Re: Public Open Space. - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Classifying it for what purpose? Why not use the tried and tested definition from PPG17? "All open space of public value, including not just land, but also areas of water such as rivers, canals, lakes and reservoirs which offer important opportunities for sport and recreation and can also act as a visual amenity"

Hi Paul I don't like this definition because it is possible to have a space of public value which isn't accessible, or only accessible if you pay, which I do not believe should be classified as 'Public Open Space'. I have no problem with it being classified as something else e.g. 'open space' (but even that implies public assess?). The reason for this comes down to securing 'developer contributions' towards what people commonly refer to as 'public open space'; however, some of the stuff which falls within this definition e.g. allotments is not freely accessible to the general public. I don't believe this is right. Contributions should morally only be justified if the facility in question is accessible and free to all i.e. how can you ask a developer for a facility such as a synthetic turf pitch and then allow only people who pay to access it? Hope this makes sense? Simon

To be awkward on a Friday, what is the moral case for contributions to schools then ? They are very definitely not accessible to all.

Hi Richard I don't think I am qualified to answer this...but I'm pretty sure a moral case for equal access to schools must exist...?

Have you considered the key messages in the Natural Environment White Paper? This endorses the approach to viewing open spaces as a system and to recognising the multiple functions of Green Infrastructure whether individual pieces of land are physically accessible or not and regardless of their ownership. Examples might be recognition of the value of open spaces that contribute to the mental health of residents by providing breaks between dense development; or land providing permeable surfaces which reduce flooding. http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/natural/whitepaper/ Your own reason for needing to classify "public open space" is presumably based on an analysis of the functionality of that space. Don't forget the excellent work that CABE space did is still available. http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20110118095356/http:/www.cabe.org.uk/public-space

As a general rule, I agree that public funds (whether from developer contributions or not) should not be used to fund "private" facilities of any sort. I don't however agree with Simon's view that any facility that is charged for is not "public". For example clubs are charged for the use of council owned sports pitches but I would still regard them as a public facility especially if they are available for casual use when not booked. On the other hand I would have more difficulty accepting a suggestion that public funds be used to provide a facility for the exclusive use of a club. I would consider allotments to be a public facility even though they are rented to individuals as anyone can have one subject to availability. Of course the adoption of CIL (or April next year) will do away with the problem that Simon seems to have.

Hi Gillian I don't dispute your points about 'open space' and the fact that they deliver public benefits. I dispute the practise of treating some open spaces as 'public open space' i.e. that these places offer physically accessable/useable public spaces. Tony, what about a council controlled synthetic turf pitch which which is hired out to clubs but is also available (at a price) for 'casual users'. The issue I have here is having to pay for this 'casual access' to this facility. The very nature of paying means it is not truly accessible to the public in its broadest sense and should therefore not be treated as public open space and funded through a developer contribution? The allotments example you use is interesting: is the charge to cover additional facilities and services e.g. running water, or is it for the priviledge of calling the allotment your own for a year? The statement 'everyone can have one subject to availability' is also interesting. I know many places with waiting lists stretching to decades! Does this really mean anyone can have one...?

If as a matter of policy you don't want to allow developer contributions to be spent on "non-public open space" or you don’t want to collect contributions towards such "non-public open space", then that's open to you. Are you saying though that it would be unlawful or contrary to policy to spend contributions in that way or to collect contributions for such a purpose?

Hi Paul This is essentially what I am asking people to comment on. Is it lawful to collect developer contributions and spend it on a profit making business accessible only to people who are able to pay under the guise of 'Public Open Space'? Regards, Simon

Dirty tricks in allotment wars A survey by the National Society of Allotments and Leisure Gardens shows a steep rise in the number of disagreements between allotment gardeners. The report showed there are currently 350,000 allotments in the country but demand is growing with more than 100,000 people on waiting lists. Telegraph p12

Marrow envy, or just plain sour grapes?

On no Tony...don't get us started on the vegetable chokes...I mean jokes...or allotment politics for that matter! :) The bit about disagreement is not really surprising...but the bit about demand is...