13.6).

13.31 Table 13.6 identifies a number of likely shortfalls in capacity by 2026 for a number of sports

including junior football (five matches per week), mini football (five matches per week) and

hockey, excluding ATPs (seven matches per week).


Final Report 162

13.32 For other sports including cricket and rugby there is likely to be limited additional capacity by

2026 of 11 matches and 21 matches per week respectively. With particular reference given

over to cricket, a key issue will be ensuring that the quality of pitches is enhanced to meet

league requirements.

Table 13.7 – Peak Day Demand and Capacity

Pitch Type

Total Grass

Pitches in SCU

Slots per

Pitch per Half

Day

Net Capacity Sat AM

Net Capacity Sat PM

Net Capacity Sun AM

Net Capacity Sun PM

Football Adult (Full size)

113 1 113 69.7 49.1 113

Football Junior

42 1 42 1.8 -6.8 42

Football Mini

1 3 3 -2.1 -3.2 3

Cricket 27 1 27 7.9 27.0 4.7

Rugby 19 1 19 5.2 19.0 19

Hockey 3 3 9 -15.5 9.0 9

Capacity on Peak Day

13.33 Estimates of pitch capacity for the peak day have been derived using the same assumptions

used in Table 13.6. The findings of the assessment are shown in Table 13.7. The

assessment is based on the assumption that there will be no change in playing patterns or

league structures up to 2026 (i.e. fixtures cannot take place on alternative days).

13.34 Table 13.7 shows that there is likely to be insufficient capacity at peak times (Sat PM, Sun

AM) to fully accommodate the needs of junior football, mini football and hockey, excluding

ATP‟s.

Pitch Provision Considering Latent and Future

Demand

Need for a Strategic Reserve

13.35 In addition to considering the impact of latent and future demand within the Borough it is

recommended that a strategic pitch reserve is identified. The identification of such a reserve

(a surplus of pitches) is recommended by Sport England‟s „Towards a Level Playing Field’

(2003). There are a number of reasons for defining a strategic reserve:

It accounts for the uncertainties associated with modelling demand for outdoor

sports pitches and assumptions relating to pitch capacity;

There will usually be some pitches which are out of use because they are

waterlogged or need time for maintenance and recovery;

The strategic role that Enfield plays in meeting the needs of other Boroughs;

As the demand for each of the different pitch sports changes independently of the

others, it is necessary to keep the number of pitches for each sport under review;

although sometimes it may be possible to re-mark a pitch, the need for one

additional pitch in say rugby does not automatically mean a local need for one less

football pitch; and


Final Report 163

The need to account for the informal usage of pitches.

13.36 The likely extent of the strategic reserve should reflect local circumstances, no specific level

of strategic reserve is defined within Sport England guidance and it is for local assessments

to determine the scale of reserve needed. Sport Scotland recommended a minimum strategic

reserve of 10% although often levels are higher than this (typically 15 or 20%).

13.37 In order to plan for the future needs of the Borough for the purposes of identifying playing

pitch land requirements a precautionary approach to provision has been adopted. A strategic

reserve reflecting 15% of demand is appropriate within the London Borough of Enfield given

the role that Enfield plays in accommodating playing pitch use from outside of the Borough

and that a significant proportion of pitches are located at private sports grounds which do not

provide opportunities for casual use.

13.38 The scale of the strategic reserve should be defined in addition to any requirements

associated with latent and potential demand. The playing pitch assessment completed as

part of this study identifies the total number of pitches required to meet the strategic reserve.

However, the particular pitches which should form part of the reserve list should be identified

by the Council as part of the playing pitch strategy.

13.39 Table 13.8 identifies that in 2026 demand is likely to exceed the current supply of pitches for

junior football (18 pitches), mini football (seven pitches) and hockey, excluding ATPs (10

pitches). The overall capacity for cricket is predicted to be small (four pitches), the implication

being that if the popularity of cricket exceeds the assumptions made in this assessment, a

capacity issue may also arise for this sport.

Table 13.8 – Unsatisfied Demand 2026 (including strategic reserve)

Pitch Type

Demand (Home

Games per Week)

15% Total

Demand

Overall Net Capacity per Week Including Strategic

Reserve

Football Adult 107 16 103

Football Junior 89 13 -18

Football Mini 11 2 -7

Cricket 44 7 4

Rugby 17 3 19

Hockey 25 4 -10

Identification of Additional Pitch Space Requirements

13.40 So far in this chapter unsatisfied demand has been expressed in terms of matches per week.

Table 13.9 converts match requirements into pitch requirements. It uses the same

assumptions relating to pitch carrying capacities as Tables 13.6 and 13.7.

13.41 Table 13.9 shows that by 2026, adult football, cricket and rugby (the most popular sports in

the London Borough of Enfield) should all have sufficient supply to meet projected demand.

Junior football, mini football and hockey will require addition provision amounting to nine, six

and 11 grass pitches respectively to meet needs up to 2026. If the four hockey ATPs,

identified during the updated open space assessment are taken into account the pitch

requirement for hockey drops to seven grass pitches.

13.42 Table 13.9 also identifies that the London Borough of Enfield will have 51 full size pitches

over and above the number required to meet future needs.

13.43 Total pitch requirements have been converted into space requirements (hectares) using the

recommended pitch areas defined by national governing bodies (including safety margins). In


Final Report 164

addition a 20% area allowance has been added to account for changing facilities, car parking

etc.

13.44 Overall a minimum of 214.5 ha is required to meet the overall playing pitch needs of the

Borough at 2026. This area is the minimum pitch area required together with an allowance for

changing facilities and parking. It should be recognised that some existing playing pitch sites

incorporate a greater area of land than this minimum requirement and may include other

open space functions and areas not connected to the use of the site for pitch sports (e.g.

areas of scrub, informal grassland, children‟s play area etc).

13.45 To convert land requirements into a playing pitch standard per 1,000 / population. The

projected population is divided by the pitch space requirements and then multiplied by 1,000.

The standard equates to 0.70 ha per 1,000 / population. It should be recognised that the

standard applies to new provision within the Borough.

Table 13.9 – Pitch Space Requirements 2026

Pitch Type Existing Pitches (2011)

Pitch Requirements

(2026)

Total Pitch Requirements

Pitch Space Requirements

(ha) (inc. Allowance)

Football Adult 113 62 -51 103.5

Football Junior 42 51 9 30.7

Football Mini 1 7 6 2.3

Cricket 27 25 -2 54.0

Rugby 19 10 -9 13.8

Hockey 3 14 11 10.1

Pitch space requirements 2026 214.5 Total Population 2026 304,704

Standard per 1,000 pop (ha) 0.70


Final Report 165

14. Other Outdoor Sports Provision

Artificial Turf Pitches

ATP Provision within Enfield

14.1 Within the London Borough of Enfield there are currently 13 full size (at least 50 x 100 metre)

ATPs in public use, most of which are floodlit. These are located at the following locations:

site 126 – Paulin Sports Ground;

site 197 – Enfield Playing Fields (Southbury Leisure Centre) x2;

site 258 – Trent Park Sports Ground (Middlesex University) x2;

site 268 – Oasis Academy Hadley School Field;

site 270 – Lea Valley High School Field;

site 274 – Broomfield Secondary School Field;

site 282 - Southgate School Field;

site 294 – Grange Park Primary School Field (Highlands School Sports Facilities);

site 316 – Gladys Aylward Sec School Field;

site 318 – Nightingale Academy; and

site 328 – Kingsmead Secondary School Field.

The Role of ATP Facilities

14.2 ATPs, whilst being the preferred surface upon which to play hockey, are not generally

considered acceptable for competitive play in football, rugby and cricket. However, for these

sports they represent a significant training resource as they offer a robust and even surface,

playable in all conditions and can, at least in theory, be used 24 hours / day if floodlighting is

provided. ATPs are also increasing in popularity for 5-a-side football as indicated by the

growth in the provision of professional soccer centres in recent years.

14.3 Use of ATPs for football and rugby training can also assist in reducing wear and tear on

grass pitches thus securing playable pitches for competitive matches and reducing

maintenance costs.

Standards of Provision for ATPs

14.1 At present there are no formally adopted standards relating to the provision of ATPs.

However, Sport England recommend a minimum standard of 1 x ATP per 60,000 population

within a 20 minute drive time catchment. This standard is used to measure local need in the

assessment of lottery funding applications and is used by the Football Association. Table

14.1 shows the estimated need for ATP‟s based on mid 2009 and 2026 population

projections.


Final Report 166

Table 14.1 – Estimate ATP Needs

Year 2009 2026

Total Population Enfield 291,300 304,705

Minimum Artificial Turf Pitch Requirement (No. Pitches)

4.9 5.1

Source: ONS Rounded Mid-year Population Estimates 2009; GLA 2010 Round of GLA Demographic

Projections

14.2 Applying the Sport England Standard to the existing population of Enfield suggests that there

was a need for at least four ATPs in secure community use as of 2009, this requirement

increases to a minimum of five ATPs after 2026. When compared with the informal Sport

England Standard it appears that Enfield is currently adequately provided for with regards to

the provision of ATPs.

14.3 However, ATP needs are not solely a function of population. It is important to consider

capacity issues at individual pitch sites and whether the needs of particular sports or users

within the Borough are such that levels of provision over and above the national standard are

required.

14.4 It is also important to consider the accessibility of existing provision and whether the needs of

some parts of the Borough are not well served by the distribution of facilities.

14.5 The ATPs at Oasis Academy, Hadley School Field; Gladys Aylward Sec School Field;

Kingsmead Secondary School Field and Lea Valley High School Field are all used

exclusively by the schools during school hours and are available for hire during the Saturday

am. Several clubs mentioned that they use ATP facilities within the Borough for training

however none mentioned any problems with capacity issues (Enfield Open Space and Sports

Assessment, 2006, Club Survey).

Pitch Accessibility

14.6 The Sport England standard recommends that the catchment area for ATP provision should

be 20 minutes travel time. Access to an ATP is considered to be poor when the travel time to

a given pitch exceeds 20 minutes.

14.7 This access standard was used to identify parts of the Borough which lie outside of the

catchment of existing pitches. For those with access to a private car, all parts of the Borough

are within a 20 minute drive to an all weather pitch.

14.8 When residents of the Borough who are reliant upon public transport are considered, ATPs

become more difficult to access for those living in Grange, Cockfosters, Chase and

Highland‟s wards due to the lack of bus services serving ATPs within Enfield. Given that

travelling by foot is a popular mode of travel in London, the provision of ATP‟s has also been

considered with regards to walking. Assuming a 20 minute travel time allows people to travel

a maximum 1.6km, those living within parts of Upper Edmonton, Edmonton Green, Lower

Edmonton, Jubilee, Cockfosters, Bush Hill Park and Town as well as most of Winchmore Hill,

Grange and Southgate wards have poor access to an ATP by foot.

Guidelines for the Planning and location of future ATP

Provision

14.9 As ATPs are expensive to construct and the surface has to be replaced approximately every

ten years, it is important that facilities are located where they will be well used, both to recoup

the initial capital outlay and to maximise the contributions to the necessary sinking fund to

replace worn out surface.


Final Report 167

14.10 The viability of ATPs is underpinned by committed users such as large hockey and football

clubs who are willing to block book sessions. It also helps if, in off-peak periods, time can be

utilised by schools. The optimal locations for such locations for such facilities are frequently

school sites in accessible locations where community use agreements exist. Co-locating

facilities with existing indoor leisure facilities also foster usage and can enable savings to be

made in management costs.

14.11 Within Enfield it would be desirable to improve the spatial distribution of facilities and access

from areas not well served by existing facilities, and in particular the central and western

parts of the Borough where access is poor at present.

14.12 Enhanced ATP provision within the Borough represents an opportunity to support further

football and rugby training and provide the basis for the development of hockey and other

sports in Enfield.

14.13 The site for future ATP facilities should be guided by the following criteria:

the location should be accessible by foot, road and public transport;

the site should be level and have suitable ground conditions;

the site should preferably not be located on Metropolitan Open Land which may

preclude the installation of floodlighting;

the positioning of facilities should take into account the proximity of residential

properties and existing and potential screening. The effects of flood lighting and

noise may mean that the hours of use may need to be restricted if these effects

cannot be mitigated through design;

the site should have adequate road access and be able to accommodate car

parking;

there should be potential to provide or extend ancillary changing facilities if adequate

facilities are not already in place; and

consideration should be given to landscaping, screening and fencing requirements.

Other Outdoor Sports Provision 14.14 In addition to the provision made for outdoor playing pitches and pitch sports within the

London Borough of Enfield, provision also exists for a range of non team sports on a variety

of surfaces. In total 107 sites were surveyed in the spring of 2011 to refresh the findings of

the Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006). Of these sites, 57 were assessed as

containing provision for other outdoor sports provision. Table 14.2 identifies other outdoor

facilities within the London Borough of Enfield taking into account both re-surveyed sites

(2011) and the original survey findings (2006) for those sites that were not re-surveyed.

Table 14.2 – Other Outdoor Sports Facilities

Facility Type Grass All weather Hard Surface Total

Athletics 12 2 0 14

Multi Use Games Area 0 18 38 56

Tennis Courts 16 39 119 174

Netball 0 0 13 13

Full size basketball 0 5 18 23

Bowls 14 0 0 14

Rounder‟s 4 0 0 4

Softball 1 0 0 1


Final Report 168

Multi-use Games Areas (MUGAs)

14.15 Sites within Enfield contain 56 Multi-Use Games Areas (MUGAs), 68% of which were found

to be hard surfaced facilities. MUGAs have various line markings laid out and as such can

accommodate a wide range of sports including netball, mini-football, badminton and junior

tennis.

14.16 MUGAs are consequently suited to the needs of children and young people due to their

inherent flexibility to cater for a range of sports, and in areas of high demand or where there

is potential for intensive usage. The majority of these are found at school sites and are

usually marked-out on hard playing surfaces. MUGAs provide a cost effective means of

catering for a large number of sports when space is at a premium.

14.17 The site audits included the following as multi-purpose games areas (refer to table 14.2):

all weather tennis courts with markings for other sports (such as hockey);

all weather 5-a-side football pitches; and

other Multi-Use Games Areas.

14.18 Due to the fact that netball is often played on MUGAs at school sites, the large percentage of

MUGAs relative to the number of dedicated netball courts gives the impression that the

Borough does not have an adequate supply of netball courts. However, adequate provision is

made, albeit on MUGAs rather than dedicated netball courts.

Other Outdoor Sports Provision

14.19 Table 14.2 identifies that tennis courts have the highest provision for other outdoor sports

within the London Borough of Enfield (172 courts). 68% of surveyed tennis courts are

provided on a hard surface while 22% have an all weather surface while eight grass tennis

courts were identified (9%).

14.20 13 netball courts have been identified in the London Borough of Enfield, all of which are

provided on a hard surface. Of the identified 23 basketball courts, 22% are provided on an all

weather surface while the remainder (78%) are provided on a hard surface. The four

identified rounder‟s pitches are provided on a grass surface and were all located within

education sites.

14.21 The updated assessment identified 14 athletics tracks, 12 of which have a grass surface and

are located within education sites. The remaining two athletics tracks are provided on an

artificial surface and are located at Enfield Playing Fields and the Lea Valley Leisure Park.

14.22 Table 14.2 shows that 14 full size bowls rinks have been identified in the London Borough of

Enfield. The distribution of other outdoor sports facilities is illustrated on Figure 14.1.

14.23 Figure 14.1 illustrates that tennis courts are distributed evenly throughout the Borough.

MUGA‟s are also distributed evenly throughout most of the Borough with the exception of the

centre, particularly near Grange, Highlands and parts of Cockfosters Wards. Southbury,

Turkey Street and Enfield Lock Wards also suffer from a lack of bowls facilities.

14.24 Table 14.3 identifies where other outdoor sports facilities have been identified as being

floodlit or enclosed.


Final Report 169

Table 14.3 – Floodlighting and Enclosure at Other Facilities

Facility Type Floodlit Enclosed

No. % No. %

Multi Use Games Area 10 18 40 71

Tennis Courts 51 29 144 83

Netball 1 8 10 77

Full size Basketball Court 1 8 22 96

Bowls 4 29 14 100

Rounder‟s 0 0 3 75

Softball 0 0 0 0

Athletics 2 14 4 29

Total 69 23.1 237 79.3

14.25 Table 14.3 shows that of a total 299 pitches / courts for other outer sports identified in the

London Borough of Enfield, 69 were assessed as being floodlit, while 237 pitches / courts

were enclosed (had a net or wire fence around the pitch). The table shows that no rounder‟s

or softball pitches were assessed as being floodlit. The implication of this is that the capacity

to practice rounder‟s or softball is limited to daylight hours.

14.26 Of the 71 Multi-Use Games Areas identified ten had floodlights (18%) while 40 (71%) were

enclosed.

Demand for Other Outdoor Sports 14.27 It is not appropriate to assess the needs for other outdoor sports using the playing pitch

assessment methodology or facilities planning model. For non team sports including tennis,

bowls and athletics an alternative assessment of provision and supply has been undertaken

which reflects the particular requirements of these sports and the available data. The

commentary for this chapter analyses the provision of various other outdoor sports that have

been identified within the London Borough of Enfield, drawing from information contained in

the Sports Club Survey (2006) and updated sports club information held by the London

Borough of Enfield. It should be noted that a complete audit of all open space within the

Borough was not completed as part of this update.

14.28 It should be recognised that participation as part of a club represents only a small component

of overall participation for several sports (such as walking / rambling, running and cycling),

whereas for sports which require specialised knowledge, equipment or are team based

(including bowls, tennis and sailing). Membership of a club is frequently essential to

participate.

14.29 Table 14.4 identifies a total of 89 other outdoor sports clubs in the London Borough of

Enfield. This table has been updated to reflect the latest sports club information held by the

Borough (2011). The Borough is particularly well served with regards to Bowls (21 clubs) and

tennis (18 clubs).


Final Report 170

Table 14.4 – Other Outdoor Sports Clubs

Outdoor Sport No. of Clubs in

Borough Responses

Response Rate (%)

Angling 8 0 0

Archery 2 0 0

Athletics 3 0 0

Bowls 21 13 62

Canoeing 1 0 0

Croquet 1 1 100

Cycling 4 0 0

Golf 9 3 33

Horse riding 2 0 0

Netball 8 3 38

Rambling 5 1 20

Roller Skating 1 0 0

Running 3 1 33

Sailing 3 0 0

Tennis 18 6 33

Basket Ball 1 0 0

Lacross 1 0 0

Petanque 1 0 0

Total 89 28 0 Source: Club Survey (2006), London Borough of Enfield Club Information (2011)

Methodology for Assessing Latent Demand for Other

Outdoor Sports

14.30 The Sport England Active People Survey is an annual survey which assesses participation

rates for a large range of popular outdoor sports. The following analysis of the Active People

Survey considers the findings from APS 5 (2010 – 2011). Nationally, the most popular sports

for adults (those aged 16 or over) were cycling (8.83%), athletics (6.65%) and golf (3.36%).

14.31 In order to assess potential demand for outdoor sports within the London Borough of Enfield

it is possible to estimate potential participants for outdoor sports based upon national

participation rates identified by the latest Active People Survey, adjusted to fit the

demographic profile of the Borough. These estimations do not reflect existing issues relating

to the scale or quality of provision within Enfield or local influences on demand for these

activities.

14.32 Table 14.5 indicates potential demand for outdoor sports within Enfield for 2010 and 2026

based on the participation rates identified in Active People Survey 5 (2010 – 2011).


Final Report 171

Table 14.5 – Potential Demand for Other Outdoor Sports

Outdoor Sport Participation Rate %

(2010 - 2011) No. Participating

(2010 - 2011) No. Participating

(2026)

Angling 1.04 2,394 2,495

Athletics 6.65 15,306 15,952

Canoeing 0.33 760 792

Cycling 8.83 20,324 21,181

Golf 3.36 7,734 8,060

Equestrian 0.97 2,233 2,327

Bowls 0.77 1,772 1,847

Netball 0.48 1,105 1,151

Sailing 0.34 783 816

Tennis 1.80 4,143 4,318 Source: Active People Survey 5; ONS mid-year population estimates 2010; GLA 2010 Round Ethnic Group Population

Projections using the SHLAA

Tennis

Existing Provision

14.33 Using Club Survey (2006) data and Council records (2011) 18 tennis clubs have been

identified in the London Borough of Enfield, six of which responded to the Club Survey

(2006).

Demand for Tennis

14.34 For most tennis clubs membership remained static for the three years up to 2006, suggesting

demand for the sport was relatively stable. One club reported an increase in membership

largely due to the attraction served by its provision of grass courts. No club reported having a

waiting list for prospective members.

14.35 In the two cases where membership decreased, clubs such as Brackendale Tennis Club and

Parkside Lawn Tennis Club introduced coaching to help increase the number of members,

action which proved popular with young people.

14.36 One club highlighted that retention of senior members was difficult, stating that players of a

higher standard had been moving to more competitive clubs. These clubs were likely to be

situated outside the Borough as no club reported drawing members from other local

authorities.

Capacity Issues

14.37 Only one club reported a need for maintenance and funding to be directed towards the courts

and club house.

14.38 Larger clubs, including Winchmore Hill and Enfield Lawn Tennis Club & Sunnyside stated

they had no problems regarding the condition of facilities or membership retention.

14.39 It is not possible to estimate existing usage at courts located within public open spaces as

these courts are predominately in casual use. The inappropriate surface type of courts and

inadequate provision of ancillary facilities at courts located within public parks and schools

may suppress patronage of these facilities and as a result there is likely to be an element of

unmet demand for tennis facilities of adequate quality which can be booked for casual

sessions.

Latent Demand

14.40 Table 14.5 identifies the potential number of tennis participants within the London Borough of

Enfield, which has been estimated based upon national participation rates adjusted to fit the


Final Report 172

demographic profile of the Borough. The estimate does not reflect existing issues relating to

the scale or quality of tennis or the demand for tennis. It is anticipated that the demand for

tennis in the Borough is likely to increase by 4.2% between 2010 and 2026.

14.41 An assessment of future court needs has been made based upon national participation rates

for each age cohort adjusted to fit the demographic profile of Enfield. It should be noted that

of all the sports considered in this chapter, only tennis is subject to the quantitative future

needs assessment. This is because tennis is one of the few sports which has a large casual

„turn up and play‟ participation rate and also requires dedicated facilities. It is also one of the

more popular outdoor sports in the Borough (as identified in Table 14.5). Table 14.5 indicates

that the extent of potential demand for tennis within Enfield in 2026 is likely to be in the order

of 4,318 regular participants (who participate at least once a month in season).

14.42 The estimate of participation as outlined in Table 14.5 does not reflect existing constraints on

demand within Enfield namely the restricted access to privately managed courts, lack of

floodlighting and changing rooms and issues relating to the inadequacy of hard surface

courts for competitive matches. These issues are likely to suppress manifest demand for

courts.

14.43 At present the maximum estimated capacity of existing courts is estimated to be some

26,796 match slots per month in Enfield. This is based upon the following assumptions:

for each court there is capacity of four match slots per weekday evening and eight

slots per weekend day resulting in 36 slots per week and 154 slots per month; and

for the purposes of the assessment the consultants assumed that all courts could

potentially be publically accessible and could support 36 match slots per week.

14.44 The consultants estimated that demand for match slots in 2026 is likely to be in the order of

3,076 match slots per month. This is based upon the following assumptions:

half of matches will be singles matches and half of matches will be doubles; and

20% of players participate four times per month, 30% of players participate twice a

month and 50% of players participate once a month.

14.45 It should be noted that in the absence of a recognised methodology for predicting the

potential demand for tennis, the above assumptions relating to the frequency of participation

are estimates based upon the findings of the Sport England Active People Survey 5.

14.46 At present there are 174 tennis courts in the Borough (including school sites). 119 of these

courts are hard surface courts. At present there are only 55 courts which have a grass, all

weather or clay surface which are preferred for competitive play.

14.47 The capacity of all tennis courts within the Borough, including those at education sites, is an

estimated 26,796 matches per month based upon an estimated 36 match slots per week per

court. In 2026 it is estimated that demand will be in the order of 3,076 matches per month. To

support these matches a minimum of 20 courts would be required.

14.48 The London Borough of Enfield currently has sufficient supply of tennis courts (55) to meet

the projected demand up to 2026 for 20 courts. It is therefore recommended that current

provision should be maintained going forward.

Athletics

Existing Provision

14.49 Three athletics clubs have been identified in the London Borough of Enfield. Only one of

these clubs (Haringey Athletics Club) was included in the club survey sample (2006), which

did not take part in the survey.


Final Report 173

Demand for Athletics

14.50 Nationally, 6.65% of the population participates in athletics at least once every four weeks

(Sport England Active People Survey 5).

Latent Demand for Athletics

14.51 Table 14.5 identifies the overall number of potential athletics participants within Enfield, which

has been estimated based upon national participation rates adjusted to fit the demographic

profile of the Borough. This estimate does not reflect existing issues relating to the scale or

quality of athletics or the demand for athletics. It is anticipated that the demand for athletics in

the Borough is likely to increase by 4.2% between 2010 and 2026.

Outdoor Bowls

Existing Provision

14.52 21 outdoor bowls clubs have been identified in the London Borough of Enfield, of which 13

responded to the club survey (2006).

Demand for Outdoor Bowls

14.53 Of the 13 clubs that responded to the club survey (2006), five reported that membership had

declined within the past three years whilst seven clubs reported that membership had

remained static. These clubs had a combined membership in the region of 990 members

(Table 14.6). The vast majority of which are described as being „regular‟ participants.

14.54 Some clubs reported that there was an issue with recruitment as elderly members pass

away. As a result of this clubs have undertaken advertising to promote bowls and some other

coaching for beginners.

14.55 Outdoor bowls clubs are generally well maintained and many tend to be located in public

parks. There is therefore not an issue in the quantity or quality of facilities.

Table 14.6 – Bowls Club Membership

Age Group Regular

Membership Casual

Members

Men 510 67

Women 324 79

Junior / Youth (boys) 7 0

Junior / Youth (girls) 2 0

Total 843 146

Latent Demand for Outdoor Bowls

14.56 It is anticipated that demand for outdoor bowls within the London Borough of Enfield is likely

to increase to 1,847 members by 2026 due to demographic changes.

Water Sports

Existing Provision

14.57 Despite its landlocked location there are three sailing clubs located within Enfield. None of

these clubs responded to the club survey (2006).

14.58 The club survey also identified one canoeing club in the Borough, the Edmonton Canoe

Group. They did not reply to the club survey (2006). The club practices indoors at Edmonton

Leisure Centre but uses the river Lea at Cheshunt, which is outside the Borough, for lake and

river sessions.


Final Report 174

Supply for Sailing / Canoeing

14.59 By their nature, water-sports are restricted by the amount of water situated in an area that is

suitable to be used for recreation. As such, sailing in inland regions is restricted to reservoirs,

lakes and rivers, where local regulations authorize the activity. Even in locations where

water-sports are permitted, potential users can be prohibited to sail outside of club hours,

when safety cover may not be available, or when local by-laws exclude such activities from

taking place. The nature of the sport may also require users to either own or be able to hire /

borrow the equipment necessary to participate in the sport. In addition to having the

necessary knowledge / skills required to participate. Demand can fluctuate enormously

between summer and winter seasons.

14.60 As none of the three water sports clubs identified above responded to the club survey (2006)

it is impossible to ascertain whether any specific capacity issues exist.

Latent Demand for Sailing / Canoeing

14.61 To assess potential demand, the overall number of potential regular sailing participants within

Enfield has been estimated based on national participation rates identified by Sports England

Active People Survey 5 (Table 14.5). This estimate does not reflect existing issues relating to

the scale or quality of provision within sailing or local influences on the demand for sailing. It

is expected that 816 people will participate in sailing at least once per month by 2026 and

792 people will participate in canoeing at least once per month by 2026.

Angling

Existing Provision

14.62 Eight angling clubs were identified in the London Borough of Enfield of which none

responded to the Club Survey (2006). The nature of this sport means that clubs tend to fish

from a number of venues rather than operating from a single site. Woodlands Lake at Forty

Hall and the River Lea are the most popular venues for angling within the Borough.

Demand for Angling

14.63 Nationally participation in angling amounts to 1.04% of the population. As no angling clubs

responded to the club survey (2006) it has not been possible to ascertain whether any

specific capacity issues exist within the Borough.

Latent Demand for Angling

14.64 It is anticipated that demand from angling is likely to increase from 2,394 participants in 2010

to 2,495 participants in 2026.

Horse Riding

Existing Provision

14.65 Two horse riding clubs have been identified in the London Borough of Enfield. Neither of

these clubs responded to the club survey (2006). Trent Park equestrian centre, located within

Trent Park, and Gillian‟s Riding Centre, located at Clay Hill, North Enfield are the Borough‟s

only dedicated horse riding venues.

Demand for Horse Riding

14.66 Nationally 0.97% of the population take part in horse riding activities at least once every four

weeks. It is not certain whether either of the Boroughs horse riding clubs have experienced

any specific capacity issues.


Final Report 175

Latent Demand for Horse Riding

14.67 It is anticipated that demand for horse riding in the Borough is likely to increase from 2,233

people in 2010 to 2,327 in 2026.

Cycling

Existing Provision

14.68 Four cycling clubs have been identified in the London Borough of Enfield of which none


Demand for Cycling

14.69 Nationally, 8.83% of the population take part in cycling activities at least once every four

weeks.

Latent Demand for Cycling

14.70 Table 14.5 illustrates the overall number of regular cycling participants within the London

Borough of Enfield which has been estimated based upon national participation rates

adjusted to fit the demographic profile of the Borough. This estimate does not reflect existing

issues relating to the scale or quality of cycling provision or the demand for cycling. It is

anticipated that demand will increase from 20,324 people in 2010 to 21,181 in 2026.

Netball

Existing Provision

14.71 Eight netball clubs have been identified in the London Borough of Enfield of which three


Demand for Netball

14.72 Demand for netball appears to be high with clubs that responded to the survey stating that

membership increased over the preceding three years up to 2006. The Turnford Mecury

Netball League reported a waiting list of 5 teams (club survey 2006).

Capacity Issues

14.73 Club survey (2006) respondents all play competitive netball matches at Broomfield Park,

situated in the south west of the Borough. All clubs reported a need for maintenance,

including modernising changing accommodation and resurfacing courts.

Latent Demand for Netball

14.74 It is anticipated that demand for netball will increase from 1,105 people in 2006 to 1,151

people in 2026.

Golf

Existing Provision

14.75 Nine gold clubs have been identified in the London Borough of Enfield of which three clubs


Demand for Golf

14.76 Of the three clubs that responded to the club survey (2006), two reported that membership

had remained static for the preceding three years up to 2006. One club, Leaside Golf Club

reported that membership had increased.


Final Report 176

14.77 Some clubs stated that there was an emphasis to encourage the younger generation to take

an interest in the sport. Bush Hill Park Golf Club, for example, offers free coaching and

provision of equipment to children between five and nine years of age.

Latent Demand for Golf

14.78 It is anticipated that latent demand for golf will increase from 7,734 people in 2010 to 8,060 in

2026.

Conclusions 14.79 Chapter 15 identifies how the needs for outdoor sports within the London Borough of Enfield

should be met up to 2026. It is not appropriate to set a specific standard relating to the

quantity of facilities provision. It is expected that deficiencies in other outdoor sports provision

will be linked to improvements in the quality of public park provision or other plans initiated by

schools or clubs.


Final Report 177

15. Meeting Sports Needs within the

Borough

Introduction 15.1 This chapter identifies the policy and management mechanisms necessary to address the

sports needs identified within the preceding chapters of this report. The recommendations

should be used to inform policy development where it relates to land use and planning

issues. Where a policy relates to the management of existing demand then the development

of a sports and recreation or playing pitch strategy and action plan is likely to be the most

appropriate mechanism to affect change.

Playing Pitch Needs

Quantitative Requirements

15.2 The pitch assessment (chapters 12 and 13) identified that the London Borough of Enfield has

a surplus of adult football, cricket and rugby pitches. Table 15.1 identifies the total number

and area (ha) of pitches that are assessed to be surplus to requirements within the Borough.

Whilst this study identifies the number and area of pitches assessed to be surplus to

requirements, the Council should identify which particular pitches are no longer required as

part of the Playing Pitch Strategy. This could be achieved by meeting with user groups / clubs

etc to ensure that a pitch is surplus to requirements.

Table 15.1 – Pitches Surplus to Requirements

Pitch Type Existing Pitches (2011)

Pitch Requirements

(2026)

Total Pitch Surplus

(number of pitches)

Pitch Space Surplus (ha)

(inc. allowance)

Football Adult 113 62 51 85.68

Cricket 27 25 2 4.32

Rugby 19 10 9 12.96

Total 159 96 62 102.96

15.3 Based upon the findings of the playing pitch assessment a pitch area of 102.96 ha could

potentially be considered for alternative open space of sports uses consistent with the

provisions of Enfield‟s Local Development Framework and other material considerations.

Prioritisation of Sites for Retention for Outdoor Pitch Sports

15.4 In order to prioritise which sites should be retained in playing pitch use the following

evaluation criteria should be considered:

the potential contribution the site could make to realising the objectives of the

Council‟s sport and recreation strategy;

the potential for the site to accommodate change; and

whether the site should be retained as a playing pitch site in order to enable

adequate access to playing pitches within a particular sub area of the Borough (i.e.

the site lies within an area which is deficient in access to playing pitch provision even

though overall needs within the Borough have been met).


Final Report 178

Prioritisation of Sites for Alternative Open Space Use

15.5 Following consideration of whether sites should be prioritised for retention in pitch sports is

necessary to identify whether the playing pitch sites are needed to perform an alternative

open space use. To identify which sites should be prioritised for retention the following

factors should be considered in turn:

whether the site has the potential to meet a deficiency (in terms of quantity or

access) to another type of open space provision;

whether the existing and potential recreational or non-recreational roles performed

by the open space preclude the site either wholly or partly being brought forward for

an alternative non-open space use;

consideration of other constraints which may preclude the re-use of the site for

another type of open space provision (i.e. land ownership) and / or constraints which

may preclude it‟s redevelopment for alternative uses (i.e. land contamination issues,

the site lies within a functional flood plain etc); and

levels of usage & public perceptions of the value of the site.

15.6 Paragraph 1 of PPG17 identifies that the open space needs of local communities should

inform open space assessments. “To ensure effective planning for open space, sport and

recreation it is essential that the needs of local communities are known....As a minimum

assessments of need should cover the differing and distinctive needs of the population for

open space, built sports and recreational facilities”. (PPG17 Para 1-2).

15.7 The Open Space and Sports Assessment (2006) included consultation with league

secretaries in order to enable the assessment of local needs for outdoor pitch sports. The

Assessment (2006) also considered the differing and distinctive needs of the population for

open space and recreational facilities on a Borough wide and on a sub-area basis through

the use of the findings from the resident‟s survey (2006). However, if the Council is

considering an alternative use of a particular space, such as a playing pitch, further

consultation would be required to identify the value of a particular space to the community.

Potential Opportunities for Diversification and Introduction of Non-Pitch Open Space Uses

15.8 At some playing fields the potential is in the form of diversifying the use of the periphery of

the site whilst retaining the primary pitch use. In the instance where a site may no longer be

required for its current sports pitch use in the future the potential may exist to diversify the

site by introducing new forms of open space use.

15.9 Partial diversification of sites would contribute towards improvement of the public realm in

these spaces and could deliver benefits including improved access to informal recreational

activities, landscape enhancement and informal policing of spaces.

Access to Outdoor Pitch Provision 15.10 Most parts of the Borough lie within the catchment area of a playing field in secure

community use. Those areas which are deficient in access tend to be rural areas in the north

of the Borough with insufficient population to justify the provision of further pitches. However

there is a deficiency area which is located just south east of Oakwood station.

15.11 An additional playing field site should be brought forward in this area to alleviate the

deficiency in access. If no suitable site can be identified then access routes from the area to

existing provision should be enhanced.


Final Report 179

Improving the Quality of Pitches in Secure

Community Use 15.12 For all sports there is a need to upgrade the overall quality of provision at sites in secure

community use in order to make these facilities „fit for use‟. Several improvements are

possible in order to make these facilities „fit for use‟. Several improvements are possible in

order to improve the quantity and quality of playing pitches within the Borough. The possible

menu of options includes:

qualitative improvements to enhance the provision and quality of ancillary facilities to

improve their adequacy to meet the level of potential demand associated with

pitches at that location; and

improvements to the utilisation of sites through improved pitch layouts,

improvements to pitch drainage, provision floodlighting to enable evening matches

mid-week, or use of under-utilised land to accommodate further pitches.

15.13 The programme of open space site visits (2011) included an appraisal of the condition of

existing facilities and identification of possible opportunities for future enhancement of all

facilities at all sites including those not in secured community use. The site assessments

identified 22 pitches as being in poor condition (refer to Table 15.2). If these sites are to be

retained in secure community use then pitches at these sites should be upgraded to meet

league standards.

Table 15.2 – Pitches Assessed As Being in Poor Condition

Pitch Type ID Name of Space Quality

Ranking

Football (full size) 146 Aylands Open Space Poor

187 Grovelands Park Poor

219 Broomfield Park Poor

263 Brimsdown Sports Ground East Poor

157 Ponders End Recreation Ground Poor

170 Craig Park Poor

191 Firs Farm Poor

Football Junior 263 Brimsdown Sports Ground East Poor

156 Alma Road Open Space Poor

157 Ponders End Recreation Ground Poor

170 Craig Park Poor

Rugby (full size) 227 Bramley Road Sports Ground Poor

15.14 The site survey identified that no changing facilities exist at 27 sites with pitches in secure

community use. This lack of provision in quality changing facilities within the London Borough

of Enfield has meant that the needs and expectations of clubs which use these venues are

not met. The provision and priority of changing facilities is a priority in order to facilitate the

growth and development of pitch sports within the Borough. Those strategic sites which

support the greatest number of matches should be prioritised for improvement. These sites

include Soham Road Recreation Ground, Boundary Playing Fields, Alma Road Open Space

and Grovelands Park.


Final Report 180

Potential Role of Sites with an Outdoor Sports

Role 15.15 Unconnected with the appraisal of existing provision the potential for sites to accommodate

change was also considered. Figure 15.1 identifies the possible scope for change which

exists at individual pitch sites. Appendix N provides a breakdown of the potential role of each

space. This evaluation of potential is intended to identify possible range of opportunities and

not to assess the feasibility of improvements.

Physical Potential to Intensify Use of Existing Pitches

15.16 The site assessment identified 26 sites where physical potential exists to intensify the use of

existing pitches. These sites are identified on Figure 15.1. Intensifying the use of existing

pitches at these sites could increase match capacity and enable the sites to be used more

flexibly. Intensification of pitches should not be viewed as the solution to address quantitative

deficiencies in pitch provision as even with improvements only a finite number of league

games can be accommodated during peak periods. However, intensification could enable

training or casual usage to be accommodated sustainably during other times during the

week. Major pitch improvement schemes which include significant improvements to pitch

drainage arrangements should be targeted at pitches which are well located and well used

but are in poor condition to improve their carrying capacity.

15.17 At some sites it may be appropriate to provide additional floodlighting combined with pitch

reconstruction to provide a reinforced grass surface for football and rugby where this is

deemed cost effective. To improve the standard of cricket provision within the Borough

artificial wickets may be provided on the edge of established squares or in practice net areas.

15.18 It may be desirable to designate particular pitches as venues for end of season show games

and provide the appropriate spectator or other ancillary accommodation. Such pitches might

be used by teams playing in higher leagues with specific requirements for fenced pitches,

dugouts, floodlighting and spectator facilities etc.

Physical Potential to Accommodate Changing Rooms / Social Facilities

15.19 The site assessment identified 16 sites where physical potential exists to accommodate

additional changing rooms or social facilities, or to extend existing facilities. This does not

indicate whether such proposals are likely to be acceptable in planning terms. The location of

these sites is identified on Figure 15.1. However, there recommendations are not a definitive

list and there may also be potential to introduce changing facilities at other sites.

15.20 In order to meet the qualitative requirements of specific clubs it will be necessary to address

deficiencies in the provision of changing accommodation and other facilities at selected sites.

This should include upgrading or replacing changing rooms and ancillary buildings which are

unusable or inadequate to make them suitable for the level of potential demand at that

location and make them usable for mixed gender use, recognising that buildings need to be

robust against potential vandalism attempts and conform with local planning policies.

15.21 Those sites which support a larger number of matches but at which no facilities exist should

be prioritised for the introduction of such facilities.

Potential for Improved Site Utilisation

15.22 The site assessment identified 21 open spaces where potential exists for improved site

utilisation. Some of these sites may provide potential opportunities to accommodate new or

enhanced playing pitch provision (Figure 15.1).


Final Report 181

Physical Potential for Additional Pitches

15.23 The site assessment identified 23 sites where physical potential exists for the marking of

additional pitches (refer to Figure 15.1). The assessment was carried out independently of

whether the site is managed by the Council or a private / voluntary provider. The assessment

does not necessarily indicate whether such pitches would meet local league standards or

whether the accommodation of an additional pitch would be sustainable in terms of the long

term management of the site. A more detailed evaluation of these sites would be required to

identify the extent to which existing sites could meet quantitative pitch requirements up to

2026. The feasibility of providing additional pitches at each site should include consideration

of the following issues:

whether there is sufficient capacity within ancillary facilities to accommodate the

demand generated by an additional pitch or whether there is potential to extend or

develop such facilities;

whether there is sufficient potential to allow pitch rotation from season to season to

allow re-growth; and

whether the site may be subject to water logging.

Potential Opportunities for Diversification and Introduction of Non-pitch

Open Space Uses

15.24 Potential exists to diversify activities at playing pitch locations by introducing non-pitch open

space uses to areas not currently being used for the primary pitch use. At other sites

potential may exist to diversify larger areas of the site for other open space uses where the

site may be more appropriately used to meet deficiencies in other forms of open space.

15.25 Partial diversification of sites would contribute improvement of the public realm in these

spaces and could deliver benefits including improved access to informal recreational

activities, landscape enhancement and informal policing of spaces.

15.26 The site assessment identified 33 open spaces where potential opportunities exists for the

introduction of other open space uses. Some of the sites identified may be playing pitch sites.

It is important to emphasise that Figure 15.1 provides an indication of potential rather than a

recommendation to implement such changes.

15.27 In considering specific improvements there is a need to consider access and security

considerations to prevent dog fouling, vandalism of facilities and degradation of the playing

surface. However, it should be recognised that playing fields represent a shared resource for

all residents and that flat mown fields may hold only limited appeal for some residents.

Approach to Sites in Casual Use

15.28 Three sites in the London Borough Enfield support casual sports participation at present.

These sites are not included in the main assessment of playing pitch needs. The level of

provision at these sites is identified in Table 12.2.

15.29 The opportunities for informal participation at these sites represent a valuable resource which

in some cases provides local access to playing fields where formal facilities do not exist.

Whilst the assessment has not included a detailed assessment of casual participation in the

Borough, this component of demand is accounted for within the strategic reserve (refer to

chapter 15).

15.30 In some cases it may be appropriate to improve provision and management of these sites in

order to accommodate formal league matches where other more suitable sites are not

available. However, it is desirable to maintain a playing field resource dedicated for casual


Final Report 182

use to enable casual games to take place during weekend periods without the need to

compete with other pitch users.

Sites with No Community Access

15.31 Within the London Borough of Enfield there are 42 open spaces which include playing

pitches with no community access. The majority of these sites include schools sites although

there are also pitches located within the grounds of various private institutions to which

access is restricted.

15.32 Primary schools tend not to have adequate provision of changing facilities which would

enable the use of their facilities by outside groups. Furthermore, the utilisation of pitches for

curriculum use often means that pitches cannot sustainable support further matches per

week without improvements to pitch capacity (e.g. improvements to pitch drainage). At other

pitches located within the grounds of institutions there are often specific reasons why public

access is restricted.

Implementation

Preparation of a Playing Pitch Strategy and Action Plan

15.33 In order to secure the level of provision necessary to meet the needs of the Borough up to

2026 it will be necessary for the Council to prepare a playing pitch strategy and action plan.

The strategy and action plan should be developed in accordance with Sport England best

practice, „Towards a Level Playing Field: A Guide to the Production of Playing Pitch

Strategies‟. The strategy should identify solutions to the quantitative and qualitative

deficiencies identified within this assessment including site specific proposals for:

rationalising provision to reflect the quantitative needs of the Borough up to 2026,

qualitative requirements and address uneven access to pitches in the Borough;

improving the quality and carrying capacity of pitches within the Borough including

improvements to pitch drainage;

providing or upgrading changing facilities at individual sites; and

identifying options to improve the management of playing pitch resources within the

Borough including identification of the roles to be performed by pitches managed by

the Council.

15.34 The strategy should include an annual action plan for its implementation. The Action Plan is

likely to identify priorities, targets, performance indicators, funding requirements / budget

bids, sports development initiatives and monitoring mechanisms as well as which

organisations will be responsible for specific actions. Potential projects should be divided into

short term projects which are relatively easily implemented and do not require major resource

inputs and medium to longer term projects which are likely to require further resources

outside of existing budgets or from external sources.

Resources

15.35 In developing a strategy it will be necessary to develop bid proposals to secure additional

funding and to identify which proposals have the potential to be funded from other sources

(e.g. developer contributions). The Playing Pitch Strategy should be realistic and recognise

the resources available for implementing the actions identified. It is recommended that

investment priorities should be developed in accordance with the needs identified within this

study.


Final Report 183

15.36 The Parks and Open Spaces budget is limited and includes routine maintenance of existing

Council managed playing fields. It is understood that only very minor capital works to existing

ancillary facilities can be financed though this budget.

15.37 In addition to the existing parks and open spaces budgets and other resources of individual

clubs and private pitch providers, several sources of external funding exist which could be

used to implement improvements and initiatives relating to sports pitches. The emphasis of

national funding programmes in targeting schools should be recognised in the determination

of priorities for pitch improvements in order to maximise resources coming into the Borough.

Other Outdoor Sports Needs

15.38 The sports assessment identified the improvements in provision necessary to meet outdoor

sports needs in the Borough.

ATPs

15.39 Chapter 16 identifies that no additional Artificial Turf Pitches are required in the Borough to

meet the needs of existing users based upon the utilisation of existing pitches. However,

Chapter 15 reveals that while there are currently three grass hockey pitches in the Borough

there will be demand for 11 additional pitches by 2026 to support the growth of Hockey. At

present only four of the Borough‟s 13 ATPs are currently used to accommodate the sport.

Therefore up to an additional nine ATPs may need to be developed so that hockey matches

can be accommodated along with existing uses such as 5-a-side football. It is expected that

ATPs can be programmed for other activities when they are not required for hockey league

fixtures. Chapter 16 identifies the criteria which should be considered in locating future ATP

provision. The optimal sites are sports centres and secondary school sites in accessible

locations.

MUGAs

15.40 At present there are 56 Multi-use games areas within the Borough. However the majority of

sites are hard surfaced areas which are marked for a range of sports rather than dedicated

multi-use games areas which meet the design guidelines prescribed by Sport England and

FiT for new facilities.

15.41 It is important that the quality and range of children‟s play provision at Neighbourhood

Equipped Areas of Play is enhanced to include a MUGA which meets nationally recognised

quality and design standards.

Tennis

15.42 At present there are 174 tennis courts within the Borough (including school sites). At present

a significant proportion of courts are concrete hard surface courts which are inappropriate for

competitive matches. Currently there are 16 grass courts and 39 all weather courts which are

preferred for competitive play (see Appendix P).

15.43 The capacity of all 174 courts within the Borough is an estimated 26,796 matches per month

based upon an estimated 36 match slots per week per court. At 2026 it is estimated that

demand will be in the order of 3,076 matches per month. In order to support these matches a

total of 20 courts will be required. Grass and all weather courts are considered to be superior

to hard surface tennis courts, currently there is sufficient provision of grass and all weather

tennis courts to meet estimated demand (55 courts).

15.44 Options for those courts which are not fit for competitive fixtures follow.

At school sites retain court for schools use only.

At Council managed open spaces:


Final Report 184

Retain as a casual training resource;

Upgrade courts into an all weather multi-use games area 5-a-side football pitch; or

Convert courts into an alternative open space use (remove courts).

15.45 In order to foster demand it will be necessary to provide changing facilities / pavilions at key

locations particularly those which have potential to be floodlit. Where it is possible provision

should be made by improving access to existing facilities (particularly at school sites and the

larger public parks).

15.46 In order to fund improvements it will be necessary to review the management arrangements

relating to tennis courts. It is recommended that a charge should be levied in relation to

improved provision. Options for the management / charging mechanisms include outsourcing

to a private / voluntary sector provider, a council managed pay and display system or a

„traditional‟ staffed kiosk. At the larger parks there may be scope for the courts to be

managed jointly with other on site facilities e.g. cafe, toilets, crazy golf, indoor sports facilities

etc.


Final Report 185

16. Applying Standards to Growth Areas

Introduction 16.1 The Enfield Core Strategy plans to concentrate new housing development in four key growth

areas:

Central Leeside – including Meridian Water;

North East Enfield – including Ponders End and the southern part of Brimsdown;

Enfield Town - including the area around Enfield Town station;

North Circular Road – including New Southgate;

Edmonton Green

16.2 These areas will have large new populations and therefore the open space needs of these

areas need to be considered.

16.3 This chapter assesses the level of population growth in these areas, existing provision of

open space and open space issues in these areas including the quality and accessibility of

open spaces and open space needs based on socio-economic conditions and the results of

the resident‟s survey (2006). It then goes on to apply the standards that have been

developed throughout this report and considers what the priorities for new open space

provision are based on the level of growth and local circumstances.

Growth Assumptions 16.4 The Core strategy identifies the number of dwellings that are planned for each growth area.

The level of growth is set out in Table 16.1 below. This shows that the total level of dwellings

in these areas is 7,500 up to 2026.

Table 16.1 - Dwellings

Location Dwellings (2010 - 2026)

Central Leeside including Meridian Water 3,000

North East Enfield including Ponders End and the southern part of Brimsdown

1,000

Enfield Town including the area around Enfield Town station

500

North Circular Road including New Southgate 1,500

Edmonton Green 1,500

Total 7,500

Source: Enfield Core Strategy, N.B the dwelling figure for Edmonton Green was provided by

LBE November 2011.

16.5 To assess future open space needs in the growth areas it is necessary to look at both the

existing and future population. Existing population and the number of households for each

area is set out in Table 16.2 below. For the Central Leeside area the current population and

number of households is taken from the Central Leeside Area Action Plan (AAP) baseline

report4, for North East Enfield, Enfield Town and Edmonton Green the population and

household data is taken from the 2001 census based on the wards that are based on the

respective the AAPs. For the area around North Circular Road and New Southgate the

4 Paragraph 4.2.2 Central Leeside Area Action Plan Baseline Report (2007)


Final Report 186

population and households data is taken from the 2001 census for the Middle Super Output

Areas that are in the AAP.

16.6 Table 16.2 identified average household size in each area. Average households size is

derived by dividing the number of households by the total population for the area.

Table 16.2 – Population and Households

Location Population

(2001) Households

(2001)

Average Household

Size

Central Leeside including Meridian Water 4,843 1,883 2.57


39,826 15,486 2.57


25,536 10,713 2.38

North Circular Road including New Southgate 31,833 12,858 2.48

Edmonton Green 15,104 6,226 2.43

Source: Census 2001

16.7 The average household sizes set out above have been used as the basis for future

household size for dwellings in the growth areas, so that the level of population growth as a

result of the new housing built in each of the four growth areas can be derived. Table 16.3

sets out the total projected growth in population as a result of the new dwellings that are

planned for each area, and the total population in each of the strategic growth areas at 2026.

Table 16.3 – Future Population in Growth Areas (2026)

Location Population

(2001) Population

Growth

Total Population

(2026)

Central Leeside (Meridian Water) 4,843 7,710 12,553

North East Enfield (Ponders End and Brimsdown)

39,826 2,572 42,398

Enfield Town 25,536 1,192 26,728

North Circular 31,833 3,714 35,547

Edmonton Green 15,104 3,645 18,749

Source: Consultants

16.8 The child population in new developments is important to consider as children have specific

open space needs that need to be met close to home. In order to calculate the number of

children that the new development in the growth areas will potentially accommodate the

Consultants have calculated potential child population by applying existing child populations

in the growth areas (see Table 16.4) to the projected population growth in each area.

Table 16.4 – Potential Child Population Based on Existing Proportion of Children

Location Total Child Population

0-15

% of Total Population

Population Growth to

2026

Child Population Growth to

2026

Central Leeside including Meridian Water

17,243* 25% 7,710 1,947


9,423 24% 2,572 608


4,682 18% 1,192 219

North Circular Road including New Southgate

5,928 19% 3,714 692

Edmonton Green 4,031 27% 3,645 973


Final Report 187

Source: Consultants. *Population for all Wards within the Central Leeside area

Existing Provision 16.9 Existing open space provision within growth areas is illustrated in Figure 16.1 and outlined in

Tables 16.5 – 16.9. By assessing the existing provision against Borough wide quantity,

quality and accessibility standards as recommended in this report, deficiencies in the

provision of open space within growth areas have been identified. The existing provision is

outlined below for each growth area in turn.

Central Leeside

16.10 The Central Leeside area has 12 open spaces at present that equates to a total of 95.71 ha

of open space. This includes three open spaces that are in the London Borough of Haringey

(two of which are London Borough of Haringey ownership the other is in private ownership).

There are currently five parks in the Central Leeside area this includes three local parks

Montagu Recreation Ground, Cuckoo Hall Recreation Ground and Ladysmith Road Open

Space, as well as part of the Lee Valley Regional Park (12.29 ha) and Tottenham Marshes (a

District Park) both of which are in the London Borough of Haringey and therefore although

accessible from Central Leeside area they are outside the control of London Borough of

Enfield. In total this is 35.77 ha of public parks which is the equivalent of 7.39 ha / 1,000

population, this is above the Borough parks quantity standard of 2.37 ha / 1,000. There are

some small areas of deficiency in access to local parks (as shown in Figure 5.4) however this

deficiency area largely covers unpopulated areas including the Deephams Sewage

Treatment Works and therefore is not considered to be a significant issue. However, roads

and rail connections in the area do act as a severance barrier and these may affect people‟s

ability to access parks in the area.

16.11 The quality of parks within the Central Leeside area has been assessed by site assessment

work completed in 2006 and 2011 (see chapter 9). Cuckoo Hall Recreation Ground and

Ladysmith Road Open Space have both been assessed as „Good‟ quality, whilst Montagu

Recreation Ground has been assessed as „Fair‟.

16.12 There are three outdoor sport facilities / playing fields that equate to 54.58 ha, two of the

outdoor sports sites are publicly owned however Cuckoo Hall Academy is a school site with

no sports pitches the other is Lee Valley Leisure Park, which includes an athletics track, a

nine hole golf course and bowls court, but does not include any sports pitches. The other site,

Frederick Knight Sports Ground (in Haringey) is a private playing pitch. Therefore at present

there are no open spaces in pitch use in the area. There are also areas of deficiency in

access to playing pitches (as shown in Figure 12.3), large parts of the Central Leeside area

are beyond the catchment of a pitch in secure community use.

16.13 There is one allotment in the Central Leeside area, Marsh Lane Allotments in the London

Borough of Haringey (and in London Borough of Haringey ownership) although to the Enfield

part of Central Leeside. The site is 1.78 ha which is the equivalent of 0.28 ha / 1,000. This is

below the recommended Borough standard of 0.36 ha / 1,000. There are also accessibility

deficiencies, most of the Central Leeside area is beyond the 800m catchment of an allotment

(as shown on Figure 8.1).

16.14 There are no natural green spaces in the area. However, all of the Central Leeside area is

within the 1km catchment of a GLA designated ecological site (as shown on Figure 7.4).

16.15 There are other types of open space in the Central Leeside area, these include 2.23 ha of

amenity greenspace and 1.35 ha of linear open space.

16.16 There are currently three formal children‟s play areas in the area. These include LEAPs at

Ladysmith Road Open Space and Cuckoo Hall Recreation Ground, and a LAP at Montagu


Final Report 188

Recreation Ground. This is estimated to equate to 900 sqm of formal place space in the area,

which is equivalent to 0.74 sqm per child, which when compared to the recommended

standard of 0.48 sqm is a good level of provision. There large areas of accessibility

deficiencies with most of the Central Leeside area being located beyond the 400m catchment

of a formal children‟s play space (as shown on Figure 6.2).

Table 16.5 – Existing Open Space Provision in Central Leeside area

Type of Open Space No. Area (Ha)

Ha / 1,000

Public Parks 5 35.77 7.39

Amenity Greenspace 2 2.23 0.46

Outdoor Sports Facilities 3 54.58 11.27

Allotments 1 1.78 0.37

Linear Open Space / green corridors

1 1.35 0.28

Natural and Semi-natural greenspace

0 0.00 0.00

Cemeteries and Churchyards 0 0.00 0.00

Total 12 95.71 19.76 This includes three open spaces that are in LB Haringey although accessible to Central Leeside

North East Enfield area

16.17 The NEAAPP North East Enfield area has a total of 43 open spaces at present that equates

to a total of 196 ha of open space. There currently nine parks in the NEAAP area this

includes two District Parks Albany Park and Durants Park, three Local Parks, three Small

Local Parks and a Pocket Park. In total this is 58.88 ha of open space which is the equivalent

of 1.48 ha / 1,000 population, this is below the Borough parks quantity standard of 2.37 ha /

1,000. Accessibility to parks is good although there are some areas of deficiency in access to

Local Parks (as shown in Figure 5.4) in particular the west in Enfield Highway ward and part

of Ponders End ward.

16.18 The quality of parks within the North East Enfield area is mixed with five of the nine parks

having been assessed as „Fair‟ quality with the other four parks assessed as „Good‟ quality.

„Good‟ quality parks include Durants Park, Warwick Fields Open Space, Prince of Wales

Field and Ponders End Recreation Ground.

16.19 There are 11 outdoor sport facilities / playing fields that equate to 21.89 ha. Seven of the

outdoor sports sites are school sites, five of which have no sports pitches, there are also

three private sports grounds and a public sports ground all of which are in secure community

use. Therefore at present there is 14.84 ha of outdoor sports facilities / playing fields in

secure community use which is the equivalent to 0.37ha / 1,000. This is below the

recommended Borough standard of 0.7 ha / 1,000. Most of the North East Enfield area is

within the 1.2km catchment of a playing pitch (as shown in Figure 12.3), with the exception of

the north east corner of the NEAPP area (the area between the A1055 and the M24) which is

currently open space and therefore unpopulated, meaning that the deficiency is not

significant.

16.20 There are five allotments in the North East Enfield area with a total of 12.27 ha, this is

equivalent to 0.31 ha / 1,000. This is below the recommended Borough standard of 0.36 ha /

1,000. Accessibility to allotments is reasonably good although there are some deficiencies

notable in the north east, east and south west of the North East Enfield area beyond the

800m catchment of an allotment (as shown on Figure 8.1).

16.21 There are eight natural green spaces in the area totalling 93.55 ha, this is the equivalent of

2.35 ha / 1,000. There is 62.79 ha of GLA designated ecological sites in area which is the


Final Report 189

equivalent of 1.58 ha / 1,000, which is above the recommended Borough Standard of 1 ha /

1,000. However, large parts of the west of the North East Enfield area (most of the area to

the west of the railway) are beyond 1km catchment of a GLA designated ecological site (as

shown on Figure 7.4).

16.22 There are other types of open space within the North East Enfield area. These include 1.84

ha of amenity greenspace and 2.09 ha of linear open space and 5.63 ha of cemeteries and

churchyards.

16.23 There are currently ten formal children‟s play areas within the area eight of which have been

classified as LEAPs and 2 of which are LAPs. This is estimated to equate to 3,400 sqm of

formal place space in the area, which is equivalent to 0.34 sqm per child, which is below the

recommended standard of 0.48 sqm of formal children‟s play provision. There are large areas

in parts of the north (around Enfield Lock station), centre (area between the A1010 and the

A1055) and south (area between A1055 and King George‟s Reservoir) of the North East

Enfield area that are located beyond the 400m catchment of a formal children‟s play space

(as shown on Figure 6.2).

Table 16.6 – Existing Open Space Provision in North East Enfield area


Ha / 1,000






2 2.09 0.05


8 93.55 2.35


Total 43 196.06 4.92

Enfield Town

16.24 There are a total of 38 open spaces in the wards that the Enfield Town AAP area is within

(Grange and Town) at present that equates to a total of 95.39 ha of open space5. There are

currently six parks in the Enfield Town and surrounding area this includes Town Park, three

Small Local Parks and two Pocket Parks. In total this is 12.71ha of parks which is the

equivalent of 0.5 ha / 1,000 population, this is well below the Borough parks quantity

standard of 2.37 ha / 1,000. Accessibility to parks is very good with the entire AAP area

within the catchment of a park (as shown in Figure 5.4).

16.25 The quality of the two parks that are within the defined Enfield Town AAP area is Good, with

Town Park assessed as „Good‟ and Chase Green Gardens assessed as „Very Good‟.

16.26 There are 13 outdoor sport facilities / playing fields that equate to 17.96 ha in the Enfield

Town and surrounding area. Ten of the outdoor sports sites are school sites only two have

pitches in secure community use, there are also three private sports grounds two are tennis

5 Only 12 open spaces are within the defined boundary of the AAP area, but for the purposes of the analysis

of quantity all open spaces in Town and Grange wards are included, as population figures are not available for the defined AAP area.


Final Report 190

clubs the other has pitches are in secure community use. There is also a pitch in Town Park6,

therefore at present there is 10.14 ha of outdoor sports facilities / playing fields in secure

community use, which is the equivalent to 0.4ha / 1,000. This is below the recommended

Borough standard of 0.7 ha / 1000. All of the Enfield Town AAP area is within the 1.2km

catchment of a playing pitch (as shown in Figure 12.3).

16.27 There are three allotments in the NEAAP area with a total of 3.02 ha, this is equivalent to

0.12 ha / 1,000. This is below the recommended Borough standard of 0.36 ha / 1,000.

Accessibility to allotments is limited with only the east of the Enfield Town Centre AAP area

within the 800m catchment of an allotment (as shown on Figure 8.1).

16.28 There are three natural green spaces in the area totalling 7.96 ha, this is the equivalent of

0.31 ha / 1,000. The New River Loop and part of Town Park are the only GLA designated

ecological sites. However, the whole of the Enfield Town AAP area is within 1km catchment

of a GLA designated ecological site (as shown on Figure 7.4).

16.29 There are other types of open space in the Enfield Town area, these include 4.46 ha of

amenity greenspace and 2.68 ha of linear open space which includes the New River Loop

and 4.26 ha of cemeteries and churchyards.

16.30 There are currently two formal children‟s play areas in the Enfield Town AAP and surrounding

area, there is a LEAP in Town Park and one LAP at Alderbrooks Avenue Recreation Ground.

This is estimated to equate to 500 sqm of formal place space in the area, which is equivalent

to 0.11 sqm per child, which is below the recommended standard of 0.48 sqm of formal

children‟s play provision. Access to formal children‟s play is good with only the north of the

defined AAP area beyond the catchment of a formal children‟s play space (as shown on

Figure 6.1).

Table 16.7 – Existing Open Space Provision in Enfield Town AAP*


Ha / 1,000




Outdoor Sports Facilities (Golf Course)

1 42.34 1.66



2 2.68 0.11


3 7.96 0.31


Total 38 95.39 3.74

*This table includes all the open space in Town and Grange Wards not just those in the

AAP area, because the population assumption for the AAP area includes the population of

both Wards.

North Circular AAP

16.31 The North Circular AAP area has 10 open spaces at present which equate to a total of 9.33

ha of open space. There is currently only one park in the area Millennium Green New

Southgate which is a Pocket Park. In total this is only 0.58 ha of public parks which is the

equivalent of 0.02 ha / 1,000 population, this well below the Borough parks quantity standard

of 2.37 ha / 1,000. There are however two District Parks to the north of the AAP area (Arnos

6 Assuming approx 30% of site is used for pitch sports


Final Report 191

Park and Broomfield Park) and a Local Park to the east, Boundary Playing Fields, which

mean that accessibility to parks is only limited in the middle of the AAP area where residents

are beyond 400m from a public park (as shown in Figure 5.4).

16.32 Millennium Green New Southgate has been assessed as „Good‟ quality. Arnos Park and

Broomfield Park to the north of the AAP area have both been assessed as „Very Good‟ while

the Local Park to the east (Boundary Playing Fields) is assessed as „Fair‟.

16.33 There are four outdoor sport facilities / playing fields that equate to 5.53 ha. However only

one of them has pitches in secure community use. Therefore at present there is 2.80 ha of

outdoor sports facilities / playing fields in secure community use which is the equivalent to

0.09 ha / 1,000. This is below the recommended Borough standard of 0.7 ha / 1,000. The

whole of the North Circular area is within the 1.2km catchment of a playing pitch (as shown in

Figure 12.3).

16.34 There is also 0.89 ha of amenity greenspace in the North Circular AAP area.

16.35 There is currently only one formal children‟s play area in the AAP area which is a LAP. This is

estimated to equate to 100 sqm of formal children‟s play space. Most of the North Circular

AAP area is beyond the catchment of a formal children‟s play space (as shown on Figure

6.1).

Table 16.8 – Existing Open Space Provision in North Circular AAP


Ha / 1,000






0 0.00 0.00


0 0.00 0.00


Total 10 9.33 0.29

Edmonton Green

16.36 The Edmonton Green AAP area has 17 open spaces at present which equate to a total of

48.46 ha of open space. There is currently only three parks in the area Pymmes Park which

is a District Park, Craig Park which is a Local Park, and Plevna Road Open Space a Small

Local Park. There are also four linear open spaces that include Edmonton Green, and

Provident Park which provide valuable open space in these areas. In total this 24.83 ha of

parks which is the equivalent of 1.64 ha / 1,000 population, this is goes some way to meeting

the Borough parks quantity standard of 2.37 ha / 1,000. Accessibility to parks is very good in

Edmonton Green, with the whole of the Edmonton Green area being located within the

catchment 400m of a public park (as shown in Figure 5.4).

16.37 The quality of parks in the area is generally good with Pymmes Park assessed as „Very

Good‟, Plevna Road Open Space assessed as „Good‟ and Craig Park assessed as „Fair‟.

16.38 There are three outdoor sport facilities / playing fields that equate to 1.70 ha. However these

are all primary schools with only junior pitches that are not in secure community use. „But,

Both Craig Park (1 senior and 1 junior football) and Pymmes Park (5 senior and 2 junior

football) include pitches in secure community use. This is the equivalent of 10.8 ha in pitch

use (assuming minimum pitch size and space for changing), which is 0.71ha / 1,000. This

means current level of provision is meeting the Borough Standard of 0.7ha of pitches per


Final Report 192

1,000. The whole of the Edmonton area is within the 1.2km catchment of a playing pitch (as

shown in Figure 12.3).

16.39 There is one allotment site in the Edmonton Green area representing 3.08 ha, this is

equivalent to 0.20 ha / 1,000. This is below the recommended Borough standard of 0.36 ha /

1,000. Accessibility to allotments is limited, only the north east of the Edmonton Green area

is within the 800m catchment of an allotment site (as shown on Figure 8.1).

16.40 There are no natural green spaces in the area. However, parts of Craig Park and Pymmes

Park are identified as including natural and semi natural areas. Within Pymmes Park 20.48

ha is designated as SINC, this is the equivalent of 1.36 ha /1,000. There are some

deficiencies in accessibility with the eastern side of the Edmonton Green area being beyond

the 1km catchment of a GLA designated ecological site while the rest of the area is within the

catchment (as shown on Figure 7.4).

16.41 There is also 0.41 ha of amenity greenspace, 14.84 ha of cemeteries and churchyards in the

Edmonton Green area.

16.42 There are currently three formal children‟s play areas in the AAP area, a LAP at Craig Park,

and LEAPs at Pymmes Park and Plevna Road Open Space. This is estimated to equate to

900 sqm of formal place space in the area, which is equivalent to 0.22 sqm per child, which is

below the recommended standard of 0.48 sqm of formal children‟s play provision. Access to

formal children‟s play is fair with some deficiencies in the centre and north of the defined AAP

area beyond the catchment of a formal children‟s play space (as shown on Figure 6.1).

Table 16.9 – Existing Open Space Provision in Edmonton Green


Ha / 1,000






4 3.62 0.24


0 0.00 0.00


Total 17 48.46 3.21

Open Space Needs

Residents Views of Open Space

16.43 To understand the open space needs in the growth areas the views of residents set out in the

2006 Assessment resident‟s survey provides a useful dataset on the existing use of open

space and the perceptions of residents about open space. The scope of this update did not

include an update of the 2006 resident‟s survey, and therefore the following analysis is based

on the findings of the 2006 resident‟s survey. The resident‟s survey findings have been

disaggregated by Enfield‟s area forums (as shown on Figure 2.4) as follows:

A - Cockfosters, Highlands and Grange Wards

B – Chase, Town and Southbury Wards

C – Turkey Street, Enfield Lock and Enfield Highway Wards

D – Southgate, Southgate Green and Bowes Wards


Final Report 193

E – Winchmore Hill, Bush Hill and Palmers Green Wards

F – Ponders End, Jubilee and Lower Edmonton Wards

G – Haselbury, Edmonton Green and Upper Edmonton Wards

16.44 The area forum boundaries do not match with the AAP boundaries. However, they do provide

a useful insight into the use of open space in different parts of the Borough. The Central

Leeside area is in part of both area forums F and G. The North East Enfield area is mostly in

area forum C although Ponders End is in area forum F. Enfield Town is in area forum A and

area forum B, although it should be noted that the Enfield Town area only represents a

smaller proportion of these area forums. North Circular is mostly in area forum D. Edmonton

Green is in area G, with a small part of the AAP area falling in F (lower Edmonton ward).

16.45 The resident‟s survey asked how frequently people use open space. Understanding the

frequency of open space use is important in establishing how people use open space

generally and how this varies by type of open space. It may also be an indication of limited

availability of open space where less frequent visits are as a result of open spaces being

located too far away from users or popularity of a certain type of space in a particular area. In

the Borough as a whole 34% of people use an open space either once a week or more, 12%

use an open space once a fortnight, 14% once per month, while 21% visit several times per

year, 17% visit an open space once every six months or less often. Assuming that a visit of

once per month or more is a frequent users, 60% of residents are frequent users, while 40%

are infrequent users.

Table 16.10 – Proportion of Users that are Frequent Users

Type of Open Space Enfield Area Forums

A B C D E F G

Metropolitan Park 65% 63% 65% 66% 67% 64% 65% 64%

Smaller Local Park 56% 65% 46% 39% 72% 43% 79% 47% Natural / Semi Natural Greenspace 56% 78% 69% 62% 43% 33% 17% 78%

Playing Field 62% 73% 70% 67% 31% 73% 62% 60%

Children's Play 71% 56% 67% 85% 71% 57% 75% 81%

Allotments 67% 100% 0% 25% 75% 75% 100% 50%

All open space 60% 60% 61% 60% 63% 58% 63% 58%

16.46 Table 16.12 sets out the percentage of frequent users (those visiting once per month or

more) for each type of open space in the Borough as a whole and by each area forum. In

considering the number of frequent uses of all open spaces the growth areas are broadly

similar to those in the Borough as a whole, with only parts of the Central Leeside area (area

forum G) having slightly below the Borough average. However, the frequency users of

different types of open space visit them shows some variations in the growth areas compared

to the Borough as a whole. This includes:

less frequent use of smaller local parks than the Borough as whole in the south of

the Central Leeside area and Edmonton Green area (area forum G), but more

frequent use of smaller local parks than the Borough average in the north of the

Central Leeside area (area forum F) and North Circular Road area (area forum D);

less frequent use of natural greenspace in parts of Central Leeside and North East

Enfield (area forum F) and North Circular Road (area forum D);

less frequent use of playing fields in North Circular Road (area forum D), but more

frequent use of playing fields in Enfield Town (area forums A and B);


Final Report 194

less frequent use of children‟s play in Enfield Town (area forums A and B), but more

frequent use in Central Leeside (area forums F and G), Edmonton Green (area

forums F and G), and North East Enfield (area forum F and C); and

less frequent use of allotments in parts of Enfield Town (area forum B) North East

Enfield (area forum C), and the south of Central Leeside (area forum G) Edmonton

Green (area forum G), but more frequent use in the north of the Central Leeside

area (area forums F), North Circular Road (area forum D) and part of Enfield Town

(area forum A).

16.47 The resident‟s survey (2006) assessed reasons for non use of open space. Non users were

able to provide more than one answer. For the Borough as a whole the most commonly given

answer are time constraints (28% of non users), followed by safety fears (16%) and not

enough to do (12%). These are also the three most popular answer in the growth areas,

however safety fears seems to be more of a reason for non-use in Central Leeside area

(area forums F and G), Edmonton Green (area forum G) and North East Enfield area (area

forums (C and F), where non users here are more likely to give this as a reasons for not

using open space than the rest of the Borough.

16.48 The resident‟s survey asked people to rate how satisfied they are with local open space

provision in the area. The average for the Borough is for 74% of respondents to be very

satisfied or satisfied, while 12% were either very dissatisfied or dissatisfied. Central Leeside

area (area forums F and G) and Edmonton Green (area forum G) have the lowest levels of

satisfaction in the Borough with 64% and 70% satisfied respectively. Levels of dissatisfaction

are the highest in the Borough with 16% of respondents in area forum F dissatisfied and 18%

of respondents in area forum G dissatisfied.

16.49 The north of the North East Enfield area (area forum C) has levels of satisfaction that are just

below the Borough average with 72% of respondents saying they are very satisfied or

satisfied with local open spaces, whilst the levels of dissatisfaction are just above average

with 13% dissatisfied.

16.50 In the Enfield Town area forum A has the highest levels of satisfaction in the Borough with

85% of respondents satisfied, area forum B is just below the Borough average with 73%

satisfied. Levels of dissatisfaction are low in area forum A with only 7% of respondents

dissatisfied, whilst area forum B has just above the Borough average with 13% of

respondents dissatisfied.

16.51 The North Circular Road area (area forum D), levels of satisfaction match with the Borough

average (74% satisfied), whilst levels of dissatisfaction are below Borough average with 10%

dissatisfied.

16.52 Respondents were also asked to rate the quality of open spaces, 77% of residents in the

Borough rate open spaces as very good or good, while 8% rate them as either very poor or

poor. Respondents in the north of the Central Leeside area (area forum F) have the lowest

percentage (66%) who rate the quality of open spaces as very good or good, and have the

highest percentage (15%) who rate open spaces as very poor or poor. Respondents in the

south of the Central Leeside area (area forum G) and Edmonton Green (area form G) have

73% of respondents who rate open spaces as very good or good, and 9% of respondents

who rate them as either very poor or poor.

16.53 In the north of the North East Enfield area (area forum C) 71% of residents rate quality of

open spaces as very good or good, while 10% rate them as either very poor or poor.

16.54 In Enfield Town (area forum A and B) residents rate the quality of open spaces highly with

88% and 83% respectively rating them very good or good, while only 3% and 5% respectively

rate them as either very poor or poor.


Final Report 195

16.55 In the North Circular Road area (area forum D) residents are broadly in line with the Borough

as a whole with 76% of residents rating the quality of open space as very good or good,

whilst 10% residents rate them as either very poor or poor which is higher than the Borough

average of 8%.

16.56 Respondents were asked how much open spaces contribute to their quality of life. For the

Borough as a whole 79% of respondents felt that open spaces contribute a lot or a little, while

8% felt that they under-perform or under perform a lot in terms of contributing to quality of life.

Respondents in Central Leeside area (area forum F and G) and Edmonton Green (area form

G) have 76% and 72% of respondents who think that open spaces contribute a lot or a little

to quality of life this is below the Borough average. While respondents in the north of Central

Leeside area have the greatest number of respondents in the Borough (14%) who feel that

open spaces underperform in terms of their contribution to quality of life.

16.57 In the north of the North East Enfield area (area forum C) 71% of respondents think that open

spaces contribute a lot or a little to quality of life this is below the Borough average. While

11% of respondents think that open spaces underperform in terms of their contribution to

quality of life, this is above the Borough average.

16.58 In Enfield Town (area forum A and B) a large proportion of residents think that open spaces

contribute a lot or a little to quality of life with 84% and 86% respectively, while only 4% and

8% respectively rate them as underperforming in their quality of life role.

16.59 80% of the North Circular Road area (area forum D) residents responded that open spaces

contribute a lot or a little to quality of life and 5% felt that they were underperforming in their

quality of life role.

Open Space Need Indicators

16.60 Chapter 3 includes an assessment of objective indicators which influence the open space

needs of individual parts of the Borough. This includes: population density; the percentage of

dwellings that are terraced, flats or apartments; child densities; the percentage of the

population in good health; and Indices of multiple deprivation. These indicators have been

combined as a composite assessment of needs (shown in Figure 4.6).

16.61 The composite assessment of need clearly shows that the east of the Borough has the

greatest need on the basis of the assessed indicators. In particular the Central Leeside area,

parts of Edmonton Green and the south of the North East Enfield area have high levels of

need compared to the rest of the Borough. The main reasons for this are listed below.

Central Leeside area – high proportion of dwellings that are terraced, flats or

apartments, high proportion of children aged 0-15, higher proportion of the

population not in good health and high levels of deprivation.

North East Enfield area - high proportion of children aged 0-15, higher proportion of

the population not in good health, and high levels of deprivation.

Edmonton Green - areas of high population density, high proportion of dwellings

that are terraced, flats or apartments, high proportion of children aged 0-15, higher

proportion of the population not in good health and high levels of deprivation.

Applying the Open Space Standards to Growth Areas

16.62 In applying the open space standards to the growth areas it is important to consider the

existing provision, deficiencies and needs of the residents in order to establish the priorities

for open space in these areas. The needs arising from each growth area (based on the

population growth) are set out in Tables 16.11 – 16.15 below. However, it is not always the


Final Report 196

case that every type of open space should be provided, as it will be important to focus on the

priorities for each area.

Central Leeside area

16.63 By applying the recommended Borough standards to the growth in population projected in

the Central Leeside area (7,710 people) there would be a need for 18.27 ha of parks, 5.40 ha

of outdoor sports pitches, 2.78 ha of allotments, 3.15 natural and semi-natural greenspace,

as set out in Table 16.13. However, it is important to consider the priorities for the area to

establish which of these open space needs should be met.

Table 16.11 – Future Open Space Needs in Central Leeside area

Type of Open Space

Standard Provision

Ha / 1,000

Open Space (Ha)

Public Parks 2.37 18.27

Outdoor Sports Facilities 0.7 5.40

Allotments 0.36 2.78

Natural and Semi-natural greenspace 1.0 3.15

Total - 29.6

16.64 Levels of dissatisfaction with open space are highest in the Central Leeside area, and

residents in the area are more likely than elsewhere in the Borough to rate the quality of open

spaces as poor. The range of open spaces in the area at the moment is quite limited and this

may be one of the reasons for the level of dissatisfaction, so it will be important to provide a

good range of new spaces within new developments.

16.65 Currently the Central Leeside area is meeting park needs with sufficient quantity of park

provision (there is currently 7.39 ha/ 1,000) to meet the Borough standard of provision, the

quality of parks is good and there are no significant accessibility issues. Despite the large

level of future park requirements identified in table 16.11 existing levels of provision are

sufficient to ensure that even with future housing growth the Borough Standard of provision

will still be met. As such new parks provision is not considered a priority in area. However,

given the lower levels of satisfaction with parks in this area, the future priority might be to

improve the range of facilities at parks in the area to better meet residents‟ needs.

16.66 There are no playing pitches in secure community use, at present and there some

accessibility issues. Therefore provision of new outdoor sports pitches should be a high

priority particularly given the higher proportion of the population not in good health in this

area.

16.67 There is currently only one allotment in the Central Leeside area there are also issues with

accessibility, meaning that the provision of allotments should be considered a priority.

16.68 At present the level of children‟s play provision is above the recommended standard of 0.48

sqm per child. However there are accessibility issues in the Central Leeside area and the

area has a high proportion of children aged 0-15. The resident‟s survey shows that those

using children‟s play areas in the Central Leeside area tend to use them more frequently than

other parts of the Borough. Given that accessibility is a key issue in the area and children‟s

play areas are well used in the area, this is considered one of the key priorities for new

provision. As set out above, for the purposes of the draft report the Consultants have used

two methods for calculating the number of children expected in the new developments in the

Central Leeside area. By applying a formal play space standard of 0.48 sqm per child there

would be need for 860 sqm of new formal play provision which could be met by the provision

of two new LEAPs.


Final Report 197

16.69 In summary the priorities for new open space provision are considered to be new outdoor

sports pitches and allotments and children‟s play, some additional natural greenspace will

also be important but is a lower priority. There is considered to be no real need for more

parks.

North East Enfield area


the North East Enfield area (2,572 people) there would be a need for 6.10 ha of parks, 1.80

ha of outdoor sports pitches, 0.93 ha of allotments, 2.57 ha natural and semi-natural

greenspace, as set out in Table 16.14. However, it is important to consider the priorities for

the area to establish which of these open space needs should be met.

Table 16.12 –Future Open Space Needs in North East Enfield area

Type of Open Space Standard of Provision Ha / 1,000

Open Space (Ha)




Natural and Semi-Natural greenspace 1.0 2.57

Total - 11.4

16.71 The North East Enfield area is below the quantity standard for park provision, the quality of

parks is mixed and there some accessibility issues. As such new parks provision would be

considered a priority.

16.72 Playing pitches in secure community use are limited in the North East Enfield area at present

and there are (?) some accessibility issues. Therefore provision of new outdoor sports

pitches should be a high priority particularly given the higher proportion of the population not

in good health in this area.

16.73 Allotment provision in the North East Enfield area is slightly below the quantity standard,

there are also some accessibility issues although large parts of the North East Enfield area

are within an allotment catchment meaning that allotments should be considered a priority

but not the top priority for new developments.

16.74 There are currently sufficient natural green spaces in the North East Enfield area. There are

some accessibility issues in the east of the North East Enfield . However, residents in this

part of the Borough are less frequent users of natural greenspace than elsewhere in the

Borough, although this could be as a result of the accessibility issues. On balance provision

of natural greenspace is not considered a priority for provision in new developments.

16.75 At present the level of children‟s play provision is below the recommended standard of 0.48

sqm per child, there are accessibility issues and the area has a high proportion of children

aged 0-15. Also users of children‟s play areas in North East Enfield area tend to use them

more frequently than other parts of the Borough. Given these issues the provision of

children‟s play facilities is considered one of the key priorities for new provision in the area.

As set out above for the purposes of the draft report the consultants have used two methods

for calculating the number of children expected in the new developments in the NEAAP area.

By applying a formal play space standard of 0.48 sqm per child there would be a need for

290 sqm of new formal play provision. This could be met by the provision of two LAPs or one

new LEAP.

16.76 In summary the priorities for new open space provision in NEAAP area are considered to be

new outdoor sports pitches, new park provision and children‟s play, some additional allotment


Final Report 198

provision will also be important but is a lower priority. There is considered to be limited need

for more natural greenspace.

Enfield Town AAP


the Enfield Town AAP (1,192 people) there would be a need for 2.82 ha of parks, 0.83 ha of

outdoor sports pitches, 0.43 ha of allotments, 1.19 ha natural and semi-natural greenspace,

as set out in Table 16.15. However, it is important to consider the priorities for the area to

establish which of these open space needs should be met.

Table 16.13 –Future Open Space Needs in Enfield Town AAP


Open Space (Ha)




Natural and Semi-Natural greenspace 1.00 1.19

Total - 5.27

16.78 Residents in the Enfield Town AAP and surrounding area have the highest levels of

satisfaction with open spaces in the Borough. They also are more likely to rate the quality of

open spaces highly and are likely to think that open spaces contribute a little or a lot to the

quality of life.

16.79 The Enfield Town AAP area is well below the quantity standard for park provision, however

the quality of parks is good and accessibility is not an issue. As such new parks provision are

a priority but, given the likelihood of providing new parks in this location it may be difficult to

achieve the full level of need identified in Table 16.15 above.

16.80 The level of playing pitches in secure community use within the Enfield Town AAP and the

surrounding area is at present below the Borough standard. However, accessibility to pitches

is not an issue. As with park provision finding space for new outdoor sports pitches may be

difficult in this location, therefore improvements to existing provision in the area may be more

appropriate if it is not possible to achieve on site provision in new developments.

16.81 Allotment provision in the Enfield Town area is below the quantity standard, there are also

accessibility issues throughout the AAP area meaning that allotments should be considered a

priority. As with providing other types of provision in this location, allotments may be difficult

to achieve, it may be appropriate to consider different types of provision such as community

gardens.

16.82 The Enfield Town AAP includes The New River Loop and part of Town Park as GLA

designated ecological sites, the whole of the AAP area is within the catchment of a

designated ecological site. As such additional natural greenspace is not considered a high

priority. However, amenity space provided as part of new developments should ensure that

natural areas are provided to create habitat for wildlife or provision of green roofs.


sqm per child, accessibility to children‟s play space is not an issue and the area has a lower

proportion of children aged 0-15 than elsewhere in the Borough. Also users of children‟s play

areas in the AAP area tend to use them less frequently than other parts of the Borough. As

set out above for the purposes of the draft report the Consultants have used two methods for

calculating the number of children expected in the new developments in the NEAAP area. By

applying a formal play space standard of 0.48 sqm per child there would be need for


Final Report 199

approximately 100 sqm of formal children‟s play space, this could be met by the provision

one LAP.

16.84 In summary the priorities for new open space provision in Enfield Town AAP area are

considered to be new park provision, improvements to existing sport pitches, allotments or

community gardens, and a small amount of new children‟s play. There is considered to be

limited need for more natural greenspace other than setting aside natural areas in new

amenity green space.

North Circular AAP


the North Circular AAP area (3,714 people) there would be a need for 8.80 ha of parks, 2.60




Table 16.14 – Future Open Space Needs in North Circular AAP


Open Space (Ha)




Natural and Semi-Natural greenspace 1 3.71

Total - 16.45

16.86 The North Circular AAP is well below the quantity standard for park provision, however the

quality of parks is good and accessibility to parks surrounding the AAP area is good. As such

some new parks provision is a priority although it is recognised that providing new parks in

this location is challenging, it may be difficult to achieve the full level of need identified in

Table 16.16 above.

16.87 The level of paying pitches in secure community use in the North Circular AAP is below the

Borough standard. However, accessibility to pitches is not an issue. As with park provision

finding space for new outdoor sports pitches may be difficult in this location, and therefore

improvements to existing provision in the area may be more appropriate, if it is not possible

to achieve new on site provision in new developments.

16.88 Allotment provision in the North Circular AAP area is below the quantity standard. However,

accessibility is not particularly an issue. The provision of new allotments, although a priority,

should be limited to providing allotments in areas of the AAP which are beyond the

catchment of existing allotment provision.

16.89 There are currently no open spaces classified as natural greenspace in the AAP area,

however the river running through the centre of the AAP is a GLA designated ecological site.

Most of the AAP area is within the catchment of a designated ecological site. As such given

the current low level of natural greenspace should be a priority.

16.90 At present there is only one LAP in the area and accessibility to play space is an issue. As

set out above for the purposes of the draft report the Consultants have used two methods for

calculating the number of children expected in the new developments in the NEAAP area. By

applying a formal play space standard of 0.48 sqm per child there would be need for

approximately 330 sqm of formal children‟s play space, this could be met by the provision

one new LEAP.


Final Report 200

16.91 In summary the priorities for new open space provision in North Circular AAP are considered

to be new park provision (in areas that are currently beyond the catchment of a park,

improvements to existing sport pitches, allotments, new natural greenspace and a small

amount of new children‟s play.

Edmonton Green


the North Circular AAP area (3,645 people) there would be a need for 8.64 ha of parks, 2.55




Table 16.15 – Future Open Space Needs in Edmonton Green


Open Space (Ha)




Natural and Semi-Natural greenspace 1 3.65

Total - 16.2

16.93 Edmonton Green is below the quantity standard for park provision at present, new growth will

exacerbate this problem in future. However the quality of parks is good and accessibility to

parks is good. New parks provision is a priority although it is recognised that providing new

parks in this location is challenging, it may be difficult to achieve the full level of need

identified in Table 16.15 above.

16.94 The level of paying pitches in secure community use in the Edmonton Green area is above

the Borough standard at present while accessibility to pitches is not an issue. New growth

would lead to an additional need for sports pith provision, however given that the current level

of provision is meeting needs and accessibility is not an issue new provision is a lower

priority than with other open space types. Finding space for new outdoor sports pitches may

be difficult in this location, therefore improvements to existing provision in the area may be

more appropriate if it is not possible to achieve new on site provision in new developments.

16.95 Allotment provision in Edmonton Green area is below the quantity standard, accessibility to

allotments is also an issue. The provision of new allotments, although a priority, should be

limited to providing allotments in areas of the AAP which are beyond the catchment of

existing allotment provision.

16.96 The current level of natural greenspace in the AAP area is meeting needs at present and will

continue to meet the Borough quantity standard when future growth is taken into

consideration. Some parts of the AAP area are beyond the catchment of a designated

ecological site. However given the current level of natural greenspace provision, new natural

greenspace is a low priority. Improvements to the biodiversity of existing sites in the east of

the AAP area would be more appropriate.


sqm per child, there are also deficiencies in access to children‟s play space. There would be

need for approximately 460 sqm of formal children‟s play space, this could be met by the

provision of four LAPs or a single LEAP.

16.98 In summary the priorities for new open space provision in Edmonton are considered to be

protection of existing parks, new park provision where possible on site, improvements to

existing sport pitches, new allotments, and small amount of new children‟s play.


Final Report 201

Conclusion 16.99 The above section has identified future open space needs against the open space standards

recommended in this report. There are no recommended standards for amenity greenspace,

However, it recognised that to ensure a high quality and pleasant urban environment new

residential development should include an appropriate level of amenity greenspace. The

appropriate level of amenity greenspace will be dependent on local circumstances and the

design approach adopted for each growth area and therefore the level of amenity

greenspace required in each growth area has not been identified in this report.

16.100 This chapter has assessed the level of population growth in the four key growth areas in the

Borough, and has considered the future open space needs of the projected population

growth that these areas will accommodate. In considering the future open space needs, the

Consultants have taken into account the existing level of open space provision, open space

needs and socio-economic indicators, in order to identify priorities for each of the growth

areas. However, it should be noted that for new development coming forward in these areas,

the Council will consider each development against the Core Strategy policies and other

SPD, and that they will not be tied to the findings set out above in considering planning

applications.


Final Report 202


Final Report 203

17. Conclusion

Introduction 17.1 This update of the Enfield Open Space Study and the accompanying database and GIS

mapping provides a comprehensive assessment of the supply and demand for open space

which includes:

An analysis of current open space provision;

A typology of open spaces relevant to Enfield;

A classification of public open spaces;

The identification of deficiencies in provision in terms of access to public open

space;

The qualitative distribution of public open space including the range and condition of

facilities;

The value of individual open spaces reflecting the wider contribution that open

spaces make to the community and to the quality of life;

The identification of deficiencies in provision in terms of access to natural

greenspace and nature conservation;

An understanding of the relative importance of open space as a cultural heritage

resource, potential threats to historic open spaces and opportunities for their

protection and enhancement;

The contribution that non public open spaces make to addressing open space

deficiencies;

An assessment of the supply and demand of playing fields

17.2 The results will:

Inform the review of the Local Development Framework;

Provide the Council with adequate planning guidance and open space standards;

Assist the Council in identifying needs for new open spaces and outdoor sports

facilities;

Inform the future management of open spaces and playing pitches including the

identification of opportunities to enhance and reconfigure open space provision;

Enable the Council to identify priorities for future investment and provide a rationale

to secure external funding for the improvement and additional provision of facilities

particularly via developer contributions

17.3 This update includes an assessment of the quantity, quality and value of parks and open

spaces in Enfield and identifies whether provision is meeting local needs. It develops local

standards and measures to address deficiencies in open space provision. The findings from

the 2006 resident‟s consultation have informed the preparation of this report.

17.4 An assessment of needs for playing pitches in the Borough have also been an element of this

update. This includes all outdoor pitch sports, other outdoor sports and indoor sports

facilities.


Final Report 204

17.5 This chapter brings together the conclusions and recommendations from each of the

separate elements of the study.

Policy Framework 17.6 It is considered that using the typology of open space outlined in PPG17 (Table 2.3) in

conjunction with the GLA public parks hierarchy (Table 2.1) is the most appropriate means of

planning for open space in Enfield. The hierarchy of public parks has been amended to

reflect the roles of different park types, and the variations in accessibility and usage patterns

identified by the Resident‟s Survey. The application of catchment areas, defined by usage

patterns from the resident‟s survey, to parks, children‟s play sites, playing pitches, allotments

and natural greenspace, has meant that areas deficient in access and quantity of these types

of open space have been able to be identified.

Policy Recommendations 17.7 This study is consistent with planning policy guidance and other supporting strategies at the

national, regional and local level and takes into account new government thinking on

sustainable development and the role that green space plays in the quality of life of residents.

17.8 It recognises that most open space, with good planning and management, can perform

multiple functions and provide a variety of benefits which cut across the Council‟s strategic

priorities. An Open Space Study is vital to bring all those who are responsible and have an

interest together with a common purpose and a shared understanding of what can be done to

enhance and maintain green space for the future.

LDF Policies 17.9 It is recommended that the Enfield LDF Development Management DPD should update the

approach to meeting open space, sport and recreation needs in the Borough to reflect the

recommended approach to open space provision identified in this report.

Development Control Decisions 17.10 This open space update provides comprehensive information on each open space surveyed

to allow an informed assessment of the impact of development proposals on the value of

individual open spaces. Development control decisions should have regard to the analysis

undertaken on current levels of provision, the identified deficiencies and the quality and value

of the open spaces within or surrounding a development site.


open space provision. The nature of such improvements should reflect the additional open

space needs generated as a result of the proposed development and the recommended

standards for open space provision set out in this report.

17.12 If the proposed development is located within an identified area of deficiency for public parks,

children‟s play, playing pitches, natural greenspace or allotment provision, it will be

necessary for additional sites to be brought into relevant open space use. It is recommended

that developers will be required to make a contribution towards the provision of the open

space. It may be appropriate for such provision to be incorporated within the curtilage of the

development. Alternatively a contribution to off-site provision may be appropriate.

17.13 If the proposed development is not located within an area which is deficient in either quantity

or access to open space provision, then consideration should be given to any deficiency in

open space quality or value. It is recommended that the developer will be required to make a


Final Report 205

contribution towards the enhancement of the quality of open space provision including the

range facilities and their condition.

Enhancement of Open Spaces 17.14 This study has identified criteria for assessing the quality and value of each open space

surveyed. It is recommended that the Open Space Strategy focuses on improving those

public spaces which are underperforming in line with the guidelines and suggested

opportunities for improvement.

17.15 The study has also identified how existing deficiencies in open space quantity, quality and

access may be addressed on a sub area basis to better meet local needs.

Open space needs and priorities 17.16 The identification of local needs and priorities has taken account of the findings of the

Residents Survey and other consultation under taken by the Council in relation to parks and

open spaces.

17.17 Open space needs and priorities are varied across the Borough. Differences in population

density, the percentage of flats & terraced dwellings, child densities and indices of

deprivation generally correspond to those areas where large scale housing developments

exist, such as public housing estates.

Areas of medium and high population density (gross residential densities >50

dwellings/hectare) and/or wards with a high proportion of dwellings which are

terraced or are flats (refer to Figure 4.1) should be prioritised for improvements to

the provision of small local parks, local parks, children‟s play areas amenity

greenspaces and allotments where there is an identified deficiency in either the

quantity or access;

The range and quality of open space provision within these open spaces should also

reflect the increased range of functions which these spaces are required to fulfil

which would normally be performed by back gardens. Such functions include

children‟s play, informal games, sitting out/relaxation, picnics/outside dining,

gardening and family/community gatherings.

17.18 The reason for prioritising these areas is due to lower than average access to private

gardens within these areas and the overall density of development which means that there

tend to be fewer amenity spaces, natural and semi-natural areas including urban trees

particularly within the areas of highest density.

The highest child densities tend to be located within the east of the Borough,

specifically Haselbury, Upper Edmonton and Edmonton Green in the south east and

Enfield Lock and Enfield Highway in the north east of the Borough (refer to Figure

4.3). These wards should be prioritised for improvement where there are inadequate

opportunities for children‟s play for all age groups (refer to Chapter 6)

Nationally, around 9% of the population are not in good health. Enfield contains

relatively large pockets of the population that are not in good health, again,

especially towards the east of the Borough (refer to Figure 4.4). Within all areas of

the Borough open spaces should provide formal and informal opportunities for

physical activity and a range of environments which provide spaces for relaxation

and stress relief.

17.19 Where such opportunities do not exist new formal and informal opportunities for physical

activity should be embedded within communities in order to encourage increased rates of


Final Report 206

physical activity. Within all communities there should be spaces for relaxation either within

existing parks or within linear open spaces. Both of these roles can potentially contribute

towards preventing ill health.

The poorest areas in terms of the deprivation index are in located the south and east

of the Borough. Edmonton Green has the highest (i.e. worst) rank of deprivation.

Given this context it is imperative that open spaces do not under perform in their

potential role in regenerating communities through:

Providing environments which are attractive green and safe

Providing green lungs to assist in improving air quality;

Establishing a sense of place and wellbeing and improving the image and identity of

communities and

Providing a range of opportunities for sport and recreation

17.20 Such improvements should be instrumental in enhancing local quality of life.

Assessment of Supply 17.21 Enfield has a relatively high quantity of public park provision for an outer London Borough,

with some 2.42ha of public parks per 1000 population, although the distribution of public park

provision varies significantly between wards.

17.22 Those areas of the Borough which are deficient in public open space are illustrated on Figure

5.4. Measures to extend the existing catchments of existing parks will need to be considered

in order to reduce deficiencies in access. Measures will be different for each park but could

include creating more park gates, „greening‟ of routes and better signposting.

17.23 This study has identified provision for children‟s play in Enfield (chapter 6). There are 35

open spaces which have play areas which fully fulfil the criteria associated with a LEAP and

only one space fully meets the NEAP criteria. In addition, 10 open spaces with „Other

children‟s play provision‟ fulfil some of the criteria for a LEAP and could be classified as such

if minor improvements were made to the play space.

17.24 The assessment identifies the areas deficient in access to formally provided children‟s play

provision (Figure 6.2) but also identifies other publicly accessible open spaces which may

have the potential to incorporate dedicated children‟s play facilities and help reduce the

deficiencies.

Quality of Supply 17.25 Open space policy has previously been primarily concerned with the quantity and distribution

of open space. This study updates this information but also considers the range and

condition of facilities within open spaces and the quality of those facilities compared with the

Green Flag standard. Chapter 9 identifies that the majority of open spaces are classified as

having a „Good‟ or „Very Good‟ quality and range of facilities. The overall findings of the

resident‟s survey are consistent with this assessment.

17.26 A strategy for improving the range and condition of facilities within public parks should be

developed to take into account:

The unique character of these parks and the potential to incorporate further facilities;

Whether there is a deficiency in the provision of open space in the area;

The proximity of other parks which may have an oversupply of certain facilities; and


Final Report 207

Local social conditions.

Value of Open Space 17.27 The value placed on open space is multi-functional and relates to a range of roles. Each

open space will have a different mix of values to each individual user.

17.28 This report updates the value assessment for those sites that were surveyed in 2011. It has

shown that many of the open spaces surveyed are being used by schools and communities

as an educational resource and location for social events.

17.29 The network of open spaces also provide a valuable ecological resource. There are areas of

the Borough which are deficient in accessible natural or semi-natural greenspace provision.

17.30 84 spaces within the Borough (22.9%) were identified as representing open spaces of high

quality and of high value to the community. Many of the high quality low value spaces

represent mono-functional open spaces which only contribute to the community in a limited

way, such as amenity spaces. Within areas of identified deficiency (in terms of quantity,

quality or access) it is important that such spaces do not under perform in terms of their

potential value and multi-functionality and are improved to fulfil their potential

Proposed Standard for Provision of Parks 17.31 Taking into account of 2026 population projections, this study recommends a quantity

standard of 2.37 ha of public parks per 1,000 population. This standard is the minimum

required to meet the needs of the Borough and reflects the need for an increase in provision

of 16ha.

17.32 The following access standards are recommended for inclusion within the forthcoming Local

Development Framework.


3200m from home;

All residents within the Borough should have access to a District Park within 1200m

from home;

All residents within the Borough should have access to a Local Park / Small Local

Park or Pocket Park within 800m from home.

All residents within the Borough should have access to a public park as defined by

the parks hierarchy defined in Table 4.1 within 800m from home.

17.33 Public parks within the Borough should be of „Good‟ or „Very Good‟ quality and provide the

range of facilities associated with their respective tier of the parks hierarchy. Those public

parks identified within Chapter 9 and 10 which either under perform in terms of their value to

the local community or their condition should be improved consistent with the guidelines

identified.

Proposed Standard for Formal Children‟s Play 17.34 There are variations in children‟s play provision by ward. While some wards have a sufficient

level of formal play provision (e.g. Cockfosters) others have none (e.g. highlands).

17.35 Children‟s play provision should be of adequate quality and provide the range of facilities

associated with the size of the play space. By taking account of the projected child

population (2026) there is a need for an additional 10,600 sqm of children‟s play provision.

The proposed standard for children‟s play should follow the GLA recommended standard of


Final Report 208

10 sqm per child, with the inclusion of an element of provision for formal children‟s play

which it is recommended should be 0.48 sqm per child.



All residents within the Borough should have access to a formal children‟s play

provision within 400m from home;

Proposed Standard for Provision of Natural

Greenspace 17.37 The proposed standard for provision of natural greenspace is 1.0ha of estimated Site of

Importance for Nature Conservation per 1,000 population. The Borough as a whole will

meet this target in 2026. However, the distribution of natural greenspace means that a large

linear strip of the Borough, from the north to the south, roughly in line with the A1010 Hertford

Road (identified in Figure 7.4) will fall short of this target.


Development Framework:

All residents within the Borough should have access to a designated Site of Borough

Importance or Site of Metropolitan Importance for Nature Conservation within 1km

from home.

Where this is not possible, sites should be identified for enhancement to provide

sites of Local Importance for Nature Conservation to alleviate identified access

deficiencies.

Assessing Allotment Needs

17.39 The revised PPG17 states that in preparing development plans, local authorities should

undertake an assessment of the likely demand for allotments and their existing allotment

provision, and prepare policies which aim to meet the needs in their area.

Proposed Standard for Allotments 17.40 The recommended standard of allotment provision to meet needs up to 2026 is 0.36ha per

1,000 population.

17.41 The following access standard is recommended for inclusion within the forthcoming Local


All households should have access to an allotment garden within 800m of home.

17.42 Allotment sites should be of adequate quality and support the needs of the local community.

Allotment sites which under perform in terms of their value to the local community consistent

with the criteria relating to the role of sites identified in Chapter 8 should be improved.

17.43 Given that allotment sites do not have to be particularly large, allotment provision could be

associated with new development in the Borough. Scope may exist within underserved

areas to bring forward allotment land through diversification of existing open spaces such as

playing fields and development of allotments on infill sites. Within other local authorities,

school sites have proved good locations where there is sufficient space available as funding

can be sought to develop allotments jointly as outdoor classrooms for curriculum use and as

a community resource. Opportunities for bringing forward new allotment sites should be

investigated within wards where there are the highest levels of latent demand and open

space need.


Final Report 209

17.44 At those allotment sites where there is unlikely to be demand even taking account of latent

and potential demand then opportunities exist to diversify areas of underutilised plots or

disused allotment land for other open space and nature conservation uses. If there is no

existing or potential need for any other open space uses then it may be appropriate to

consider other possible land uses.

Sports Pitch Update 17.45 To provide an updated assessment of local playing pitch need the Sport England Playing

Pitch Model was adopted. It was beyond the scope of this update to carry out an updated

survey of teams and sports clubs.

17.46 Playing pitch needs taking account of future population projections were identified. Taking

account of existing provision and demand, latent demand and the scale of the strategic

reserve, it was established that no additional pitches will be required up to 2026.

Proposed Standard for Provision of Playing

Pitches 17.47 The proposed playing pitch standard to meet needs up to 2026 is 0.70 ha per 1,000

population

17.48 It is recommended that the Council prepares a playing pitch strategy and action plan in order

to identify solutions to the quantitative and qualitative deficiencies identified within the playing

pitch assessment.

Application of Standards to Growth Areas 17.49 Chapter 16 identified future open space needs of the Borough‟s four growth areas based on

the future population as a result of development, against the open space standards

recommended in this report.

17.50 In considering the future open space needs, the Consultants have taken into account the

existing level of open space provision, open space needs and socio-economic indicators, in

order to identify priorities for each of the growth areas. In some locations it will not be

possible or desirable to seek the full level of provision derived from the recommended

standards, given the local needs and socio-economic conditions or existing level of provision.

As a result the report sets out the key priorities for each of the growth areas.


Final Report 210


Final Report 211

Appendix A – Proforma


Final Report 212


Final Report 213


Final Report 214


Final Report 215


Final Report 216


Final Report 217


Final Report 218


Final Report 219

Appendix B – Guide to Proforma


Final Report 220

Q2-4 Site reference No.

To be identified completed prior to survey. Linked to development of GIS.

Site name to be verified on site and updated if necessary

Q6 Ward - Desk based assessment

Q7 Area -To be measured by GIS (desk based assessment)

Q8 Photo ID no.

The number should be unique to avoid confusion between sites. A representative photo should be taken of each site. Together with any illustrating queries (historic features) or relating to problems.

Q9 Description of the park.

Aspects which should be included within the description include an indication of the type of uses present within the open space and the overall condition of the open space.

Q10

Type of Open Space

Select main purpose. If there is more than one major role select secondary purpose.

Regional Park/Open Space –(Over 400 ha) Large areas and corridors of natural

heathland, downland, commons, woodlands and parkland also including areas not publicly

accessible but which contribute to the overall environmental amenity. Primarily for informal

recreation with some non-intensive active recreation uses. Car parking at key locations.

Metropolitan Park - (60-400 ha) Either:

i natural heathland, downland, commons, woodland, or

ii formal park providing for both active and passive recreation. May contain playing fields,

but at least 40 ha for other pursuits. Adequate parking.

District Park – (20-60 ha) Landscape setting with a variety of natural features and a range of facilities including outdoor sports facilities and playing fields, children‟s play for different age groups and informal recreation pursuits. Some car parking.

Local Park –(2-20 ha) They have an important children‟s play function. Provision for court

games, important children‟s play function, sitting-out areas, nature conservation,

landscaped environment, and playing fields if the parks are large enough.

Small Local Park or Open Space – (0.4 - 2 ha) These are open spaces less than 2 ha in size (threshold to be determined). These are likely to include gardens, sitting out areas, children‟s play grounds and other publicly accessible open space uses.

Pocket Park – (< 0.4 ha) Similar to Small Local Parks, these are likely to include gardens, sitting out areas and children‟s playgrounds, but are less than 0.4ha

Linear Open Space / Green Corridors – River and canal banks, canal towpaths, road and rail corridors, cycling routes, paths, disused railways, and other routes which provide opportunities for informal recreation (including nature conservation).

Amenity Green Space – Includes informal recreational spaces and housing green spaces. This category would include green spaces in and around housing areas, large landscaped areas, and domestic gardens.

Outdoor Sports Facilities / Playing Fields - Sites which are not located within a public park and which the primary role is for formal recreation. Sites include tennis courts, bowling greens, sports pitches, golf courses, athletics tracks, school playing fields, other institutional playing fields and outdoor sports areas. Categorise by ownership i.e. public/private/education.


Final Report 221

Allotments / Community Gardens / Urban Farms - Open spaces where the primary use is gardening.


Natural or Semi-Natural Urban Greenspaces – Woodland (coniferous, deciduous, mixed) and scrub, grassland (e.g. downland, meadow), heath or moor, wetlands (e.g. marsh, fen), open and running water, wastelands (including disturbed ground), bare rock habitats (e.g. cliffs, quarries, pits).

Civic spaces / pedestrianised areas – more formally laid out hard surfaced public spaces including squares, pedestrian streets, sitting out areas. These spaces would not normally have a formal recreational function.

Green Spaces within Grounds of Institution - Open space located within the grounds of hospitals, universities and other institutions which are accessible to the general public or some sections of the public.

Q11 Site Ownership

Public sector – includes spaces owned by other national, regional or local government agencies. Excludes utility companies and railtrack owned land.

Voluntary sector – includes community organisations, charities, clubs and societies, private schools.

Private sector – Company sports grounds, land owned by statutory undertakers, university owned sites.

Q12

Site access arrangements

General public access - unrestricted public access or management agreements for public access. This usually relates to publicly owned parks and open spaces.

De-facto public access - general public use of spaces for short cuts, walks, playing games etc., without formal public access arrangements.

Shared / dual use - formal arrangements exist for the use of open space which is not normally accessible to the general public. E.g. formal arrangements which allow the use of school sports facilities out of hours.

Restricted access – access only to members of clubs or associations, where formal shared use arrangements are unlikely to exist. This could include private spaces within housing estates open to local residents or company sports grounds which are accessible and used by other teams not associated with the company.

No access means that no public access is possible, usually for safety or security reasons (e.g. to railway embankments, vacant land, areas of wildlife etc). These areas are generally securely fenced off to prevent public access.

Q13 Landscape / Planning Designations

Desk based assessment using adopted UDP


Final Report 222

Q14

Does the open space fulfil a structural role?

This question relates to the spaces structural role in the physical environment in which it is located. Physical structure within a large built up area provides a sense of orientation.

Criteria 1 - sites clearly distinguishable from the built up area providing separation between different settlements or communities. This is likely to apply to large open spaces on the edge of settlements.

Criteria 2 - contribution to the setting of townscapes which are important in a Borough or Regional context because of location or characteristics.

Criteria 3 - whether it provides any impression from a major transport corridor.

Criteria 4 - whether the local population is able to positively identify with the space (e.g. importance for leisure activities, regular visits, and important element of their local or wider area).

Criteria 5 - whether it contributes (by itself or with another space) to a separation/definition of the local neighbourhoods within the Borough, e.g. sites on ward boundaries or transport corridors.

Criteria 6 - whether the local population is likely to attach a level of importance to the space due to the presence of recognisable features (e.g. historic buildings, sports clubs, significant landscapes or events).

Q15

Does the open space have a significant amenity value?

This question relates to the level to which the space makes a pleasant contribution to the locality which people can identify with (e.g. views, landscaping, openness, settings etc).

Criteria 1 - relates to whether the space is visible from adjacent buildings, transport corridors, footpaths or the wider area.

Criteria 2 - seeks to determine whether the space is „visually attractive‟. Whilst this is subjective, the attractiveness of the space will be determined by positive features such as the condition, quantity, size and appropriateness of planting features; landforms, street scene; views etc., or negative features such as pylons, industrial features railway tracks etc.

Criteria 3 - seeks to determine whether the space makes a contribution to the setting of the townscape surrounding it e.g. a green corridor providing a space for buildings to look onto it.

Criteria 4 - assesses whether the open space provides visual relief of built up areas, such as spacing between buildings including whether the space provides a „window‟ for views from adjacent buildings, road or built up areas.

Criteria 5 – seeks to determine whether the open space helps to shield the surrounding area from unsightly land uses, such as heavy industry, through the use of buffer, bunding or screening.

Q16 Heritage Designations

Heritage designations are to be derived from UDP/Council GIS info prior to site surveys.

The onsite survey should identify whether the open space forms part of the setting for any of the heritage designations and note the approximate distance of the site from the boundary of the designation.

The criteria to determine whether the site meets one or more criteria for inclusion on the EH register of parks and gardens are listed below:

i. Sites with a main phase of development before 1750 where at least a proportion of the layout of this date is still evident, even perhaps only as an earthwork.


Final Report 223

ii. Sites with a main phase of development laid out between 1750 and 1820 where enough of this landscaping survives to reflect the original design.

iii. Sites with a main phase of development between 1820 and 1880 which is of importance and survives intact or relatively intact.

iv. Sites with a main phase of development between 1880 and 1939 where this is of high importance and survives intact.

v. Sites with a main phase of development laid out post-war, but more than 30 years ago, where the work is of exceptional importance.

vi. Sites which were influential in the development of taste whether through reputation or references in literature.

vii. Sites which are early or representative examples of a style of layout, or a type of site, or the work of a designer (amateur or professional) of national importance.

viii. Sites having an association with significant persons or historical events.

ix. Sites with strong group value.

Q17 Conservation and heritage

i) Using a scale of 1-10 consider the state of conservation of natural features within the site

Natural defined as (Geomorphological features, woodland, scrub, grasslands, wetlands, open sand, running water, wasteland and derelict open land).

0,1, Very Poor / 2,3,4 Poor / 5,6 Fair / 7 Good / 8 Very good / 9 Excellent / 10 Exceptional

ii) Using a scale of 1-10 consider the conservation of landscape features within the site including individual landscape components, the „strength of character‟ of the landscape defined as its distinctiveness and integrity and its overall condition.

ii) Using a scale of 1-10 consider the condition of historic buildings and structures.

Structures includes railings, gates and gate posts, walls, statues, fountains, bandstands etc.

(Condition: the appearance and present management of the feature, along with its stability and likely rate of change from existing state).

Not to be confused with survival. This can be defined as: the percentage of the original structure or features which remains intact/extant)

Poor – little of the original style and finish can be recognised and the present condition will likely lead to further degradation.

Moderate – most of the original style and finish can be recognised but unless the rate of degradation can be arrested it will lead to loss of the present intelligibly of the feature.

Good – the feature survives in its perceived original condition and at present no factors are exist to depreciate its current form.

Where appropriate refer to the extent/survival of historical features/structures in the comments box.

Q18a Ecological value

Desk top exercise to determine whether the site has any existing ecological designations.

Site surveys should identify sites which have potential to form local nature reserves.


Final Report 224

Q18b Environmental role

Floodplain to be determined from GIS overlay From UDP/EA.

On site survey to identify whether the site has any lakes, man-made drainage dykes/balancing ponds, or natural drainage features. Tick if trees/vegetation forms a shelter belt adjoining residential development.

Tick the appropriate noise attenuation box if the site plays a role in alleviating the effects of noise either from traffic/rail, industry or other sources either by providing separation between the source and sensitive receptors (housing, schools etc.) or by providing a landscape buffer/shelter belt.

Tick the appropriate air quality attenuation box if the site plays a role in ameliorating the effects of poor air quality from sources such as road traffic (from busy roads), or emissions/odours from industry. In order to fulfil this role open spaces should provide vegetation in close proximity to sources of air pollution.

Q19 Educational role

Sport / Organised Games – LBE information to determine existing use of parks by schools. Site assessment to determine potential use – In order for the sites to be suitable for schools use. The areas to be used should be free from dog fouling and other potential hazards.

Nature / Environmental Study - To be determined from site survey. Sites should have a range of ecological/environmental features. For the sites to have an existing role there should be some form of interpretation provision (e.g. boards, leaflets part of a trail, programme of events/activities). Education role should be assessed in terms of the potential benefit to the wider community (not just schools).

Historical interpretation / understanding - Such sites should have been identified within Q16. For the sites to have an existing role there should be some form of interpretation provision (e.g. boards, leaflets part of a trail). Education role should be assessed in terms of the benefit to the wider community (not just schools).

Rating

Using a scale of 1-10 consider whether the provision of education/interpretation provision relating to the park is fit for purpose (considering the type of open space).


Comment on what additional facilities could be provided to make it fit for purpose (bearing in mind the type of open space it is).

Q20 Cultural role

Criteria relating to existing events should be ticked if there is a formal outdoor venue on site (e.g. bandstand, stage, amphitheatre etc) which is in reasonable condition. Will be added to from consultation with LBE to determine sites where the events programme may not be visible.

The comments box should describe the type of onsite provision (i.e. type/s of venues present on site).

Q21 Recreational role

The relevant boxes should be ticked if the site performs one or more of the recreational role identified.

Active Recreation - a major role is where at least 40% of the usage of the site is likely to be dedicated to the type of activity identified.

Noisy sports to be identified


Final Report 225

Informal recreation - a major role is where it is considered that the identified activity accounts for at least 40% of all on site activity.

A minor role is where an activity is likely to take place but does constitute a major activity.

N/A should be ticked where the site does not support the recreational activity identified.

Dedicated provision should be identified if there are facilities for undertaking the activity.

Informal provision should be ticked off there are no formal facilities but where other evidence suggests an activity takes place.

Q22 Children’s Play Provision

Note the total number of pieces of children play equipment.

Type of play equipment

Tick all boxes that apply to the type of each play item:

Balancing, e.g. beams, stepping logs, clatter bridges, or graphic line elements such as hopscotch.

Rocking, e.g. see-saw or spring animals.

Climbing or agility, e.g. frames, nets, overhead bars, or angled climbers.

Sliding, e.g. traditional slides, straight or angled „fire-fighter‟s‟ poles.

Social play, e.g. sheltered areas or child seating.

Additional items might focus upon rotating, swinging, jumping, crawling, viewing (e.g. ground graphics), or counting.

Quality

Tick the boxes for LEAPs and NEAPs if the children‟s play area meets most of the following criteria:

Criteria for a LEAP:

It caters for children of 4-8 years in age

It has an activity zone a minimum of 400m² in area

It contains at least 5 types of play equipment (i.e. balancing, rocking etc.)

There is adequate space around the equipment for children to play games of „tag‟ and „chase‟

It has a barrier to limit the speed of a child entering or leaving the facility

There is at least 10 metres between the edge of the play area and the boundary of the nearest property

The buffer zone includes planting to enable children to experience natural scent, colour and texture.

Some individual seats are provided for parents or carers

It has a notice to indicate that the area is for use by children only

It has a litter bin

Criteria for a NEAP:

It caters predominantly for older children

It has an activity zone a minimum of 1000m² divided into 2 areas; one containing a range of play equipment and the other provided with a hard surface of at least 465m² (minimum 5-a-side pitch)

It contains at least 8 types of play equipment

There is adequate space around the equipment for children to play games of „tag‟ and „chase‟

It has a barrier to limit the speed of a child entering or leaving the facility

There is at least 30 metres between the edge of the play area and the boundary of the nearest property

The buffer zone includes planting to enable children to experience natural scent, colour and


Final Report 226

texture.

Some individual seats are provided for parents or carers

It has a notice to indicate that the area is for use by children only

It has litter bins at each access point and in proximity of each group of seats

It has convenient and secure cycle parking

Criteria for a Playcentre:

Largely situated indoors

It has playworkers and indoor space for arts and crafts activities

Its outdoor space will be insufficient or unsuitable for adventurous activities

Criteria for an Adventure Playground:

A playground with playworkers at which children have challenging opportunities

Activities may well include using tools, lighting fires, digging etc

It has sufficient space outside for such activities

Has indoor space for arts and crafts activities

Criteria for a Doorstep/Toddler Playground:

Designed for small children and is very close to housing

Limited number of items of equipment, usually no more than 3, available.

Play area should be located away from busy roads

A 5 metre wide buffer zone should exist between the perimeter of the playground and housing

Adequate seating should be provided for adults

Q23

Pitch Provision

Write the number of pitches which fall into each category.

Pitch type/size (size of pitch excluding safety margins)

Football full size 90-120m (length) x 46-90m (width) (1.4 ha)

Football Junior Approx 70 x 50m (0.5 ha)

Football 5-a-side Approx 27-55m (length) x 18-37m (width) (0.2-0.3 ha)

Cricket full size 46m x 46m (1.6-2.0 ha)

Cricket junior 37m x 37m

Rugby full size Approx 100m x 55m (min) (1-1.2 ha)

Rugby junior (smaller than above)

Hockey 91 x 55m (grass) (0.6 ha)

Special football (Gaelic, American or Aussie Rules football or camogie – comment which in notes or take picture)

Pitch surface

Redgra - red-brown shale surface - this is largely being phased out because of injuries.

All weather - artificial astroturf type surfaces which are normally green and have a textured surface normally fine plastic strands.

Hard surface – concrete, or other type of surface not identified above.

Q24 Other outdoor sports provision


Final Report 227

Pitch/court provision

Write the number of pitches which fall in to the each category.

Do not double count pitches which are noted in Q23.

Full sized artificial pitches should be noted in Q24 only.

Basketball count full sized courts in this section (29x17m). Note practice areas in Q25.

MUGAs (multi use games areas) are totally enclosed games areas which provide facilities for a range of sports normally 5-a-side football, basket ball practice etc. These facilities are a recent 'invention' and will not be more than about 5 years old. For other court type uses (normally concrete surfaces) the facility should be classified according to the court markings and any other tell tale signs (portable goal posts etc.) which indicate the range of activities which are supported (tennis, netball, 5-a-side). Courts which are used for a number of sports (e.g. tennis& netball) should be noted in both rows but placed in brackets.

Tick if there are dedicated changing or social facilities rather than noting the No. facilities.

Pitch/court/facility condition

Good

Grass cover 85-94%

Length of grass and evenness of pitch – Excellent

Pitch/court is of adequate size

Slope of pitch/court – Flat

No evidence of dog fouling, glass, stones, litter, unofficial use or damage to surface.

Fair

Grass cover 60-84%

Length of grass and evenness of pitch – Good

Pitch/court is of adequate size

Slope of pitch/court - Slight

Some evidence of dog fouling, glass, stones, litter, unofficial use or damage to surface.

Poor

Grass cover <60%

Length of grass and evenness of pitch – Poor

Pitch/court is of inadequate size

Slope of pitch/court – severe

Dog fouling, glass, stones, litter, unofficial use or damage to surface pose major problem.

Q25 Indications of informal use

Tick boxes if there are indications of the any of the activities listed.

Provision of other amenities

Tick boxes if any of the amenities are provided.

Q26

Quality/condition audit

Using a scale of 1-10 consider the following factors bearing in mind the range of provision which is appropriate for each type of open space.



Final Report 228

A list of criteria which should be considered in relation to each factor is provided below. If the rating given does not adequately reflect all of the issues/problems identified on site highlight any differences in the comments box.

A WELCOMING PLACE FOR ALL

Welcoming Is there a clearly defined entrance? Is there a welcome/advisory sign which is an appropriate size and clear? Is the entrance clean, tidy, well maintained and inviting Are the site boundaries including hedges, gates etc. clearly defined and well maintained?

Good and safe access

How well is the open space linked with neighbouring areas? (consider both formal and informal connections and the number of entrances to the open space) Is there adequate car parking spaces either within or adjacent to the open space? (Note if parking has to be paid for) Are spaces well defined/maintained? Is there provision for cycling within the open space including cycle routes (larger spaces) and cycle parking (if there are facilities which cyclists are likely to frequent)

Are roads, pathways and cycle ways constructed using appropriate materials are they level for safe use, are edges well defined, surfaces clean and debris and weed free?


Signage

Is the open space easy to locate?

Is there adequate signage to the open space? (if appropriate)

Is there a site plan within the space identifying the location of facilities/amenities? (if relevant)

Is there appropriate directional signage within the open space? (e.g. finger posts)

Equal access for all

Are there any physical barriers which prevent/obstruct access for pedestrian or cyclists? (Physical barriers may include busy roads with absence of pedestrian crossings in close proximity to the open space)

Are there barriers which would deter/preclude certain user groups from accessing the space (e.g. young children, women, the elderly etc)

Are there any physical barriers of access for people with mobility difficulties?

Flights of steps with no ramps, inadequate pathways ,lack of disabled parking, toilets etc.

HEALTHY, SAFE AND SECURE

Safe equipment and facilities

Do any of the facilities or equipment within the open space present a potential risk to users either because they are damaged or poorly maintained?


Final Report 229

Personal security

Consider whether potential park users may be deterred from using the park for reasons of safety and security. Consider the following issues:

Is there natural surveillance from neighbouring properties?

Are there potential ambush areas?

Is there vandalism of park buildings/changing facilities which presents a poor image of the space

Is the space well frequented? Does it have regular flows of people on routes through the open space

Is the space well provided with lighting if it is likely to be used or has potential to be used at night

Do the approaches to the open space feel open or do they feel intimidating?

Does the park have park rangers or similar?

Dog fouling

Is there evidence of dog fouling within the open space?

Are children‟s play areas and sports pitches fenced from dogs?

Are there clearly defined dog walks or areas for Dogs?

Is there provision of bins for dog waste?

Appropriate provision of facilities

Does the park have the range of facilities (variety, size and number) which would be expected for the type of open space it is? Consider:

Children‟s play provision (for different age groups)

Spaces for different functions, informal recreation, walks, active sport, spaces for nature

Amenities (toilets, café, seating, shelters, club house, changing facilities)

Provision for a range of age ranges

Does the open space provide a varied and stimulating environment/landscaped

Is there provision for interpretation facilities if there are features of interest


Quality of facilities

Are the facilities which are provided fit for purpose? Consider the quality of facilities, whether they are in use, their physical condition/state of repair and their attractiveness to existing and potential users.

CLEAN AND WELL MAINTAINED

Are facilities within the open space clean and well maintained? (Check for signs of graffiti/vandalism, broken glass etc).

Check toilets and other indoor facilities if access is available

Litter and waste management

Are there enough bins? Are they emptied regularly enough?

Are there facilities for recycling?

Is there evidence of fly tipping/abandoned cars etc?


Final Report 230

Grounds maintenance and horticulture

Consider the number, variety, condition and health of planted areas within the park including grassed areas, trees, shrubs and bushes and formal planted areas.

Is there the range of vegetation types that may be expected for the type of open space?

Are there unmanaged or overgrown areas?

Buildings and infrastructure maintenance

Park buildings (roofs, windows, signs of graffiti/vandalism, arson)

Fences/site boundary (safe and secure)

Other structures (bandstands, historic structures, information/interpretation points)

Lighting (working)

Paths etc. Good condition

Equipment maintenance

Park benches, Play equipment, Drinking fountains, etc.

Q27 Allotment provision and condition

No. plots & no. occupied from council records (for council sites)

Estimate % abandoned/unmanaged plots

Identify the nature of the water supply (piped water, water butts, none?

Identify the presence of any communal facilities (trading shed, storage, meeting facilities etc. and their condition).

Q28

Physical Character

Which of the following best describe the physical character of the open space?

Assess the composition of the park in terms of its land use pattern (to nearest 5% for each category. (Aerial photographs may assist with assessing the percentages for some of the larger spaces).

Q29 0,1, Very Poor / 2,3,4 Poor / 5,6 Fair / 7 Good / 8 Very good / 9 Excellent / 10 Exceptional

Vegetation coverage and condition

Assess the coverage and type of vegetation within the space to nearest 5% for each category. Landscape assessment of vegetation.

Using a scale of 1-10 consider the appropriateness of arboriculture and woodland management arrangements.

Identify any recommendations for change

Q30 Scope for change/improvement

Select options for change or improvement bearing in mind the type of open space.

Consider the feasibility, viability of options for improvement based upon answers to preceding questions and a visual assessment.

Identify the rationale for the changes suggested.

Q31 People/resources

Site Management

Select relevant boxes based upon site assessment supplemented by information provided by LBE

Q32 Any other comments


Final Report 231

Field

17.1

17.2 Explanation

17.3

Max score as % of Total score.

Pitch ID

Number used on site to identify pitch, usually Pitch 1, Pitch 2, etc

N/a

Sport

Describe sport and pitch type, e.g. football – junior, rugby league – senior, etc (should reflect Q23).

N/a

Grass cover

Choose % cover from options. This grass coverage is for the whole of the pitch/field area. Bare goal mouths would represent about 5% each. Weed cover should be treated as „bare patches of grass‟. The presence of weeds can significantly reduce the performance of a grass pitch. Estimate the % of weed cover on the pitch and subtract it from the total grass cover %. The common weeds are dandelion, clover, plantain, daisy and white clover.

7%

Length of grass

The length of grass will depend on the sport, e.g. rugby will require slightly longer grass than football.

7%


Final Report 232

Size of pitch Does the pitch look like it meets the recommended pitch dimensions given by the NGB? There may be instances where the pitch does not quite meet these dimensions, but is still adequate for its users. Recommended pitch dimensions are listed in the appendix.

4% Safety margins Same as above. Where safety margins do not meet the NGB dimensions, they may be adequate if there is sufficient run-off onto other pitches (although this is not ideal).

4% Slope of pitch This is the overall gradient and cross fall for the pitch. The general categories to use are flat, slight, gentle, moderate and severe. While it will not be possible to measure the fall of the pitch, the following are the recommended falls:

for winter sports, a fall of 1:80–100 along the line of play is acceptable, and 1:40–50 cross fall

for cricket, the square should be level, and a 1:80–100 fall for the outfield and flat for the wicket. 7%

Evenness of pitch Is the pitch „bumpy‟, rutted or uneven? A completely flat pitch scores Excellent.

7% Poor Drainage Is there any evidence? If not, assume none. The user survey may indicate any problems.

3% Dog fouling Is there any evidence? If not, assume none. The user survey may indicate any problems.

3% Unofficial use Such as informal ‟kick-about‟ areas, unbooked use, etc. The user survey may help with this, plus comments from grounds maintenance.

3% Damage to surface Is there any evidence of problems such as golf divots, motorbike/car tracks, etc?

3% Training: number of hours per week Number of hours per week that the pitch is used for training. User survey may help with this. If not known, score 0 hours.

7%


Final Report 233

Changing Accommodation Is the pitch served by changing accommodation

7% Winter sports only – posts/goals Are posts upright, straight, painted, not damaged? For football, are there net hooks on both sets of posts? If posts are removable or dismantled, score Excellent.

4% Cricket only – wicket protection Is the cricket wicket protected when not in use, for example, roped off, movable covers, etc?

4% Line markings During the season are the line markings clear and straight? If line is burnt/marked with creosote, score Poor.

4% Training area Are there any training areas that are separate from the main pitch, such as marked grids, separate goals?

4% Comments Record any specific information that will help you when you come to analyse the data.

4% Overall quality What is the overall quality of the accommodation? Does it look well-maintained, clean, user friendly, etc?

24% Evidence of vandalism Is there any evidence of vandalism, such as damage to doors/windows, broken glass, graffiti, fire damage, etc?

12% Showers First, are there showers, second, how good are they? The quality issue to be supplied by the user survey. If it is not possible to assess quality, tick Yes–OK.

12% Toilets


Final Report 234

As above

12% Car parking Is there purpose-built car parking for circa 20 cars, which is not on the playing field? What is the quality – surfaced, broken glass, etc? If there is no parking tick Poor/non.

7% Links to public Transport Has the site good links to the local public transport network? Good = within 10 mins walks of stop, station, hub.

12% Security Does the accommodation look secure? Is there evidence of break-ins? The user survey may be useful.

12% Segregated changing Are there self-contained changing rooms? Are there communal showers? Can male and female teams use the accommodation at the same time? This information could come through the site managers.

7%


Final Report 235

Appendix C – Typology of Open Space


Final Report 236


Final Report 237

Appendix D – Public Parks by Ward


Final Report 238


Final Report 239

Appendix E – Criteria for NEAP and LEAP


Final Report 240


Final Report 241

Appendix F – Publically Available Children‟s

Play Facilities


Final Report 242


Final Report 243

Appendix G – Quality Scores


Final Report 244


Final Report 245

Appendix H – Value Assessment Scores


Final Report 246


Final Report 247

Appendix I – Value Scoring System Criteria


Final Report 248


Final Report 249

Appendix J – Relationship between Quality

and Value


Final Report 250


Final Report 251

Appendix K – Pitch Assessment


Final Report 252


Final Report 253

Appendix L – Sports Club Questionnaire


Final Report 254


Final Report 255

Appendix M – List of Clubs identified within

the Borough


Final Report 256


Final Report 257

Appendix N – Potential Role of Open Space

(Pitches)


Final Report 258


Final Report 259

Appendix O – Scope for Change

Improvement


Final Report 260


Final Report 261

Appendix P – Tennis Court Provision


Final Report 262


Final Report 263

Appendix Q – Glossary


Final Report 264

Documents

Enfield Open Space and Sports Assessment Update