The Scottish Government

« Previous | Contents | Next »

Listen

CHAPTER SEVEN WORKSHOP CONSULTATION PROCESS

Introduction

7.1 The two-staged workshop process was programmed to tie in with the end of the questionnaire and interview consultation. Interviews and telephone conversations with an extensive number of individuals from a range of organisations identified a shortlist of potential workshop delegates. Delegates were chosen to represent a range of organisations from the private and public sector, with an involvement in the process of public open space delivery from those responsible for strategic decision making, community trusts, housing developers, local authority open space officers and Non-Governmental Organisations. The resulting mix of delegates broadly represented the range of organisations with an involvement in open space issues and provision. Again, the group sessions were designed to ensure a good mix of backgrounds, to ensure lively discussion and debate. The majority of delegates attended both workshops, which added a level of continuity that strengthened the consultation process.

7.2 The following organisations were represented in the workshop:

• A&J Stephen (Builders) Ltd
• Aberdeen City Council
• Fyne Homes
• Angus Council
• Central Scotland Forest Trust
• Dundee City Council
• East Dunbartonshire Council
• EDI
• Elphinstone Group
• Falkirk Council
• Greenspace Scotland
• Highland Council
• NHS Health Scotland
• Ogilvie Homes
• Scottish Borders Council
• Scottish Executive
• Scottish Federation of Housing Associations
• Scottish Greenbelt Foundation
• Scottish Natural Heritage
• Scottish Wildlife Trust
• SERAD
• South Lanarkshire Council
• Sportscotland
• Stirling Council
• Walker Group Ltd

7.3 The information gathered through the consultation stages of the project formed the starting point for the preparation of discussion topics at the workshop. All of the workshop delegates had completed a questionnaire and had either been interviewed or sent a summary paper of the consultation stage, and therefore were fully conversant with the study purpose and remit. The background and experience of the delegates ensured that they would approach the workshop having a base knowledge of recent open space policy and personal experience of the strategic or delivery processes.

7.4 The outcomes of the two staged workshops formed the basis of the reporting and recommendations to the Scottish Executive, outlined in chapter 8.

Workshop 1

Purpose

7.5 The overarching aims of the first workshop were to review the consultation findings, review a range of existing open space standards and canvas views regarding the setting of minimum standards, their desirability, scope and value in Scotland. The workshop was designed to open up the debate about open space standards and to undertake more detailed consultation on the issues raised in the questionnaires and interview consultations. As mentioned previously, the selection of delegates was intended to draw out the key issues, aspirations and opinions from a range of organisations and interest groups.

Methodology

7.6 The workshop began with a presentation by the consultants on the findings of the literature review, the consultation stages of the research and a brief summary of existing open space standards, including the NPFA, ANGSt, Greater London Standards, Stirling DAN and the Green Flag Award. This presentation set the context for the group sessions.

7.7 The group of 26 delegates was split into smaller groups of 8 or 9 people and the following questions were presented to each group:

• What are the advantages and disadvantages of setting national open space standards?
• What elements of the PAN 65 typology should minimum standards address?
• What form should minimum standards take?
• Should minimum standards apply to existing settlements or a range of new developments?
• How might open space standards be delivered?
• Is a National Minimum Standard the best way forward?

The discussion was led by a facilitator, using a pack of 15 illustrated sheets, with tick boxes, discussion points and group 'voting' sections. The work group session intended to draw out from the representative sectors in open space planning and delivery the key issues, aspirations, and their respective roles. The groups were asked to form a collective view and report back to the other groups.

Outcomes

Part 1 - Strengths and Weaknesses of Existing Standards

7.8 The workshop began with a general discussion on the strengths and weaknesses of the NPFA, ANGSt and the Greater London Authority's Open Space standards, the Green Flag Award and Stirling Council's Development Advice Note. The conclusions of the three groups were as follows:

ANGSt (English Nature's Accessible Natural Greenspace Standard)

7.9 The ANGSt model only applies to natural green space and is therefore limited in terms of informing a minimum open space standard for all types of the PAN 65 typology. Some delegates considered that it sets a standard that is unrealistic and not relevant to Scotland, not taking into account geographical variations. However, Scottish Wildlife Trust and East Dunbartonshire Council have adopted the standard and consider that the provision of natural green space within 300m of peoples homes is realistic. Most delegates agreed that the provision of 1ha of local nature reserve per 1,000 population, accessible 20ha sites within 2km from home, a 100ha site within 5km and a 500ha site within 10km is unrealistic and not achievable. Small pockets of semi-natural open space could be provided as part of existing parks, path and river corridors and areas of amenity greenspace. All agreed that semi-natural open space must be 'fit for purpose', as often these sites are prone to poor maintenance and mis-use. The standard may be useful to assess the quantity and accessibility of existing semi-natural open space, rather than setting minimum standards for new developments. In the absence of other clear guidance on the provision of semi-natural open space, the ANGSt standard was considered to be a useful guide.

Stirling Council's Development Advice Note ( DAN) on Open Space

7.10 Each of the three groups were of the opinion that Stirling Council's DAN was a useful guide for housing developers, setting out clearly the council's position on the expected provision of open space in new residential areas. It was felt that this guide set a 'level playing field' for housing developers. The DAN sets out alternative mechanisms for provision and ring-fences money for particular projects, which is returned if not spent within 5 years. The on-site / off-site flexibility was considered to be a good approach. Comments included the need for site master plans, planning briefs and a statement on maintenance. One housing developer in the group thought it to be restrictive and primitive, but conceded that it is clearly set out and transparent.

NPFA (National Playing Fields Association 6 Acre Standard)

7.11 Despite the fact that a high number of English and Scottish local authorities have adopted the NPFA standard (or a variation of the standard), the workshop groups considered that this standard is out of date, unrealistic and unworkable. Group members who had an involvement in the preparation of open space strategies and local standards, had begun the process using the NPFA and had since rejected it. Limitations of the NPFA standard included its lack of application to the PAN 65 open space categories, apart from children's play space, and non-recognition of geographical variations.

Green Flag Award (Civic Trust - England)

7.12 All delegates considered that the Green Flag Award system is a positive approach to improving the quality of parks and open spaces. The award system engenders local pride, community ownership, recognises 'place' as much as 'space', raises the profile of open space and demonstrates what is possible. It is the only non-punitive standard, setting quality standards and goals. This award system, if it were available in Scotland, was considered to have the potential to be complimentary to minimum open space standards.

Greater London Authority's Open Space Standards

7.13 Greater London's open space standards were considered to be a useful analytical tool for assessing open space provision in existing settlements, in relation to settlement strategies and needs assessments. However, it is too simplistic and should be extended to all open spaces, not just parks. The standard may be applicable to urban areas, but less so for rural areas.

Part 2 - Relevance of the Existing Standards to PAN 65 Typology

7.14 Each group was then asked to identify the relevance of each of the standards to the types of open space set out in PAN 65. The table below demonstrates that no one standard applies to each part of the PAN 65 category:

Part 3 - Elements of the PAN 65 Typology Addressed by Minimum Standards

7.15 Delegates were then asked to decide which elements of the PAN 65 typology should be included in a minimum standard. The groups discussed each of the categories in turn and placed a tick in the relevant box and discussed if the decisions are demand-led or supply-led. The table below summarises the combined response:

Part 4 - Types of Standards

7.16 The three types of standards (accessibility, quality and quantity) were discussed, in relation to the form that a minimum open space standard might take. The following summarises the discussion:

• The group sessions concluded that quantitative standards would be moderately to highly useful for advancing local open space provision. Quantities of open space should be established through local authority audits and strategies. A nationally set quantity standard would require a lot of caveats and may be too simplistic and should only be set as a guide. Other delegates expressed reservations about this form of standard as assessment of open space is more about need, fitness for purpose and quality, not quantity.
• The group sessions concluded that accessibility standards, in terms of the use of distance thresholds from open spaces, would be highly useful for advancing local open space provision. Again, delegates concluded that the accessibility of open space should be established through local authority audits and strategies. Quantity and accessibility standards are inter-linked. If a settlement has achieved its accessibility targets, then it has also achieved a quantity standard.
• The group sessions concluded that qualitative standards would be highly useful for improving local open space provision. However, delegates recognised the difficulties in developing quality standards due to the diverse function and variety of open spaces. Therefore, standards should take the form of guidance, which is enforceable. The standard could be linked to a national aspirational statement for open space, which could set a baseline target for the provision of a range of high quality open spaces.

7.17 The table below shows which types of open space delegates thought should be included in each type of standard.

7.18 Delegates considered that standards should apply to existing settlements and a range of new developments, such as new business parks, leisure developments, hotels, retail parks and golf courses, for example. The broad consensus was that the use of standards for existing settlements would establish gaps or surpluses in existing provision, therefore setting the context for new open space development. All developers, whether residential or other, should contribute to open space provision, whether financially or through provision.

Part 5 - Delivery of Open Space Standards

7.19 The workshop groups were presented with a range of options for minimum open space standards for discussion. None of the delegates opted for setting fixed open space standards. Some opted for setting minimum standards linked to open space guidelines implemented through the development planning process. Whereas nearly all delegates preferred locally set standards linked to an open space strategy needs assessment and negotiated locally in the development planning process. Two out of the 3 groups suggested that any standards should be accompanied by the strengthening of the existing policy framework, providing more detailed guidance to local authorities on the open space audit, strategy and development process.

Part 6 - Is a National Minimum Standard the Best Way Forward?

7.20 Finally the groups were asked to 'vote' on whether the setting of a national minimum open space standard is the best way forward.

• Group 1: 7 delegates said yes, provided it is a qualitative standard with guidance, underwritten by a local standard, 1 delegate abstention
• Group 2: 7 delegates supported the development of national guidance rather than a national standard.
• Group 3: The consensus of the group was that there should be a national minimum standard, provided it is accompanied by a 'framework'

Workshop 2

Purpose

7.21 The discussion and outcomes of the first workshop steered the preparation of four potential models for open space standards, which are outlined in section 7.3.2. The second workshop was intended to build on the findings of the first workshop and review a number of potential models for open space standards, with plenty of opportunity for the groups to add an option or take parts of an option to make a new option.

Methodology

7.22 The workshop process, as with the first workshop, was designed to be as open and flexible as possible. The options were presented as a means of beginning the discussion and debate about the finer points of detail. The second workshop was attended by almost all of the attendees of the first workshop, which ensured continuity and enabled the group to address fairly complicated models for standards without the need to recap over the basics. The format of the workshop included a presentation of the findings of the first workshop and presentation of the four proposed models for setting minimum open space standards for Scotland. The presentation was followed by informal group sessions to discuss the models in more detail and come to a consensus of the views of the group.

The following potential models were approved by the Steering Group prior to the second workshop:

7.23 This option strengthens the existing policy framework, providing more detailed guidance to local authorities on the open space audit, strategy and development process and advises on the setting of local standards. The table below provides a range of potential local standards that could be developed by local authorities to provide a steer. These standards are based on the information gathered through the consultation process and are not intended to be conclusive.

Note: A demand-led approach aims to assess the spaces which a quantifiable demand can be identified. A supply-led approach aims to assess the existing size and distribution of parks and gardens, woodlands and other natural open spaces. This will assess existing size and distribution of spaces against their current and future role.

7.24 This option strengthens the existing policy framework, as above, sets national standards for new-built development, which is accompanied by local authority open space strategies and locally set standards for existing settlements.

7.25 This option strengthens the existing policy framework, as above, and sets national accessibility standards, similar to the Greater London model. These standards, which are essentially a hierarchy of distance thresholds radiating from different types of open space, would be applied through local authority open space strategies and applied for existing settlements and new developments.

7.26 This option strengthens the existing policy framework, as above, and sets national open space standards for all types of open space throughout Scotland, addressing each part of the PAN 65 typology. These standards would be adopted and applied through local authority open space strategies.

Outcomes

7.27 The two workshop groups were asked to discuss the advantages and dis-advantages of the four options. The groups were asked to form a consensus and rate their support for each option as either 'high', 'medium', 'low' or 'don't know'. The findings are summarised below:

OPTION 1: National Guidance and Locally Set Standards

7.28 One group gave this option high support, whilst the other gave it medium support. The consensus was that this option gave a level of support, a standardised approach to open space planning, but a level of flexibility in the setting of locally relevant standards.

OPTION 2: National Guidance and National New-build Standards

7.29 One group gave this option high support, whilst the other gave it medium to high support. The consensus was that this option also gave a level of support, provides a stardardised requirement for open space provision on new developments and a level of flexibility in the setting of locally relevant standards.

OPTION 3: National Guidance and National Accessibility Standards

7.30 This option gathered medium to low support from both groups. The consensus was that setting accessibility standards for Scotland would be an unwieldy and rough 'tool', which takes no account of locality and geographical location. All agreed that establishing relevant accessibility standards that are relevant to areas from inner city Glasgow to the rural Highlands would be impossible.

OPTION 4: National Guidance and National Open Space Standards

7.31 This option gathered no support from either group. The consensus was that setting standards for all types of open space in the PAN 65 typology for Scotland would be unworkable. The level of detail required to set definitive standards for every type of open space, from parks to amenity open space, that are applicable to open spaces from Glasgow to the Highlands is an impossible task. It was thought that this option would provide no local flexibility, does not take into account local needs or community aspirations and may give local authorities a means to justify the disposal of open spaces which are in excess of the national standard. The analysis of existing provision and future needs, which should be assessed through the open space audit, strategy and consultation process, would become unnecessary. The conclusion of the workshop consultation was that 'one size' will not fit all.

Conclusions

7.32 The research and consultation findings identified that the approach to minimum open space standards should take due account of the importance of:

Building Consensus around a New Model

7.33 The Partnership Agreement identified the need to review and potentially strengthen existing guidance. This research supports this objective reinforcing the need to build a consensus on the way forward and build a partnership between the Scottish Executive and local authorities, other key agencies and the private sector to advance national standards in a manner that can support meaningful and deliverable improvements to open space.

Developing a Progressive Mechanism

7.34 Standards by their definitive nature raise issues regarding cost, value, application and enforcement. Any standard, addressing an inevitable wide diversity of sites and circumstances, will need to be pragmatic and would best be secured through a combination of defined national minimum standards complemented through locally prepared strategies and locally defined standards. Standards, particularly minimum standards, should also be progressive, building in the opportunity for review and future updating to ensure they continue to act to support delivery and deliver improvements in both quality and quantity.

Recognising the Importance of Links to the Development Plan Process

7.35 Current published national advisory standards such as the NPFA are generally considered simplistic but have, in lieu of any other standard, made a useful contribution. In part, their weakness is that they sit outwith the formal planning system. Local authorities operate within a plan-led system (Development plan or Community Plan) and it will be important that open space strategies and standards are consulted, reviewed and adopted within the Community Planning Framework and Development Plan formal processes.

Encouraging Local Action and Standards Setting

7.36 Local authorities need to be clearly tasked with the responsibility for developing local open space strategies and working with local communities and key stakeholders to define appropriate standards. In terms of open space 'one size will not fit all' and a strong national framework securing devolved responsibility to the local level is essential. Guidelines and best practice advice need to complement national minimum standards to support and encourage a consistency of approach whilst allowing, indeed encouraging local flexibility to address need and opportunity. It is important that a national standard does not simply centralise a complex and consultative process, effectively allowing local authorities to abrogate local responsibility. A strengthening of the policy framework should ensure the local authority retains both responsibility and accountability.

« Previous | Contents | Next »