Annex 1: Orkney Open Space Audit

Contents

1. Introduction
   1. Background
   2. Open space defined for this audit
   3. Open space strategies
   4. Geographical extent of this audit
2. Policy context
   1. Scottish Planning Policy
   2. The Orkney Community Plan 2011–14
   3. Orkney Local Development Plan
3. Assessing the quantity and quality of our open spaces
   1. Open space audits
   2. Overview of the Orkney Open Space Audit
   3. The type and quantity of open space: Audit methodology (part 1)
   4. The quality of publicly accessible open space: Audit methodology (Part 2)
   5. Pedestrian access to open space: Audit Methodology (Part 3)
   6. Open space networks and linkages: Audit Methodology (Part 4)
   7. Community consultation
4. Current provisions – open space in Orkney’s towns and villages
   1. Five settlements overall
   2. Five settlements by comparison
   3. Kirkwall
   4. Stromness
   5. Dounby
   6. St Margaret’s Hope
   7. Finstown
5. Key findings
6. Consultation responses
7. Next steps
   1. Informing policy
   2. Review of data
8. Participation statement & consultation report
   1. Consultation responses

List of figures

1. Graph of average overall score according to PAN 65 typology.
2. Graph of average overall score according to secondary code.
3. Graph showing total areas according to PAN 65 typology.
4. Graph showing total areas according to secondary code.
5. Graph showing how settlements perform according to scoring criteria categories.
6. Graph showing how five settlements performed on average against score criteria.
7. Graph showing Kirkwall average scores according to PAN 65 typology.
8. Graph showing Kirkwall average scores according to secondary code.
9. Chart showing proportion of space in Kirkwall according to area as per PAN 65 typology.
10. Chart showing proportion of space in Kirkwall according to area as per secondary code.
11. Graph showing average score of open spaces in Stromness according to PAN 65 typology.
12. Graph showing average score of open spaces in Stromness according to secondary code.
13. Chart showing proportion of open space in Stromness according to area as per PAN 65 typology.
14. Chart showing proportion of open space in Stromness according to area as per secondary code.
15. Graph showing average score of spaces in Dounby according to PAN 65 typology.
16. Graph showing average score of spaces in Dounby according to secondary code.
17. Chart showing open space breakdown in Dounby according to area as per PAN 65 typology.
18. Chart showing open space breakdown in Dounby according to area as per secondary code.
19. Graph showing average score of spaces in St Margaret’s Hope according to PAN 65 typology.
20. Graph showing average score of spaces in St Margaret’s Hope according to secondary code.
21. Chart showing proportion of space in St Margaret’s Hope according to area as per PAN 65 typology.
22. Chart showing proportion of space in St Margaret’s Hope according to area as per secondary code.
23. Graph showing average score of spaces in Finstown according to PAN 65 typology.
24. Graph showing average score of spaces in Finstown according to secondary code.
25. Chart showing proportion of space in Finstown according to area as per PAN 65 typology.
26. Chart showing proportion of space in Finstown according to area as per secondary code.

1 Introduction

1.1 Background

The Orkney Open Space Audit focuses on existing open space provision within Orkney’s settlements. Spaces are included on the basis that they are publicly accessible and free of charge to do so, with allotments the only exception to this due to their growing popularity and the environmental benefits they promote. Also school grounds are included even if they are not within their associated settlement boundary due to their importance as focal points within their respective communities. This audit forms the basis to Orkney Open Space Strategy: Planning for Open Space Supplementary Guidance (OOSS: Planning for Open Space SG) which offers guidance with regards to development proposals in connection with Policy D6, and compliments the overarching Orkney Open Space Strategy: Vision and Action Plan (OOSS: Vision and Action Plan) which details wider strategic initiatives and projects that contribute towards the quality and access of open space. The Orkney Open Space Audit and the OOSS: Vision and Action Plan meets Scottish Planning Policy (SPP) requirements for an open space audit and strategy to be conducted. The findings of this audit will therefore help inform the OOSS: Planning for Open Space Supplementary Guidance, and the OOSS: Vision and Action Plan which aim to ensure that as many residents as possible have access to high quality open spaces that are fit for purpose.

1.2 Open space defined for this audit

The definition of open space as set out in Planning Advice Note 65: Planning and Open Space (PAN 65) forms the basis for the definition of open space in this strategy.

Definition of open space:

The term ‘open space’ covers greenspace consisting of any vegetated land or structure, water or geological feature within a settlement and civic space consisting of squares, market places and other paved or hard landscaped area with a civic function.

As open spaces perform a wide range of purposes and functions, this audit utilises a comprehensive typology of spaces to assist in better understanding our existing open space resource. This typology is based on the research set out in Rethinking Open Space prepared by the Scottish Government Central Research Unit and promoted in PAN 65. The typology adopted by Orkney Islands Council has been adapted to fit the Orkney context.

Table 1: Types of Open Space

1.3 Open space strategies

Scottish Planning Policy states that ‘authorities should prepare an open space strategy which sets out the vision for new and improved open space and addresses any deficiencies identified’. The audit, in conjunction with the OOSS: Planning for Open Space Supplementary Guidance and OOSS: Vision and Action Plan will help:

• inform planning decisions on the protection of existing open space;
• inform planning decisions on the provision of open space in new developments; and
• inform the Council’s decisions on site management and resource allocation for open spaces.

1.4 Geographical extent of this audit

This audit focuses on the towns and villages in Orkney as defined within the Orkney Local Development Plan Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy, as conveyed below. The towns and villages across Orkney enjoy close proximity to the open countryside, further enhanced by the core paths network and the right to roam under the Land Reform Act (Scotland) 2003. However, open space needs to be provided within settlements to meet the needs of those who live there, particularly those who may be unable to access the surrounding countryside. It is particularly important that young people, families without easy access to a car or public transport and the mobility impaired have safe access to open space in settlements within close proximity to their homes. Even though the findings of the audit are more comprehensive for the five largest settlements within Orkney of Kirkwall, Stromness, Dounby, St Margaret’s Hope and Finstown, the rest of Orkney’s settlements are included within the Audit Survey Data in Annex 2 if open space has been identified. Incidentally many of the outcomes and objectives gathered from the five largest settlements are also relevant to help address open space provision within the rest of Orkney.

Orkney Local Development Plan Sustainable Settlement Hierarchy

2 Policy context

2.1 Scottish Planning Policy

Scottish Planning Policy recognises that the planning system has an important role to play in ensuring that open spaces are accessible, safe, welcoming, appealing, distinctive and well connected. SPP sets out key ways in which the planning system should support the protection and provision of open space:

• supporting access to good quality open spaces and opportunities for sport and recreation for a healthier Scotland;
• create an environment where physical well-being is improved and activity made easier;
• providing play space and other opportunities for children and young people to play freely, explore, discover and initiate their own activities can support their development; and
• develop networks of linked, good quality open space that contribute to amenity, nature conservation, biodiversity, recreation and physical activity.

This includes the requirement to undertake an audit of open space to help inform the development of an open space strategy, as stated in articles 151 and 152. SPP states that Local Authorities should ensure that there is consistency between the development plan, open space strategy, core paths plan, local transport strategy and outdoor access strategy. Local development plans or supplementary guidance should set out specific requirements for the provision of open space as part of new development and make clear how much, of what type, expected quality and what the accessibility requirements are.

2.2 The Orkney Community Plan 2011–14

The Orkney Community Plan 2011–14 sets out the Orkney Community Planning Partnership’s strategic framework and guides the activity and development by the partnership. The Plan also functions as Orkney’s Single Outcome Agreement with the Scottish Government. To this end, it contains performance targets covering the immediate period 2011–14, which the Partnership will monitor and report against to indicate its progress in meeting both the Scottish Government’s 15 National Outcomes and Orkney’s own local priorities. The Orkney Open Space Strategy supports the following outcomes in the Orkney Community Plan 2011–14:

• we value and enjoy our built and natural environment and protect it and enhance it for future generations;
• we live in well-designed, sustainable places where we are able to access the amenities and services we need;
• our public services are high quality, continually improving, efficient and responsive to local people’s needs;
• our children have the best start in life and are ready to succeed;
• we live longer, healthier lives;
• we have improved the life chances for children, young people and families at risk; and
• our young people are successful learners, confident individuals, effective contributors and responsible citizens.

2.3 Orkney Local Development Plan

The Orkney Local Development Plan recognises that access to good quality open spaces and opportunities for sport, recreation and reflection make an important contribution to the health and well-being of everybody in the County. There is a general presumption against the development of designated open space either partly or fully for a purpose unrelated to use as open space. Open spaces are identified in the open space audit and strategy on the basis that they are valued and functional, or which are capable of being brought into functional use to meet a need identified in the open space strategy. Open spaces identified but not currently designated in the Plan, will be subjected to the review cycle of the development plan as a result. Policy D6 sets out the decision making framework for the protection of existing open spaces and the provision of new open space on new development sites. The policy also sets the context for OOSS: Planning for Open Space to be adopted as supplementary guidance.

Policy D6 Open space

Development which will improve or add to current levels of open space will be supported. The development of all housing/employment/community sites identified within the Proposals Map will be required to make a contribution to meaningful and functional open space, and/or, by a commuted sum towards the provision and maintenance of open space within the site or the affected community.

Development that would result in a loss of existing open space will not generally be permitted. The loss of such open space will only be supported where it fulfils one of the following criteria:

1. An open space audit demonstrates that the development will not result in a deficit of open space provision to serve the affected community, and that no alternative site is available.
2. Compensatory provision is made elsewhere within the community area of at least equal size and quality and which contributes positively to settlement character and sense of community.
3. A commuted sum is secured through a financial bond or Section 75 agreement towards the future provision of an appropriate alternative.

Further guidance is provided in the Supplementary Guidance Orkney Open Space Strategy.

3 Assessing the quantity and quality of our open spaces

3.1 Open space audits

As part of meeting the requirements of Scottish Planning Policy to undertake an audit of the open space resource in their Local Authority area and how well it meets the needs of the community, this audit should cover all types of open space both public and privately owned. It is also important that informal open spaces are assessed as well as parks and formal facilities. The audit should take account of the type, quantity, quality, community value, accessibility and levels of use of all existing open spaces. The audit provides the basis for assessing the existing provision of open space, whether the spaces are fit for purpose and meet community aspirations. The audit also enables the Council to monitor changing trends in open space provision and test provision against open space standards.

3.2 Overview of the Orkney Open Space Audit

The Orkney Open Space Audit has been undertaken in five parts:

1. The type and quantity of open space;
2. The quality of publicly accessible open space;
3. Pedestrian access to open space;
4. Open space networks and linkages; and
5. Community consultation.

The Orkney Open Space Audit focuses on the larger settlements in Orkney. This is primarily due to the time and resource constraints associated with carrying out the detailed level of audit and assessment required. The larger settlements that have been audited are:

• Kirkwall;
• Stromness;
• Dounby;
• St Margaret’s Hope; and
• Finstown.

This is supplemented with spaces from Stenness, Balfour, Burray Village, St Mary’s, Orphir Village, Evie Village, Pierowall, The Palace, Toab, Whitehall, Longhope, Lyness, Lyron, Evie School, Brinyan, Burnside Harray, Lady and Burnside Flotta providing a comprehensive basis to inform potential proposals which affect these settlements.

With reference to the auditing of settlements, in instances where a school falls out with the settlement area, the school and its associated spaces have also been audited due to their nature as important focal points within the community and their tendency to be used outwith school times. Spaces are included in the audit on the basis that they are free to use and publicly accessible. Allotments are the only exception to this due to the nature of them being primarily council owned whilst providing community and the environmental benefits. Furthermore the inclusion of open space as part of sports and leisure facilities, whilst providing an important resource, were deemed inappropriate within the scope of the audit as may be seen as a means for comparison along with contradicting the accessibility criteria of the audit by charging for usage. It is also envisaged that new spaces whether resulting from new development or those currently in progress such as those associated with Kirkwall Grammar School, will be incorporated as part of the review of the OOSS: Vision and Action Plan every 5 years.

3.3 The type and quantity of open space: Audit methodology (part 1)

This audit methodology has enabled all the open spaces within the settlements to be identified and classified according to its type and function. The selection of spaces was achieved through GIS mapping, in which sites over 0.2 hectares in size within the settlement boundaries were automatically identified as functional greenspace. This is complimented with the inclusion of valued sites smaller than this; such as play parks or other areas where the open space is proven to have a function. The open space typology utilised as part of the audit is set out in Table 1. Before the open spaces were identified, the land use within the settlement was attributed to the classification provided in Table 2 enabling the land use associated with each open space to be identified.

Table 2: Primary Code

In order to comprehensively identify open space; all buildings, roads, parking areas, hard standings, tracks and water bodies were initially identified. The remaining areas have been classified in accordance with the open space typology in Table 1. Table 3 sets out the coding used to identify what is open space and what is not.

Table 3: Secondary Code

An example of how the quantitative audit worked in practice:

For a school, the whole land area of the school was recorded as p3 (Education). Within the school boundary the relevant constituent parts could include:

1.4 Parking/Hard Standing

5.2 Building (Commercial/Institutional)

6.22 Private Gardens or Grounds (Schools)

6.55 Other Sports

3.4 The quality of publicly accessible open space: Audit methodology (Part 2)

Based upon the assessment criteria prescribed by Greenspace Scotland¹, five main open space quality indicators were used to guide assessment of each space, which are:

• accessible and well connected;
• attractive and appealing;
• bio diverse supporting ecological networks;
• promote activity, health and wellbeing; and
• community benefits.

Each of the criteria is expanded upon in the survey templates used for each space to provide a framework to assess relevant elements that contribute to the quality of the space. An example of which is available in Annex 2—Audit Survey Data. This was achieved through use of a scoring system to indicate how the space performed in each aspect ranging from 0— not fit for purpose to 4—excellent in respect to the assessment criteria. A detailed breakdown of how the scoring is determined is also given in Annex 2. The outcome of this system allowed aspects in which a space poorly performed or did well in to be highlighted which is conveyed more concisely in the score breakdown sheets which convey how the space performed in each of the five scoring categories with aspects achieving 75% or more highlighted in green, and those scoring 24% or less in red.

¹ greenspace scotland, 2008. Greenspace Quality— a guide to assessment, planning and strategic development.

3.5 Pedestrian access to open space: Audit Methodology (Part 3)

A key aspect of the audit and consequently the strategy is to convey the extent of settlement areas which have suitable access to open space resulting in analysis being undertaken to identify areas that are not within 300m of a publicly accessible open space. This is based on the distance covered in a five minute walk but reduced to 300m to take into account potential deviations and obstacles that may affect this distance in reality in comparison to being applied as the crow flies². Catchment areas of 300m shown, with the aid of GIS mapping, around publicly useable open space will indicate how accessible sites are based upon this criteria. In some cases further investigation may be required to determine whether the actual walking distance is significantly further than 300m. In such cases, the development of new or improved greenspace may be justified and identified in the OOSS: Vision and Action Plan.

² greenspace scotland 2013. Developing Open Space Standards: Guidance and framework

3.6 Open space networks and linkages: Audit Methodology (Part 4)

Through the combination of the findings from parts 1, 2 and 3, the audit data was used to identify the following:

1. the variety and number of open spaces within each settlement;
2. the quality of open spaces on offer; and
3. settlement areas which lack open space provision within the walking distance parameters previously described.

This data will be taken into consideration alongside existing policy to help inform strategic moves as part of the OOSS: Vision and Action Plan in the development and enhancement of how open spaces are connected in Orkney’s settlements. As prescribed in PAN 65 open space networks should improve and safeguard the quality of the environment, links to wildlife habitats, walking, cycling, recreation and leisure opportunities.

3.7 Community consultation

The Orkney Open Space Audit has been consulted through its various stages with the audit data presented at the County Show to enable public comments to be made regarding the validity and scope of the audit findings. This was complimented with the audit data being provided to the appropriate Community Councils. The audit was also made available online in conjunction with an online survey to enable wider participation in helping inform the development of the strategy. This will be followed by statutory consultation on the draft document which is envisaged to take place from December 2013.

4 Current provisions – open space in Orkney’s towns and villages

4.1 Five settlements overall

Taking Orkney’s five largest settlements into consideration, the audit is composed of 94.12 hectares of open space. Based upon 2001 Census results at a civil parish level for Kirkwall 7,615 (Kirkwall and St Ola), Stromness 2,124, Dounby 1,855 (Birsay and Harray Sandwick), St Margaret’s Hope 1,211 (South Ronaldsay) and Finstown 1,423 (Firth, Evie and Rendall) gives a generous population total for the settlements of 14,228 due to the nature of the civil parish areas being larger than the Council defined settlement boundary in order to accommodate the full extent of the settlement area. This gives an indicative 6.61 hectares per 1000 population equating to 66.15m² per person across the five settlements. When broken down to settlement level, Stromness has the most open space provision of 131.73m² per person followed by Kirkwall 62.23m² per person, Dounby 48.09m² per person, Finstown 47.72m² per person and St Margaret’s Hope with 24.93m² per person. These provide benchmarks for future revisions of the audit and how proposals are assessed in relation to open space requirements which are expanded upon in the OOSS: Planning for Open Space Supplementary Guidance.

IMAGE: Figure 1 is a bar graph titled “Average overall score per PAN 65 typology”. It shows average overall scores of approximately 71% for public parks and gardens, 63% for private gardens or grounds, 54% for amenity greenspace, 58% for playspace for children and teenagers, 61% for sports areas, 60% for green corridors, 59% for natural/semi-natural greenspace, 64% for other functional greenspace, 70% for civic space and 82% for other open space.

Figure 1—Graph of average overall score according to PAN 65 typology.

Based upon PAN 65 typology 6.10 other open space has the highest average score albeit with only two spaces contributing to this, followed by 6.1 public parks and gardens and 6.9 civic space within the five settlements. The lowest average score is 6.3 amenity greenspace, which along with 6.4 playspace for children and teenagers, and 6.7 natural/semi-natural greenspace are the only typologies with an average of less than 60%. Comparing this to the average overall score per secondary code 6.81 allotments, 6.101 other open space private, 6.10 other open space and 6.82 churchyard are all above 75% on average aided by having fewer examples to potentially bring this down. Poorest are 6.21 private gardens—which is based on one example—followed by 6.31 residential, 6.73 open space and 6.84 other functional greenspace scoring on average 55% or less. It should be noted in cases such as schools, the most applicable PAN 65 typology and secondary codes of 6.2 private gardens or grounds and 6.22 schools are used for average score data due to being the primary function of the space and to avoid duplication of results. The typology breakdown is more accurately represented in the area breakdown charts in which aspects of the school grounds such as playing fields can be represented. This provides a more detailed representation of existing open space provision, albeit losing some transferable information from the average scores to the area breakdown as a result.

IMAGE: Figure 2 is a bar graph titled “Average overall score per secondary code”. It compares average scores for public parks and gardens, private gardens, schools, institutions, residential, transport, playspace, playing field, core path, woodland, open semi-natural, open space, allotments, churchyard, cemetery, other functional greenspace, civic space, other open space and other open space private. The highest bars are for allotments, churchyard, other open space and other open space private; the lowest is private gardens.

Figure 2—Graph of average overall score according to secondary code.

Focusing on the total area of open space according to PAN 65 typology 6.7 natural/semi-natural greenspace is highest with over double as much as the next highest of 6.5 sports areas. The lowest is 6.10 other open space, which along with 6.9 civic space are the only typologies to have less than one hectare in total. When taken according to secondary codes, 6.51 playing field is the highest closely followed by 6.72 open semi-natural and 6.73 open space which are the only codes to exceed ten hectares. The lowest areas in descending order are 6.9 civic space, 6.10 other open space, 6.53 tennis court and 6.101 other open space private, all of which are less than half a hectare in total area.

IMAGE: Figure 3 is a bar graph titled “Total area as per PAN 65 typology”. Natural/semi-natural greenspace is the largest category at approximately 41 hectares, followed by sports areas at approximately 18 hectares. Public parks and gardens, private gardens or grounds, amenity greenspace and other functional greenspace are each approximately 6–9 hectares; playspace and green corridors are smaller; civic space and other open space are each below one hectare.

Figure 3—Graph showing total areas according to PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 4 is a bar graph titled “Total area as per secondary code”. Playing field and open space are the largest categories, each approaching 20 hectares, followed by open semi-natural at approximately 13 hectares and woodland at approximately 9 hectares. The remaining categories are below approximately 6 hectares.

Figure 4—Graph showing total areas according to secondary code.

4.2 Five settlements by comparison

Referring to how the settlements perform on average overall, St Margaret’s Hope performs the best with an average of 76% followed by Finstown 63%, Stromness 60%, Kirkwall 58% and Dounby the lowest with 52%. Taking each criteria category in turn, Dounby achieves the lowest average score in each aspect in contrast to St Margaret’s Hope which is the highest in each category aided by having fewer spaces audited. Against the average scores obtained for the five settlements together as per the score criteria, accessible and well connected is the highest with 70.6% whereas biodiversity is the poorest with 50.9%.

IMAGE: Figure 5 is a multi-series bar graph titled “Settlement average score breakdown”. It compares accessible and well connected, attractive and appealing, bio-diverse supporting ecological networks, promote activity/health/wellbeing, community benefits and overall scores for Kirkwall, Stromness, Dounby, St Margaret’s Hope and Finstown. St Margaret’s Hope has the highest overall score and Dounby the lowest.

Figure 5—Graph showing how settlements perform according to scoring criteria categories.

IMAGE: Figure 6 is a bar graph titled “Average score breakdown”. The five settlement averages are approximately 71% for accessible and well connected, 62% for attractive and appealing, 51% for bio-diverse supporting ecological networks, 57% for promoting activity, health and wellbeing, 64% for community benefits and 62% overall.

Figure 6—Graph showing how five settlements performed on average against score criteria.

4.21 Kirkwall

At a settlement level, 6.8 other functional greenspace and 6.10 other open space achieve averages of above 80% for PAN 65 typologies which exceeds the ‘good’ standard set out in the scoring criteria. 6.81 allotments and 6.10 other open space contribute to this as seen in the secondary codes but only at a small scale in terms of area coverage alone. This contrasts with 6.3 amenity greenspace scoring the lowest average of 53.3% with 6.31 residential the second lowest of the secondary codes. However 6.73 open space is the only secondary code to achieve an average of under 50% which is a concern due to amassing the largest area coverage in Kirkwall which suggests this could be better utilised. The breakdown of open space in terms of area within Kirkwall consists largely of 6.7 natural/semi-natural greenspace which is aided by Peedie Sea being the largest space within the settlement.

Referring to the accessibility maps as part of the Audit Survey Data in Annex 2, the majority of Kirkwall is within reach of an open space with the northeast and northwest, mainly Hatston industrial estate, the only significant areas lacking access. Playspace provision is widely distributed throughout the settlement with large areas outwith range to the west and the northeast. Also parts of the town centre towards the harbour, Berstane Road and near the settlement boundary are shown to lack access to playspace. In terms of natural space coverage along Bignold Park Road southwards is the largest area lacking access which could be implemented in conjunction with housing sites KW-O or KW-S and connecting the existing core paths running north to south near this area. For access to open spaces of 2ha or more, this is spread throughout Kirkwall with some properties not within range including those situated around Victoria Road Allotments, Willowburn, Orkney College, Lynn Crescent and Sutherland Park as well as the aforementioned northeast and northwest areas.

IMAGE: Figure 7 is a bar graph showing Kirkwall’s average scores by PAN 65 typology. Other functional greenspace and other open space score above 80%; sports areas score approximately 70%; public parks and gardens, private gardens or grounds, green corridors and natural/semi-natural greenspace score approximately 60%; amenity greenspace and playspace score approximately 53–55%; civic space scores approximately 72%.

Figure 7—Graph showing Kirkwall average scores according to PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 8 is a bar graph showing Kirkwall’s average scores by secondary code. Allotments score approximately 88%; churchyard and other open space score approximately 75–82%; residential and open space score below 50–55%; the remaining categories range from approximately 50% to 73%.

Figure 8—Graph showing Kirkwall average scores according to secondary code.

IMAGE: Figure 9 is a pie chart titled “Kirkwall open space breakdown—PAN 65 typology”. The proportions are: public parks and gardens 16.8%; private gardens or grounds 8.3%; amenity greenspace 9.2%; playspace for children and teenagers 4.0%; sports areas 11.7%; green corridors 2.9%; natural/semi-natural greenspace 43.2%; other functional greenspace 2.7%; civic space 0.5%; other open space 0.6%.

Figure 9—Chart showing proportion of space in Kirkwall according to area as per PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 10 is a pie chart titled “Kirkwall open space breakdown—secondary codes”. The largest proportions are open space 24.7%, woodland 17.7%, playing field 15.3%, residential 8.6%, public parks and gardens 5.8%, institutions 5.6%, other sports 7.5%, schools 2.7%, playspace 3.9%, core path 2.9%, allotments 1.8%, churchyard 0.9%, civic space 0.5%, other open space 0.6% and transport 0.7%.

Figure 10—Chart showing proportion of space in Kirkwall according to area as per secondary code.

4.22 Stromness

Based on the average scores achieved in Stromness 6.1 public parks and gardens performed the best with 80% but with only one space in the form of the George Mackay Brown Memorial Garden contributing to this. Otherwise 6.9 civic space and 6.7 natural/semi-natural greenspace are the only typologies to average above 60% with 6.8 other functional greenspace having the lowest average. Other than 6.1 public parks and gardens, 6.73 open space is the next highest performing as per the secondary codes, and are the only codes to be over 70%. 6.21 private gardens and 6.84 other functional greenspace are the lowest scoring and are the only codes to average less than 50%. In terms of area coverage 6.7 natural/semi-natural greenspace consists of over half the area of total open space in Stromness, which is a considerably greater proportion than in the other settlements, with a quarter being 6.5 sports areas. This is similarly reflected in the secondary codes.

Accessibility wise, the vast majority of Stromness is within reach of open space with only minor areas around the settlement boundary not in range. Playspace provision is well distributed south of the harbour in contrast to north of this, with Hamnavoe Play Area the only playspace. This should be considered in conjunction with the relocation of Stromness Primary and the facilities this will provide to the area, but still leaves northern areas outwith range. The settlement on the whole is within range of a natural space with some voids in places within the town centre and towards the north boundary. Access to spaces of 2ha or more is focused towards the northern area in the form of Lower Brinkies Brae, Garson Open Space, Market Green Playing Fields and Mill Burn. This should be considered in conjunction with the golf course to the south and the open nature of the coastal waterfront along it.

IMAGE: Figure 11 is a bar graph showing Stromness average scores by PAN 65 typology. Public parks and gardens score 80%; civic space approximately 68%; natural/semi-natural greenspace approximately 63%; playspace approximately 59%; sports areas approximately 56%; private gardens or grounds approximately 56%; amenity greenspace approximately 57%; and other functional greenspace approximately 53%.

Figure 11—Graph showing average score of open spaces in Stromness according to PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 12 is a bar graph showing Stromness average scores by secondary code. Public parks and gardens score 80%; open space approximately 73%; schools approximately 68%; transport approximately 64%; civic space approximately 68%; playing field approximately 55%; private gardens approximately 44%; and other functional greenspace approximately 47%.

Figure 12—Graph showing average score of open spaces in Stromness according to secondary code.

IMAGE: Figure 13 is a pie chart showing Stromness open space proportions by PAN 65 typology. Natural/semi-natural greenspace accounts for 60.6%; sports areas 25.9%; private gardens or grounds 4.6%; amenity greenspace 4.4%; playspace 2.1%; public parks and gardens 0.6%; other functional greenspace 0.7%; civic space 1.2%; and other open space 0.1%.

Figure 13—Chart showing proportion of open space in Stromness according to area as per PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 14 is a pie chart showing Stromness open space proportions by secondary code. Open semi-natural accounts for 57.2%; playing field 25.6%; other sports 3.4%; public parks and gardens 2.0%; private gardens 2.5%; schools 2.1%; residential 2.3%; transport 2.1%; playspace 0.3%; open space 0.8%; allotments 0.4%; other functional greenspace 0.7%; civic space 0.1%; and other open space 0.6%.

Figure 14—Chart showing proportion of open space in Stromness according to area as per secondary code.

4.23 Dounby

Referring to the average score charts, 6.2 private gardens or grounds achieved the highest with 6.3 amenity greenspace the lowest. This is reflected in the related secondary codes of 6.22 schools and 6.31 residential respectively. Out of the PAN 65 typologies, only 6.3 amenity greenspace consisted of more than one space, which on average performed less than 50%. At a secondary code level, the majority average around the 50% mark with only 6.31 residential and 6.84 other functional greenspace scoring less than 50%. Taking the open space according to total area coverage into consideration, the largest is 6.8 other functional greenspace in which the Show Park contributes solely towards this and makes up a large proportion of total space within the settlement. Amenity space makes up 11% which is the highest of the five settlements in terms of proportion and therefore the greater a role it plays in terms of visual impact and promoting activity within Dounby.

With regards to open space access, all of Dounby is within 300m of an audited space except for one property to the northwest. For playspace provision the northwest and the south are the largest areas not within range, along with a smaller area to the extreme northeast. Development of housing sites D-A and D-D could provide an ideal opportunity to address this. Grip of Grunkahowe provides the only natural space in the north of the settlement. Access to spaces of 2ha or more of Dounby Show Park and the Primary School are within range of the vast majority of properties within the settlement.

IMAGE: Figure 15 is a bar graph showing Dounby average scores by PAN 65 typology. Private gardens or grounds score approximately 72%; playspace approximately 55%; natural/semi-natural greenspace approximately 52%; other functional greenspace approximately 49%; and amenity greenspace approximately 49%.

Figure 15—Graph showing average score of spaces in Dounby according to PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 16 is a bar graph showing Dounby average scores by secondary code. Schools score approximately 72%; transport approximately 54%; playspace approximately 55%; open semi-natural approximately 52%; open space approximately 50%; residential approximately 46%; and other functional greenspace approximately 49%.

Figure 16—Graph showing average score of spaces in Dounby according to secondary code.

IMAGE: Figure 17 is a pie chart showing Dounby open space proportions by PAN 65 typology. Other functional greenspace accounts for 42.9%; sports areas 29.1%; natural/semi-natural greenspace 13.8%; amenity greenspace 11.4%; and playspace 2.8%.

Figure 17—Chart showing open space breakdown in Dounby according to area as per PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 18 is a pie chart showing Dounby open space proportions by secondary code. Other functional greenspace accounts for 42.9%; playing field 28.4%; open semi-natural 13.8%; residential 7.0%; transport 4.4%; playspace 2.8%; and tennis court 0.7%.

Figure 18—Chart showing open space breakdown in Dounby according to area as per secondary code.

4.24 St Margaret’s Hope

Of the PAN 65 typologies, 6.4 playspace for children & teenagers has the highest score followed by 6.1 public parks and gardens both scoring over 80% but aided by only having one example each, in contrast to 6.3 amenity greenspace with the lowest score of 61%. This is reflected in the relevant secondary codes due to the limited number of open spaces contributing to the average scores. In terms of area coverage, of the five settlements it should be noted St Margaret’s Hope has the largest dedicated play park in the form of the Community Play Park, which is enhanced by its high score exceeding a ‘good’ status in the score criteria. Over 50% of the area audited is represented by 6.5 sports areas of the PAN 65 typologies and 6.51 playing field in the secondary codes respectively. This in conjunction with the spaces which make up the school grounds contributes the vast majority of space types available with over 80% in contrast to amenity space making up less than 2%.

With reference to the accessibility maps in Annex 2, Pier Road and a large area towards the south edge of the settlement boundary are not within range of open space, however these are outwith the more densely developed area of St Margaret’s Hope. In the case of access to playspace, whilst the Community Play Park is centrally located and the school serves the western area, properties to the south are not within 300m of playspace. As none of the spaces are classed as natural greenspace, no access is available to this particular space type. This however should be considered in relation to the proximity of this area to the wider countryside and waterfront which arguably counteract this. Access to spaces of 2ha or more in the form of the Hope Community School means the east section of the settlement is lacking in respect to this.

IMAGE: Figure 19 is a bar graph showing St Margaret’s Hope average scores by PAN 65 typology. Public parks and gardens score approximately 84%; private gardens or grounds approximately 71%; amenity greenspace 61%; and playspace approximately 88%.

Figure 19—Graph showing average score of spaces in St Margaret’s Hope according to PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 20 is a bar graph showing St Margaret’s Hope average scores by secondary code. Public parks and gardens score approximately 84%; schools approximately 71%; residential 61%; and playspace approximately 88%.

Figure 20—Graph showing average score of spaces in St Margaret’s Hope according to secondary code.

IMAGE: Figure 21 is a pie chart showing St Margaret’s Hope open space proportions by PAN 65 typology. Sports areas account for 53.1%; private gardens or grounds 28.1%; playspace 14.1%; public parks and gardens 2.7%; and amenity greenspace 1.9%.

Figure 21—Chart showing proportion of space in St Margaret’s Hope according to area as per PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 22 is a pie chart showing St Margaret’s Hope open space proportions by secondary code. Playing field accounts for 50.7%; schools 28.1%; playspace 14.1%; other sports 2.4%; public parks and gardens 2.7%; and residential 1.9%.

Figure 22—Chart showing proportion of space in St Margaret’s Hope according to area as per secondary code.

4.25 Finstown

According to PAN 65 typologies, 6.1 public parks and gardens and 6.10 other open space are joint highest scorers with 83%. As both consist of one space respectively this is reflected in the secondary code graph. In comparison 6.3 amenity greenspace, and the equivalent 6.31 residential of the secondary codes, is the lowest with 50%. Taking the area coverage into account a very limited area of the settlement is dedicated playspace which lies solely within the school. However over half of the total space is a combination of 6.51 playing field and 6.72 open semi-natural space to accommodate physical activity.

In terms of access to open spaces, bar a small section to the south east, properties to the west are not within the access criteria but should be noted are within close proximity to Binscarth Wood which is outside the settlement boundary. This is similarly the case for access to natural spaces. For access to playspaces, this is restricted to the northern area at the school ideally situated for pupils to use during school times, but not ideally located in relation to the majority of properties in Finstown unless people make specific plans to visit the area to use the range of school facilities on offer. Similarly for access to open spaces of 2ha or more, this is focused around Finstown Football Pitches leaving the majority of Finstown outwith range of this.

IMAGE: Figure 23 is a bar graph showing Finstown average scores by PAN 65 typology. Public parks and gardens and other open space score approximately 83%; sports areas approximately 66%; other functional greenspace approximately 64%; private gardens or grounds approximately 65%; natural/semi-natural greenspace approximately 54%; and amenity greenspace 50%.

Figure 23—Graph showing average score of spaces in Finstown according to PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 24 is a bar graph showing Finstown average scores by secondary code. Public parks and gardens and other open space private score approximately 83%; schools approximately 65%; playing field approximately 66%; other functional greenspace approximately 65%; cemetery approximately 63%; open semi-natural approximately 54%; and residential 50%.

Figure 24—Graph showing average score of spaces in Finstown according to secondary code.

IMAGE: Figure 25 is a pie chart showing Finstown open space proportions by PAN 65 typology. Natural/semi-natural greenspace accounts for 40.5%; other functional greenspace 18.7%; sports areas 21.4%; public parks and gardens 10.3%; private gardens or grounds 6.7%; playspace 1.1%; amenity greenspace 0.7%; and other open space 0.6%.

Figure 25—Chart showing proportion of space in Finstown according to area as per PAN 65 typology.

IMAGE: Figure 26 is a pie chart showing Finstown open space proportions by secondary code. Open semi-natural accounts for 26.2%; playing field 20.5%; woodland 14.3%; public parks and gardens 10.3%; other functional greenspace 8.8%; cemetery 9.9%; schools 6.7%; other sports 0.9%; residential 1.1%; playspace 0.7%; and other open space private 0.6%.

Figure 26—Chart showing proportion of space in Finstown according to area as per secondary code.

5 Key findings

From the audit information, a number of points can be taken, firstly the extent of 6.7 natural/semi-natural greenspace within the settlements along with being one of the poorest scoring space types on average. Due to the large extent of natural/semi-natural land within the five settlements, this could provide an ideal means to address the poor performance of open spaces in relation to the bio diverse criteria. 6.10 other open space has the highest average score followed by 6.1 public parks and gardens and 6.9 civic space. Of the PAN 65 typologies 6.3 amenity greenspace was the lowest. At a secondary code level 6.51 playing field has the greatest area scoring an average of 59.8% so falls short of the 75% good standard in the scoring criteria. Only 6.81 allotments, 6.101 other open space private, 6.10 other open space and 6.82 churchyard exceeded 75% on average albeit aided by having no more than two examples each to contribute to this. In contrast 6.21 private gardens, 6.31 residential, 6.73 open space and 6.84 other functional greenspace are the only types to score on average less than 55% reinforcing room for improvement for amenity and natural/semi-natural greenspace.

On a settlement by settlement basis:

• Kirkwall is second in terms of open space provision per person highlighting the demands placed by having the highest population. Hatston industrial estate and core path linkages near Bignold Park Road provide potential improvement opportunities.
• Stromness in contrast has the highest per person provision even without the inclusion of Lower Brinkies Brae which is the largest audited space. Playspace provision to the north is limited but may be counteracted by quality of Stromness Primary facilities.
• Dounby has the worst average score and out of the five settlements, has the largest proportion of total open space consisting of amenity greenspace which contributes to its poor performance overall.
• St Margaret’s Hope achieved the best average score and in each of the score criteria categories. Has a noteworthy playspace in the form of Hope Community Play Park both in terms of size and overall score. However has the lowest open space provision per a person albeit based on census data for a larger area.
• Finstown whilst achieving the second highest average score has the second lowest per person provision with potential to have a new playspace facility within closer proximity to the resident population.

These initial findings and the resulting aspirations will be clarified and expanded upon in more detail as part of developing the OOSS: Planning for Open Space SG and OOSS: Vision and Action Plan.

6 Consultation responses

To help validate the data gathered as part of the audit as well as provide information as to how the public wish to see open space considered, comments were received from the County Show and online survey. This was complimented with comments from community councils in connection with spaces included as part of the audit within their respective settlement areas. Key points included:

• Consideration of consolidating good quality open spaces rather than address those of poor quality.
• The value playspaces for children and teenagers, and public parks and gardens have in terms of prominent open space types people use.
• To exercise, to enjoy natural landscapes, wildlife and to have a seat as aspects why people use open space.
• Proximity to home and local facilities, to relax, natural features, dog walking, a place to meet other people and to use particular play equipment as reasons behind why people like an open space.
• The standard of play equipment was a common issue put forward for improvement with maintenance, better planting, equipment and facilities for adults and teenagers also raised.
• Consideration of enabling community groups to deliver better open spaces.

The responses gathered as part of this process will help inform the aims and objectives of OOSS: Planning for Open Space and the OOSS: Vision and Action Plan by:

• Placing an emphasis on accessibility and quality over quantity of open space.
• Highlighting the value of open space and its importance to communities and various age groups.
• Establishing how spaces can maximise their attributes to be desirable spaces through addressing issues such as grounds maintenance, equipment and natural features.
• Promoting how communities can be involved in developing open space which meets their own needs and aspirations.

7 Next steps

7.1 Informing policy

The findings from the Orkney Open Space Audit will be used to help inform OOSS: Planning for Open Space Supplementary Guidance. This will be followed by development of the OOSS: Vision and Action Plan in which a working group will be established to enable the strategy to be realistic in terms of the aspirations and goals it sets out to achieve. The working group will likely be composed of:

• OIC Development and Infrastructure;
• OIC Education, Leisure and Housing;
• Sport Scotland;
• SNH; and
• Community Councils etc.

From this clear objectives and an action plan can be created to help ensure Orkney has open space that is accessible, of sufficient quality and type to meet the demands and expectations of communities.

7.2 Review of data

It is envisaged that any newly identified open spaces will be included in the next version of the audit to be reviewed every five years.

8 Participation statement & consultation report

Orkney Islands Council

Orkney Open Space Audit

Participation Statement & Consultation Report

18 October 2013

1) Introduction

Orkney Islands Council published the surveys and initial findings for consultation at the County Show and online survey. Interested parties were invited to comment at the County Show on the 10 August 2013. An advertisement was placed in the newspaper to publicise this. This was complimented with an online survey on Survey Monkey which ran from the 10 August 2013 until the 6 September 2013 which was publicised in the newspaper and on the radio. Responses from community council were also sought from 24 June 2013 until the 13 September 2013 to take account of the summer recess.

Full details of all the consultation responses are included at the end of the consultation report to give an indication of views about open space and help clarify data as part of the audit as well as inform the development of the OOSS: Planning for Open Space SG, and OOSS: Vision and Action Plan documents. Statutory consultation as part of the OOSS: Planning for Open Space Supplementary Guidance was carried out from the 12 December 2013 until the 6 February 2014.

2) Consultation Methods

1) Public advertisement

• A Press Release was issued on 2 August 2013 to the press and all OIC staff members.
• An official advertisement was placed in the Orcadian on the 8 August 2013 for the County Show display.
• For further publicity of the online survey, a press release was issued on 20 August 2013 to the press and all OIC staff members. An interview for BBC Radio Orkney was aired on the 21 August and an advertisement was also placed in the Orcadian on the 22 August.
• Posters were also put up in various establishments throughout Kirkwall, Stromness, Dounby, St Margaret’s Hope and Finstown.
• Community Centres were emailed with details of the survey to put up the poster or publicise the survey link if possible.

2) Public display of documents

• Documents were made available at Customer Services One Stop Shop and on the Orkney Islands Council website.

3) Consultation events

• The surveys that make up the audit findings were displayed at the County Show on Saturday 10 August 2013 to seek views on their content and potential improvements by filling out a questionnaire. The online survey allowed for further responses to be made after this.

3) Consultation Results

Full details of the formal consultation responses received and the proposed Council responses are included in the Consultation responses in section 8.1.

In summary, the key issues raised from the consultation, apart from updating audit data, includes:

• Addressing spaces which are of poor quality possibly through consolidation of good quality open spaces; and
• concerns regarding the scope and need for an open space strategy.

The findings of the consultation responses as part of the County Show and online survey found:

• When asked about which open spaces the public use, playspace for children and teenagers, and public parks and gardens were the most prominent with play equipment highlighted as a key feature behind usage of these spaces. Other reasons for using open space included for fitness through sport and exercise, to enjoy natural landscapes, wildlife and to have a seat.
• In terms of what people enjoy about open space, playparks were highly sought after along with spaces in close proximity to home and local facilities. Enjoyment of natural elements, an opportunity to relax, dog walking, a place to meet other people and to use particular play equipment were other aspects people liked about open space.
• Improvement wise, the standard of play equipment whether removed and not replaced, or the general condition of it was the most frequent response. The standard of maintenance, better planting, equipment and facilities for adults and teenagers were also raised. This was in conjunction with consideration of enabling community groups to deliver better open spaces as well as the effect of car parking on existing open space provision.

4) Conclusion

The consultation received fifty three responses in total, nineteen of which were made formally and the rest originated from the County Show and online survey responses, which have been individually considered by the Development and Marine Planning section. This participation statement summarises the key issues raised and sets out the key changes that have been made to the audit and the OOSS: Planning for Open Space SG through this consultation process. The comments made by each of the consultees that formally responded to the consultation are presented below in section 8.1 Consultation responses.

8.1 Consultation responses

Consultee Type Key: KA – Key agencies; IP – Individual Person; DEV – Developer; OICC – Orkney Islands Council Councillor; OCC – Orkney Community Council; and IG – Independent Group.

Orkney Islands Council

Orkney Open Space Audit

Participation Statement and Consultation Report

Consultation Period: 10 August 2013 until 13 September 2013

Responses from consultation event and online survey

Responses 1–25 are from the County Show, 26–34 are from the online survey.

IMAGE: The document cover shows the Orkney Islands Council crest and the title “Annex 1: Orkney Open Space Audit” in large lettering.

IMAGE: The participation statement cover shows the Orkney Islands Council crest and the text “Orkney Islands Council”, “Orkney Open Space Audit”, “Participation Statement & Consultation Report” and “18 October 2013”.