What is The West Midlands Parks Forum?

1

2.

3.

4.

5.

The West Midlands Parks Forum (WMPF) is a networking and advocacy body representing 39 Local Authority and green space organisations within the West Midlands region. Our members come from the public, private, commercial and charitable sectors and are all responsible for the day to day management, development, maintenance and design of public parks. Having been in existence since 1986, we represent 30 years of professional experience and knowledge about parks and green spaces and are passionate and dedicated to our subject.

Our Region was originally defined as Herefordshire, Shropshire, Staffordshire, West Midlands, Warwickshire and Worcestershire but, following the demise of the other regional fora, we also offer membership to those outside of our region. (Appendix 1: lists our current membership)

Further information about us can be found on our website: www.westmidlandsparksforum.co.uk

In support of our evidence to this Inquiry we attach a copy of the “State of the West Midlands Parks” report (Appendix 2) based upon the Parks Managers’ Survey carried out in 2016. 76% of our members responded to this survey in 2016 and 67% in 2013, representing one of the highest responding regions in both surveys.

In our submission below, we attempt to address

• Who uses parks and open spaces, how often and for what purpose.
• The contribution of parks to the health and well being of communities.
• The impact of reductions in local authority budgets on parks.
• What the administrative status of parks should be in light of declining local authority resources for non-statutory services.
• How new and existing parks can best be supported and
• What additional or alternative funding is available and what scope there is for local authorities to generate revenue from park users.
• What advantages and disadvantages there are of other management models, such as privatisation, outsourcing or mutualisation.

Who uses parks and open spaces, how often and for what purpose.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

Across the UK, 37 million people regularly use parks and green spaces. Whilst only 40% of authorities measure visitor numbers, and at a site specific level the industry has been traditionally poor at collecting data, research now shows that, nationally, 75% of Local Authorities report user numbers increasing over the past 3 years. As well as overall visitor numbers increasing, the individual frequency of visits is higher with 85% of all adults using parks and 35% of them visiting weekly. It is now known, that some local public parks receive more visits than National Parks and Museums. We also know that, following financial investment in site improvements, visitor numbers go up and often outstrip the original targets set by projects

Numbers are one thing but they do not tell the whole story. Data drawn from national market research and site-specific surveys has shown that parks are well used by most sections of the community and that use is generally higher for younger adults, parents with young children and BME communities. At a site specific level visitor profile and reasons for use are dependent upon the profile of the surrounding community, the range of facilities provided, the diversity of the events and activities available, site-based staffing and the overall quality of the space.

Birmingham City Council’s parks have over 77 million individual visits each year (Natural England’s MENE Survey 2014), with the parks being used by virtually every citizen in Birmingham and many other visitors from outside the City’s boundaries. The 77 million annual visits includes park users who visit the parks every day and rely on the parks as a place to play, exercise or relax such as parents taking their children to play areas , dog walkers or people out for a morning jog. With an estimated cost per visit of less than £0.16p this provides outstanding value for money when compared to other leisure activities across the city.

But as visitor numbers increase so too does the pressure for day to day park maintenance and replacement of park infrastructure as a result of wear and tear. Local Authorities are already struggling to meet these demands.

As continuing budget-cuts hit home and there are less site based staff to provide: events and activities, to be a visible presence and to support volunteers, as back-office support is removed and capital investment in axed, we are facing a return to the levels of dereliction and neglect which plagued our public parks in the 1970’s and 1980’s. Potentially this could lead to increases in crime and anti-social behaviour on parks, leading to a reduction in pride, regeneration and further decline of our towns and cities

The contribution of parks to the health and well being of communities

11.

12.

13.

14.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.

Physical inactivity affects 60–70% of the adult population: that is higher than the percentage of people with obesity, alcohol misuse and smoking combined. The physical fitness of children is declining by up to 9% per decade. In the UK, the costs of physical inactivity to the economy are £20 billion per year including direct treatment costs and work days lost through sickness (Department of Health (2010) 2009 Annual Report of the Chief Medical Officer. * All Party Commission on Physical Activity (2014) Tackling physical inactivity – A coordinated approach)

Obesity, which is often a consequence of physical inactivity, is increasing in both adults and children. In the UK, 67% of adult men, 57% of adult women and 28% of children are overweight or obese. Like physical inactivity, being overweight and obese increases the risk of type II diabetes, cardiovascular disease, cancer, hypertension and overall bad health. If current trends persist, one in three people will be obese by 2034 and one in ten will develop type II diabetes. Yet, if we could reduce obesity back to 1993 levels, five million cases of disease could be avoided (Risk factor based modelling for Public Health England. UK Health Forum, July 2014).

Parks and open spaces offer an inclusive environment, with few barriers and which are free at the point of use – where all sectors of society have the opportunity to be active. Over the last 10 years a number of Authorities have run sophisticated and carefully monitored projects to engage people in taking physical activity in parks. Notable amongst those in the West Midlands are: “Be Active”, Birmingham City Council and “Healthy Towns”, Dudley Metropolitan Council.

Case Study: Dudley Healthy Parks project

Dudley MBC was awarded £4.5m in 2008 to deliver a Healthy Towns project in 5 Town parks. Over a 3 year period the results of this project were evaluated by an independent organisation and published by Public Health England.

https://www.noo.org.uk/LA/tackling/greenspace

The overarching aim of Dudley’s Healthy Towns Programme was to encourage families to make the most of the five family health hubs through informal and structured physical activity participation and newly developed and led health-promoting activities in order to potentially reduce the levels of childhood obesity across the Borough. More specifically, through the provision of environmental improvements and the enhancement of structured health-related activity offer, the programme aimed to:

• increase levels of Healthy Hub/ Park use and value placed upon it;
• increase levels of physical activity;
• increase perceptions of safety in and around the Healthy Hubs;
• Increase awareness of the Change4Life initiative and messages, and of the Dudley Healthy Towns Programme.
• create a network of Active travel corridors to improve cycling and walking routes connecting the hub sites to the surrounding communities

Key findings:

1. An increase in the proportion of local adult and child respondents meeting government physical activity guidelines: adults achieving recommended levels increased from 46% to 51% and children from 49% to 54%;
2. 31% of visitors to Parks access the physical activity programme led by the site staff in 2012-13 there were 35, 523 attendances giving a total of 30,958 hours of physical activity in Parks
3. Walking remains the main activity of park users with cycling more limited in its representation - the increased levels of recreational physical activity (reported above) have not, as yet, been mirrored in more active commuter travel to work;
4. The installation of outdoor gyms is the single most popular improvement cited for the reported increases in physical activity.
5. As a result of this work Public Health in Dudley has continued to support the work in Parks providing funding for staff to deliver programmes of activity to continue to deliver obesity reduction programmes focusing on improving physical activity levels and delivering nutrition awareness training.

To put the benefit of using parks for physical activity such as walking, into financial terms: for every £1 spent on establishing healthy walking schemes the NHS could save £7.18. The problem is that much of the value that derives from our natural environment is economically “invisible” and cannot be captured in conventional measures, despite its widely accepted importance for human health and prosperity. Further, much of the benefits derived from the provision of quality parks and open spaces are not attributed directly to the providers – Local Authorities, but rather to other organisations such as the NHS. It is therefore important that despite some of the difficult financial challenges that the country faces, a more holistic approach to the provision, management and maintenance of quality green spaces is identified to prevent the national health crisis spiralling out of control.

The Importance of Quality Green Spaces

Recent evidence shows that people are twice as likely to walk in attractive environments, confirming that access to good quality, well-maintained green spaces alone can help to improve our physical and mental health by encouraging us to walk more, to play sport or simply to enjoy a green and natural environment.

Research from Field in Trust in 2015 concluded;

• 50% of people would be less active if it wasn’t for their local park and green space.
• 48% saying that using their local park made them feel healthier.

A 2014 report by the Scottish Government (Green Health by James Hutton Institute) concluded; “Overall, there is evidence that access to, and use of, green space is favourably associated with risk of mortality and risk of poor mental health for some people and that urban green and open spaces contribute to public health and wellbeing, particularly mental health and wellbeing.”

Evidence is also available that shows a link between green space quantity and both perceived levels of stress and mental wellbeing. In addition it has been shown that more urban green space is favourably associated with lower levels of self-reported stress and reduced physiological stress, as indicated by diurnal salivary cortisol patterns in a sample of middle-aged men and women not in work.

Promoting mental wellbeing

The quality of our parks and open spaces can also promote mental wellbeing. Park environments that promote physical activity in daily life can increase opportunities for social engagement, thus encouraging social wellbeing and increasing people’s sense of security. Natural England’s information pack on Health and Natural Environments cited several sources of evidence of a positive relationship between the presence of trees and vegetation, and residents’ health, wellbeing and social safety at a neighborhood level.

Mind’s Eco therapy report, which combined an evidence review with primary qualitative research, found that a greener, more active lifestyle aids positive changes to mental health. Their report looked at the way in which people self-report their reactions to outdoor recreation and access to green space. It concluded that people experiencing mental distress frequently use physical activities such as walking, gardening and exercise to help lift their mood, reduce stress, provide purpose and meaning, and reduce their vulnerability to depression .

http://www.mind.org.uk/information-support/drugs-and-treatments/ecotherapy/benefits-of-ecotherapy/#.V63hxVJTG70

Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council has a very successful Mind project based at Wollescote Park, near Stourbridge, which is providing much needed physical and mental benefits to communities suffering from mental health issues

https://www.facebook.com/pages/Growing-with-Dudley-Mind/487230511418900?ref=hl

Improving awareness of the benefits of food growing and healthy eating

There has been increasing participation in local food production in recent years. There is much discussion of the benefits, which are often assumed to be obvious. Although causal links between improvements in public health and growing food can be hard to establish, the benefits to wellbeing and community cohesion are accepted.

An evidence review for Community Food and Health (Scotland) found that involvement in growing food is linked to improved mental health and wellbeing in a number of ways. These include the development of new skills, increased physical activity and relaxation.

The Food Growing in Schools Taskforce combined a literature review with an analysis of direct evidence from a survey of 1,300 schools, from pre-school to secondary. One of its six conclusions was that growing food promotes health and wellbeing, particularly in relation to diet and nutrition.

In conclusion:

Public Parks play a central role in all of our lives. Whether this is for nature conservation, health & wellbeing, tourism, economic regeneration, community involvement and cohesion, opportunities for volunteering, flood relief, ameliorating climate change, or just a place to gather your thoughts. Access to quality green space plays such a major part in creating a healthier, more inclusive society that it should be considered a basic Human Right. Ironically the Victorians fought through Parliamentary legislation to create parks for the benefit of public health and over a century later this is now under significant threat.

The impact of reductions in local authority budgets on parks

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

Some impacts, of budget cuts, are already evident; others will take much longer to be seen. Some will only be appreciated by regular park users and some may go unnoticed, but the cumulative effect will be that we will have turned the clock back over 20 years and put some of our most valued community assets into a position of irreversible decline.

The cuts typically follow a hierarchy from efficiency savings, to not replacing staff, who leave, to making management and development staff cuts, cutting support to volunteers and voluntary groups, cutting back on events and activities, to reducing standards on non key sites, to reducing standards on key sites, to cutting entire elements of a service.

The overall condition of parks is going into decline, in the West Midlands region alone the percentage of local authorities reporting their condition as improving has plummeted from 35% in 2013 to 8.3% now. The figures for condition declining have gone from 18% to 41.7%. By 2020 we will be back to a state as before the parks renaissance of the mid 1990s with authorities clinging on to only their premier spaces.

The other side of the equation is setting parks services ever increasing income targets which manifest themselves in increased sports charges, increased charges for use of facilities, charges for events and an increasing need to look at more commercial opportunities. The latter can then generate issues about who can afford to pay and social exclusion for those who cannot.

Asset transfer and disposal is a further consideration. The idea that community groups will take over the running of facilities will not address the situation. Research shows that the biggest community run aspect is around sports where groups were already organised and could take on a facility. Whole scale transfer of management responsibility for parks is minimal. Sale of land has largely been around amenity green space and some have found that the returns have not been as great as predicted. Not all parks services are able to retain the income that they generate from land sales. Others now have annual sales targets to meet.

Volunteering is only a small part of the solution as the scale can never replace the size of cuts that have been experienced. Also as ranger services and development staff are cut there are fewer people able to support volunteer activity.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

Case Study Wychavon District Council:

In Wychavon District Council the effects of budget reductions has been

• Client staff hours were not replaced when staff left
• No increase in client staff to cope with new areas of POS adopted from developers.
• Staff have no time to support existing or help set up any new volunteer groups.
• Reduction in grass cutting frequency on open spaces and verges
• Reduction in shrub/hedge cutting frequencies which affect householders as the planting is often adjacent to gardens/properties.
• Pressure on contractors to cut corners to meet cost reductions and less client staff to monitor them.

Case Study Dudley Metropolitan Borough Council:

In the last 5 years Dudley MBC has sustained 30% reduction in the Parks and Green spaces budget - £1.456m. This has resulted in:

• Reduced number of staff on site park keepers, maintenance staff and in back office
• Contraction in the quantity of such horticultural features as bedding and shrub bed maintenance
• Reduced maintenance of sports pitches and bowling greens
• Increase in fees and charges above inflation
• Reduced levels of maintenance of play areas and replacement of damaged equipment.
• Lower levels of weed control and highway maintenance
• Less tree maintenance and tree planting
• Reduced litter collection
• Reduced frequency of grass mowing type and lower standards
• Allotments management of infra structure
• Loss of management and development staff, leading to reduced capacity to lead on strategic development or ability to bring in external resources from grant programmes
• 45% growth in the numbers of complaints about the green spaces maintenance
• Increased reported incidents of anti social behaviour, graffiti and vandalism to park infra structure

Case Study Birmingham City Council:

Birmingham Parks Service continues to provide a quality service to its citizens despite a background of 40% reductions in budgets over the last few years.

However they are now at a point where further savings will have a direct impact by substantially reducing service provision to park users. The service has met budget saving targets over the last 5 years by:

• Reductions in the grounds maintenance programme,
• Amalgamation of a green budget to include Highways Services assets (to achieve economies of scale),
• Reductions in both front line and back office staffing levels,
• Increases in fees and charges, to the users, well above the level of inflation price,
• Closure of the Horticultural Training School,
• Reduction in play area provision,
• Changes to management of the allotment service and
• Pursuit of new income opportunities including grants.

Savings over the next 3 years will be achieved, in part through the sale of 32 acres of land for housing development, but in addition through further reductions in play area provision, further reductions in grounds maintenance provision including potentially ceasing the provision of park keepers, and introducing car parking charges at 7 park sites in the city.

In conclusion:

Over the last 5 years Parks Services have demonstrated how flexible and creative they can be in responding to continuous demands for budget reductions and many clever and innovative approaches have been trialled in minor areas of delivery. But, without doubt, the provision of public parks and green spaces has now reached a critical “tipping point” whereby further pressure to reduce budgets and increase income will result in a concentration on premier sites and the abandonment or sale of many other areas. This will turn the clock back to a level and quality of provision not seen since the 1970’s and 1980’s and effectively waste the billions spent over the last 20years to reclaim and save our precious Parks Heritage.

What the administrative status of parks should be in light of declining local authority resources for non-statutory services and how new and existing parks can best be supported

39.

40.

41.

Quite simply we would refer this 2016 Inquiry to the findings and recommendations of the Select Committee Inquiry in 2003, which called for

• A long term funding programme for the UK’s public parks
• That care for Parks should become a Statutory Service

We believe that the previous recommendations remain just as appropriate now and are a useful starting point when considering all the other issues being addressed by this 2016 Select Committee Inquiry. Indeed if the previous recommendations had been implemented, then arguably the region’s green spaces would have been better protected and there would be no need to repeat the work of the previous committee.

We believe that Local Authorities are best placed to take the central role in ensuring all parks and other key green spaces are well looked after and remain a legacy for future generations. Whilst we do now benefit from 20years of community working and the development of a vibrant volunteer “Friends of Parks” sector, and work closely with our colleagues in both the Birmingham Open Spaces Forum and the National Federation of Parks and Green Spaces, we do not believe that the voluntary sector is capable of taking over and managing Parks, countryside and green spaces – in anything but a very minor capacity. Even where there are examples of such volunteer management, in the majority of cases, Local Authorities still have to provide labour intensive support and guidance. However the role of well constituted “Friends of” Groups as critical friends, monitoring officers and even community challengers – cannot be overestimated.

What additional or alternative funding is available and what scope is there for local authorities to generate revenue from park users

42.

43.

44.

45.

46.

47.

Currently funding for parks maintenance comes almost exclusively from local taxation, whilst capital investment for development works is now largely funded by external sources of finance such as Heritage Lottery Fund, Landfill Tax, Natural England’s Stewardship Schemes and Section 106. Leverage of these external funding sources is usually dependent upon additional revenue funding being “pledged”. So it is clear that as levels of revenue funding are reduced so too are the opportunities to bid for capital funding.

Thinking and managing differently can help reduce costs and provide funds which could be utilised elsewhere. For example, Manchester City Council has transformed an area equivalent to the size of 14 football pitches, at Brookdale Park, into a meadow area. Similarly Pinn Meadow, in the London Borough of Hillingdon, has been created from redundant sports pitches, where volunteers help with management and harvesting of the vegetation.

Larger authorities, such as Nottingham City Council, which has significant land holdings, are planning to be self-financing within a number of years as a result of increased income generation from: tourism, car parking and food concessions. However only a few authorities have this type of land portfolio and suitable facilities to achieve this. Most Authorities are now attempting to attract higher levels of income by increasing the costs of: sports pitches hire, events and concessions use and sponsorship etc. But market forces mean that only limited amounts of revenue can be achieved this way.

Asset transfer is another way to release funding. For example Birmingham City Council has set a target to dispose of 8 acres of land per year, thereby generating a projected £200k per year – which will be available to the parks service for reinvestment. We know that, in our region, around 60% of authorities have been involved in such asset transfer exercises over the last 3 years and this figure is set to rise to over 70% over the next 3 years. We believe that this is higher than the national average. We also know that the work to date has focussed on sports provision and amenity green space with parks being largely protected. Critical to any such exercise is the existence of a robust Greenspace Strategy which has set an appropriate and defendable Local Standard of provision.

With traditional Local Authority revenue funding under such pressure and often a reluctance to increase Council Tax to support Park Services, perhaps consideration should be given to levying funding from local Public Health departments and Clinical Commissioning Groups. As evidenced elsewhere in this submission Parks have a measurably positive effect on the health of their users, creating cost savings for the National Health Service. We would strongly support the idea of top slicing existing health budgets or the introduction of a new ‘green’ tax on: fast food, sweets, soft drinks or alcohol, and passing the income generated through a grant system to support ongoing investment in parks. Similarly, we would advocate use of part of the new “sugar tax” to support the Green Flag Awards and Love Parks Scheme which do so much to set quality standards and raise the standard of parks management and maintenance.

In conclusion:

If our parks and green spaces are to remain accessible to all and free at the point of use, and to continue providing the significant benefits outlined elsewhere in this submission, we believe that some form of income from either local or national taxation is inevitable – and essential.

What advantages and disadvantages are there of other management models, such as: privatisation, outsourcing or mutualisation

48.

49.

50.

51.

52.

53.

The alternative model of management which the majority of the West Midlands’ Parks’ Services have been developing for the last 10-15 years is working partnership with their local communities, developing their volunteers and fostering relationships with the Third Sector.

Every one of our member Authorities now works very successfully with a multitude of Friends of Parks Groups. They are key to ensuring that services meet community needs and in some cases they provide a physical contribution to day to day maintenance such as litter picking and policing. In many cases they make valuable contributions to securing external funding by organising site surveys and applying for partnership funding. Often they are the driving force behind events and activity management: leading walks and running Fun Days.

However, with very, very few exceptions, it has been our experience that Friends groups do not have the capacity nor the appetite to take on a more formal long-term management role such as running a park or green space. Even where a group does have the appetite to enter such an arrangement, they require continuing support from the local authority to help build and sustain their capacity. Sadly, the back office and front line staff who have traditionally taken on this role are usually the first casualties of budget cuts. Transfer of assets to community groups often does not include the freehold so the fall back position, when a group fails or withdraws from the arrangement, continues to be the local authority.

Often to make an asset transfer successful, the community group enters into a Service Level Agreement with a local council in relation to an asset transfer, which provides an annual grant. In other cases, external organisations “cherry pick” those sites within the Local Authority portfolio where there is a potential revenue stream in order to reduce their reliance on grants from the local authority.

At the WMPF workshop, held as part of the State of UK Parks 2016 research, there was a clear consensus that asset transfer is often a quick fix solution that is not fully researched and the potential social or environmental values of a green space are overlooked in favour of its economic value. It is a well used phrase but pertinent in this case, “Act in haste, repent at leisure!”

In conclusion:

We assert that the third sector will only ever be part of an alternative management solution and we believe, as a forum, that local authorities should remain at the centre of green space management, maintenance and development. But through a partnership approach added value can be realised. The third sector can often access grants, funding and donations that the local authority would be excluded from. Local people would be more likely to donate their time or their cash to a charity than the council.

Concluding Remarks and Recommendations

54.

55.

56.

We strongly support and applaud the Communities and Local Government Select Committee 2016 Inquiry, into the future of the UK’s Parks. We urge the Committee to seek out the views and opinions of professionals and practitioners in all aspects of parks management and maintenance. We also strongly urge the Committee to canvas views from around the whole of the United Kingdom.

We are grateful for the opportunity to present the views and opinions of our members from across the West Midlands.

Finally we would support the consideration of a long-term funding programme for the UK’s parks and its establishment as a statutory service.

District

13

52%

70

36.3%

Unitary

4

16%

32

16.6%

Metropolitan

6

24%

27

14.0%

Scotland Unitary

n/a

n/a

24

12.4%

London Borough

n/a

n/a

18

9.3%

Wales Unitary

n/a

n/a

10

5.2%

County Council

2

8%

8

4.1%

Northern Ireland Unitary

n/a

n/a

4

2.1%

Total

25

100%

193

100.0%

2016

2013

Region / Country

Respon-dents

No’s of LA

% of respon-dents

% of LA’s

Respon-dents

No’s of LA’s

% of respon-dents

% of LA’s

West Midlands

25

33

13.0%

75.8%

22

33

12.4%

66.7%

Scotland

24

32

12.4%

75.0%

15

32

8.4%

46.9%

North East

8

12

4.1%

66.7%

6

12

3.4%

50.0%

London

18

33

9.3%

54.5%

20

33

11.2%

60.6%

Yorkshire & the Humber

12

22

6.2%

54.5%

5

22

2.8%

22.7%

North West

20

41

10.4%

48.8%

17

41

9.6%

41.5%

Wales

10

22

5.2%

45.5%

10

22

5.6%

45.5%

East Midlands

17

45

8.8%

37.8%

16

45

9.0%

35.6%

East

19

52

9.8%

36.5%

20

52

11.2%

38.5%

Northern Ireland

4

11

2.1%

36.4%

4

26

2.2%

15.4%

South West

14

41

7.3%

34.1%

18

41

10.1%

43.9%

South East

22

74

11.4%

29.7%

25

74

14.0%

33.8%

Total

193

418

100.0%

46.2%

178

433

100.0%

41.1%

Yes

14

58.3%

116

61.4%

No

10

41.7%

73

38.6%

Total

24

100.0%

189

100.0%

UK

-18

West Midlands

-15

2016

West Mids (n=23)

2016 UK

(n=168)

Scale of cuts

% of respondents

% of respondents

Budget Increased

0.0%

0.0%

Not Changed

0.0%

8.3%

Decreased by less than 10%

34.8% (n=8)

23.2%

Decreased by between 10% and 20%

47.8% (n=11)

35.7%

Decreased by more than 20%

17.4% (n=4)

32.7%

Worse than expected

4

16.7%

47

24.9%

About what was expected

16

66.6%

114

60.3%

Not as bad as expected

4

16.7%

28

14.8%

Total

24

100.0%

189

100.0%

Development / Projects

Floral Displays

Maintenance

Morale

Quality

Ranger Service

Services

Staff

Volunteer Recruitment

Workforce

Closure of facilities

Complaints

Dilapidation and determination of buildings

Fees and charges

Income Targets

Pressure

Thinking creatively

Standards are being affected and we are seeing a rise in complaints and enquiries, customer expectations far outweigh what we can deliver

Loss of Park Ranger Service

A lot of work is still being undertaken on a goodwill basis as people within the parks industry believe in the power of parks!

No available budgets for development or improvement

The overall condition of the parks and their current state of maintenance points towards long term minimal works and neglect.

UK

-16

West Midlands

-15

Budget Increased

0.0%

0.0%

3.9%

Not Changed

0.0%

5.2%

9.1%

Decreased by less than 10%

34.8% (n=8)

19.1%

16.9%

Decreased by between 10% and 20%

47.8% (n=11)

54.9%

37.7%

Decreased by more than 20%

17.4% (n=4)

20.8%

32.5%

Floral displays

Investments

Quality / Standards

Replacing equipment

Replacing infrastructure

Skills

Sports pitches

Staffing of events

Support to friends groups

Volunteer programmes

Changes

Closure of facilities

Commercialisation

Fees

Land disposal / asset transfer

Partnership working

Pressure to generate income

Reliance on volunteers

Removal of equipment

As we are in a state of decline and stagnation, this can only become worse I believe.

Further loss of staff, further reductions in maintenance of parks and open spaces, loss of play areas, leading to poor quality parks and open spaces.

Yes

8

33.3%

88

46.8%

No

16

66.6%

100

53.2%

Total

24

100.0%

188

100.0%

Min

0%

0%

Max

50%

100.0%

Average

17%

22.5%

Median

15.0%

15.0%

Funding from planning including s106, s75 and CIL

22

91.7%

154

81.5%

150

89.3%

Funding from charging for services

15

62.5%

127

67.2%

114

67.9%

Funding from other council departments and services

14

58.3%

122

64.6%

86

51.2%

Funding from the National Lottery - HLF, BIG, etc

14

58.3%

106

56.1%

111

66.1%

Funding from events and festivals

7

29.2%

97

51.3%

Funding from commercial enterprises / partners

8

33.3%

88

46.6%

65

38.7%

Funding from gifts and fundraising

7

29.2%

58

30.7%

54

32.1%

Funding from health organisations

5

20.8%

40

21.2%

Other

5

20.8%

30

15.9%

Funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy

3

12.5%

26

13.8%

None

1

4.2%

2

1.1%

Number of respondents

24

189

168

Min

0%

0%

Max

82%

100%

Average

32%

29%

Median

26%

20%

Use of facilities e.g. buildings

15

62.5%

105

58.0%

Pitches and sports use

13

54.2%

104

57.5%

Refreshment provision / catering

17

70.8%

99

54.7%

External (commercial) events

14

58.3%

89

49.2%

Cemetery and Crematorium fees

6

58.3%

82

45.3%

Car parking

13

25.0%

71

39.2%

Internal recharges

7

29.2%

58

32.0%

Allotment fees

5

20.8%

45

24.9%

Council run events

7

29.2%

43

23.8%

Other

4

16.7%

32

17.7%

Commercial filming and photography

0

0%

24

13.3%

Educational visits

1

4.2%

18

9.9%

Number of respondents

24

181

Yes

15

65.2%

99

53.8%

No

8

34.8%

85

46.2%

Total

23

100.0%

184

100.0%

Yes

16

66.7%

94

49.7%

78

44.8%

No

8

33.3%

95

50.3%

96

55.2%

Total

24

100.0%

189

100.0%

174

100.0%

What elements have been transferred to community management / ownership?

Playing fields

64.3%

Buildings

57.1%

Allotments

28.6%

Play Areas

14.3%

Parks

0.0%

Yes

17

70.8%

111

58.7%

No

7

29.2%

78

41.3%

Total

24

100.0%

189

100.0%

Yes

17

70.8%

108

57.1%

No

7

29.2%

81

42.9%

Total

24

100.0%

189

100.0%

Yes

18

75%

121

64.0%

57

32.6%

No

6

25%

68

36.0%

118

67.4%

Total

24

100%

189

100.0%

175

100.0%

Because we now have a policy of no longer adopting land from developers

5

83.3%

There is no new development that will generate land to be acquired

0

0.0%

Not answered

1

16.6%

Total

6

100.0%

Green Flag Award

19

79.2%

131

69.7%

126

71.2%

Own system

5

20.8%

59

31.4%

68

38.4%

No system for measuring quality

4

16.7%

29

15.4%

19

10.7%

Other system

0

0.0%

22

11.7%

13

7.3%

2016 WM

State of UK Parks (2016)

State of UK Parks (2013)

PPA (2001)

n

%

n

%

n

%

%

Good

11

45.8%

100

52.9%

105

59.7%

18.0%

Fair

13

54.1%

86

45.5%

68

38.6%

69.0%

Poor

0

0.0%

3

1.6%

3

1.7%

13.0%

Total

24

100.0%

189

100.0%

176

100.0%

100.0%

2016 WM

State of UK Parks (2016)

State of UK Parks (2013)

PPA (2001)

n

%

n

%

n

%

%

Improving

9

37.5%

51

27.0%

72

41.1%

29.4%

Stable

10

41.6%

104

55.0%

73

41.7%

33.2%

Declining

5

20.8%

34

18.0%

30

17.1%

37.4%

Total

24

100.0%

189

100.0%

175

100.0%

100.0%

2016 WM

2016 UK

2013 UK

n

%

n

%

n

%

Improving

2

8.3%

37

19.6%

37

21.3%

Stable

12

50.0%

79

41.8%

72

41.4%

Declining

10

41.7%

73

38.6%

65

37.4%

Total

24

100.0%

189

100.0%

174

100.0%

2013 last 3 years

2016 last 3 years

2016 next 3 years

Improving

36%

37.5%

8.3%

Stable

45%

41.6%

50.0%

Declining

18%

20.8%

41.7%

Total

100.0%

100.0%

100.0%

Staffing Increased

0.0%

0.0%

Not Changed

26.3%

28.7%

Decreased by less than 10%

42.1%

20.1%

Decreased by between 10% and 20%

10.5%

29.9%

Decreased by more than 20%

21.1%

21.3%

Staffing Increased

0.0%

0.0%

Not Changed

9.5%

25.0%

Decreased by less than 10%

42.9%

18.6%

Decreased by between 10% and 20%

19.0%

27.6%

Decreased by more than 20%

28.5%

28.8%

Staffing Increased

0.0%

0.7%

Not Changed

13.3%

22.6%

Decreased by less than 10%

40.0%

16.8%

Decreased by between 10% and 20%

13.3%

19.0%

Decreased by more than 20%

33.3%

40.9%

Yes

11

45.8%

86

45.5%

No

13

54.2%

103

54.5%

Total

24

100.0%

189

100.0%

Yes

0

0%

No

11

100%

Total

11

100.0%

Staffing Increased

0.0%

0.0%

Not Changed

22.2%

23.5%

Decreased by less than 10%

44.4%

22.0%

Decreased by between 10% and 20%

16.7%

40.9%

Decreased by more than 20%

11.1%

13.6%

Staffing Increased

0.0%

0.0%

Not Changed

25.0%

22.5%

Decreased by less than 10%

18.8%

19.2%

Decreased by between 10% and 20%

18.8%

35.0%

Decreased by more than 20%

37.5%

23.3%

Staffing Increased

0.0%

0.0%

Not Changed

25.0%

36.4%

Decreased by less than 10%

25.0%

11.1%

Decreased by between 10% and 20%

16.7%

24.2%

Decreased by more than 20%

33.3%

28.3%

Financial management

7

14

3

Sourcing external funding

8

12

4

Strategic planning skills

9

9

6

Horticultural skills

1

12

11

Landscape design

1

12

10

Ecological skills

1

17

5

Developing projects

9

13

2

Partnership working

12

9

3

Community engagement

13

9

2

Financial management

6

17

1

Sourcing external funding

10

12

2

Strategic planning skills

7

15

1

Horticultural skills

3

11

10

Landscape design

1

13

9

Ecological skills

1

13

9

Developing projects

11

12

1

Partnership working

11

10

3

Community engagement

11

11

2

Financial management

12

10

2

0

0

Sourcing external funding

13

8

3

0

0

Strategic planning skills

11

7

6

0

0

Horticultural skills

2

9

9

3

1

Landscape design

1

7

10

4

2

Ecological skills

0

9

12

3

0

Developing projects

8

12

3

1

0

Partnership working

14

8

0

2

0

Community Engagement

12

10

1

1

0

Across all sites

2

22

19

10.1%

116

61.7%

73

41.7%

102

58.3%

Only for key sites

18

6

169

89.9%

72

38.3%

113

63.8%

64

32.8%

Across all sites

4

20

42

22.3%

146

77.7%

65

94.2%

4

5.8%

Only for key sites

18

6

98

52.1%

92

47.9%

100

92.6%

8

7.4%

Increasing

7

33.3%

44

33.8%

6

33.3%

31

31.6%

62

50.8%

Stayed the same

14

66.6%

77

59.2%

12

66.6%

60

61.2%

54

44.3%

Decreasing

0

0.0%

9

6.9%

0

0.0%

7

7.1%

6