Back Out to Play in Mendip:
Reclaiming children’s freedom to play
The Mendip Play Strategy
2007-2017
Produced by Mendip District Council
And Baker Associates
With support from Barnardos and
Somerset Play Forum.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Foreword
3
Executive Summary
4
Chapter One: Introduction:
7
Why a Play Strategy?
The Big Lottery Fund’s Children’s Play Initiative
Scope and Purpose
Chapter Two: The Case for Play and the Mendip Play Policy
9
Definition of play
The case for play
Barriers to play
The Mendip Play Policy Statement
The Somerset Play Policy Framework
Chapter Three: Policy Context
15
The international and national context
The county context
The local context
Chapter Four: Developing the Play Strategy
27
Overall approach
Step by Step process
The Play Partnership
Chapter Five: Current Play in Mendip
31
Audit of play spaces
Audit of supervised play
Chapter Six: Consultation
53
A summary of existing consultation
Consulting for the Play Strategy: Asking at Ammerdown
Chapter Seven: Strategic Priorities for Play Provision
57
How priorities have been identified
Broad aims of the strategy
The key priorities
Taking forward priorities – more detailed objectives
Implementation
Chapter Eight: Action Plan
69
1
Chapter Nine: Funding Play
77
What the BLF Children’s Play Programme Funds
How play is currently funded in Mendip
Beyond the BLF’s Children’s Play Programme: Future funding sources and projects
Section 106 agreements
Chapter Ten: Evaluating the Play Strategy
85
Purpose
How we will evaluate
Roles and responisbilities
References
89
Appendices
93
1.Typology for play and open spaces
2 Play Space Quality Indicators
3. Quality maps for play spaces (separately bound document)
4. Accessibility maps for play spaces (separately bound document)
5. Supervised play contacts and questions
6. Funding sources and contacts
Annexes (separately bound documents)
Annex A: Summary of Children’s Consultation in Mendip and Somerset
Annex B: ‘Asking at Ammerdown’: consultation for the Play Strategy
Annex C: Audit of Play Opportunites (detailed assessment)
2
Foreword
On behalf of Mendip District Council, I am delighted to present the Mendip Play Strategy.
The Play Strategy takes a fresh look at play and recognises its vital role in children’s lives. It moves away
from the traditional approach to play, which focuses on playgrounds and play equipment, to treating both
the natural environment and our public spaces as a canvass for play. It sets an innovative, new agenda
for the future and provides a framework and direction for decisions on play provision.
This new approach aims to overcome the many barriers to play facing today’s children. It is given urgency
by a wealth of research on the decline of opportunities for play. Recently, work by Play England revealed
that only 2 in 10 children regularly played outside in the streets and spaces where they lived. This
compared with the 7 in 10 adults surveyed who recalled that they played out as children on a daily basis.
More traffic, less open space, real and perceived dangers from crime, changes in family life and new
patterns of work are all causes. As a consequence, children and young people suffer increasing obesity,
anti-social behaviour and mental health problems.
The Strategy is a comprehensive, solid and ambitious piece of work that is the culmination of a carefully
planned process. An integral part of this process has been the founding of the Mendip Play Partnership.
The Partnership is made up of members of a key group or organisation with an interest in the
management or delivery of play in Mendip. The Partnership, led by Mendip District Council, has steered
decision-making on the Strategy. This direction has enabled us to produce a Strategy which provides
sound policies for creating high quality, inclusive and accessible play for Mendip’s children and young
people.
The Strategy helps to achieve the government’s Every Child Matters Agenda and the aims of the Mendip
Community Strategy. It will also inform our bid for money from the Big Lottery Fund’s Children’s Play
Initiative.
I believe that the Mendip Play Strategy will ensure that the future provision of play in our District is
exciting, challenging and, above all, fun.
Cllr Alistair Glanvile
Play Champion and Portfolio Holder, Street and Landscape Services.
3
Executive Summary
Purpose
The purpose of the Mendip Play Strategy is to allow the District and its partners to establish sound policies
which create exciting, high quality and accessible play for children and young people. In the long-term, it
provides a framework for decisions about play for the next ten years. In the short term, it also enables
Mendip District Council to access money from the Big Lottery Fund. The strategy takes a fresh look at the
importance of play in children’s lives and sets a new agenda for the future. The key sections within the
document are Chapter 7: Strategic Priorities and Chapter 8: Action Plan.
The process
The strategy has been developed over the past year through a partnership approach, led by Mendip
District Council. This work has taken the form of a three-stage process based on recommendations from
the Children’s Play Council and the Big Lottery Fund. This step- by-step process has comprised:
• Stage 1: Preparation and scoping. This included identifying a lead officer and play champion
within the Council, identifying stakeholders identifying and establishing a play partnership group to
agree a vision and play policy statement.
• Stage 2: Review. This consisted of both an audit of play provision in the District and consultation.
Children and young people were consulted in order to test emerging strategic priorities and parish
and town councils were consulted on the play audit.
• Stage 3: Agreement and reporting. So far this has included drawing together results and
developing local standards and preparing the draft strategy, action plan and evaluation
framework. Consultation with stakeholders is now taking place. The final Strategy will be amended
accordingly.
The case for play and the policy context
The case for play is well documented. Play is fundamental to childhood experience and promotes health
and well-being as well as intellectual, social and physical development. However, there is growing
evidence that children’s play is being restricted and eroded. Opportunities are being lost. The Mendip Play
Strategy sets out to overcome these barriers to play.
There is both an international and national policy context for play. The United Nations Convention on the
Rights of the Child Article 31.1 commits the Government to recognising the child’s right to play. Good
quality play also fulfils the five outcomes of the government’s Every Child Matters programme, namely: be
healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution, and achieve economic well-being.
The Mendip Play Policy
The Strategy incorporates the Mendip Play Policy which was agreed by the Mendip Play Partnership. The
Policy recognises the importance of play and that it is not simply limited to play areas. The Policy aims to
reduce barriers to play and to offer and maintain a range of environments and facilities that are conducive
to play. These should respond to the particular needs of the different towns and villages across the area.
Auditing play
A robust audit of play spaces, including open spaces, and supervised play, forms the foundation of the
Strategy. The principles of stakeholder involvement and consultation have been central to the process.
The audit of play spaces has been carried out in parallel with the preparation of The Mendip Open Space
Strategy and the Mendip Playing Pitch Strategy. This has involved some overlap in the process of auditing
4
and developing indicators, standards and targets. The broad aim of the audit was to provide a picture of
what play opportunities exist in Mendip and the extent to which
they were fulfilling the needs of children and young people. The audit provides the evidence base for
identifying where provision needs to be improved or supplemented (i.e. the strategy’s priorities), and it
sets the baseline for the monitoring and review of the strategy in the future.
The play spaces audit revealed that the total amount of provision is generally acceptable but that there is
room for improvement in the quality and accessibility of spaces with some consequent gaps in provision at
strategic, neighbourhood and local or street levels. There are few spaces with natural features within
towns and villages. Whilst larger sites perform well, many local and neighbourhood spaces do not –
especially small playgrounds and small amenity spaces – often because they are poorly designed, hidden
away and not integrated with the public realm in general. There is generally very limited provision for
young people. The quality of provision could be improved through upgrading sites and changing the type
of provision on offer. 45% of sites were considered to have good accessibility for the disabled.
The supervised play audit revealed that play opportunities depend heavily on volunteers and that there is
a decline in the number of people able to volunteer. Many volunteers struggle with funding and
bureaucracy. Funding sources are fragmented with organisations chasing different pots of money. There
is a piece-meal approach to supervised play with no one organisation specializing or focusing on play.
There is little strategic thinking.
The under-fives have the greatest amount of supervised play provision, both in towns and villages. Young
people are fairly well catered for in the towns but not in the villages. This is also the case with primary
school children for whom playschemes and after-school clubs are lacking in villages. There is no mobile
play, such as a play bus, operating in the District.
Consultation
Consultation with town and parish councils, children, young people and parents has also been integral to
the Strategy. A detailed questionnaire sent to town and parish councils helped to identify gaps in provision
as well as the quality and usage of play opportunities. The separate consultation with children and young
people and parents, conducted by Barnardo’s, identified that play rangers and additional features and
different types of experiences in playspaces should be promoted through the Play Strategy. The
consultation helped to define the priorities which were identified through the audit.
Strategic Priorities
The audits and consultation, as well as discussions with the Play Partnership, have shaped the Play
Strategy’s priorities. They are as follows:
1. Play / Open spaces: providing and improving play opportunities through formal and informal play areas
and open spaces. This includes improving the quantity, quality and accessibility of play and open space
and plugging gaps in provision identified by the audit. Priorities are identified for the main five towns and
villages to include changes to town parks, neighbourhood parks and local spaces. These are based on the
assessment of play spaces. This priority also includes increasing the amount of natural features and wild
areas in play and open spaces.
2. Play in the local environment: managing the local environment and public realm so that children can
play. Key objectives under this priority include gradual re-design of small spaces in local areas that
currently provide very little play value and managing traffic in existing streets. It also includes providing
‘safe routes’ in towns and villages to larger parks and playing fields and fostering high standards of design
in new development.
5
3. Play promotion, capacity building and supervised play: raising awareness about the importance of
play and taking initiatives to support play provision. This includes objectives such as using play rangers to
facilitate and enable play, providing play buses and a web and/ or paper based resource with
comprehensive information on play opportunities and identifying a play co-coordinator for the District. It
also aims to embed the strategy in emerging plans and policies, to develop further links with sectors which
can have an impact play, and develop the Play Partnership, taking forward its role and that of the political
play champion. Its other objectives are increased support for the voluntary sector in providing supervised
play opportunities, and developing awareness-raising initiatives aimed at adults and parents.
4. Consultation and community action: involve children and young people in developing and reviewing
the play strategy, including the design and development of new and improved play spaces / facilities and
evaluating play spaces. This priority also includes setting up a fund for play in Mendip.
5. Long-term development: securing future funding, including pursuing future funding opportunities
beyond BLF monies and making better use of planning obligations to fund improvements to play. Clear
criteria should be set out for how money will be collected and spent. Opportunities for ‘in kind’ reciprocal
activities which do not require capital costs should also be identified.
The Action Plan
The Strategic Priorities directly inform the Strategy’s Action Plan which sets out the proposed projects,
ideas on how they will be funded and their measurable outcomes. These proposals have been agreed in
principal by the Play Partnership. The Action Plan identifies short, medium and long-term projects.
Key short-term projects include:
•
Upgrading the Cheeseground in Frome to town park status. This would be a demonstration
project incorporating natural space such as fallen trees, minor land modelling and use of rocks
•
A new skate park in Street
•
A play rangers’ team to enable children to play in parks and out locally, including in rural areas
•
The creation of a play officer/play coordinator post to co-ordinate a play fund, play database and
play network and take forward the Play partnership
•
Provision of play buses
•
The production of a supplementary planning document on design in new development
The Action Plan identifies the Cheeseground proposal, the skate park and the play rangers’ team as
projects that could be funded through the Big Lottery Fund Children’s Play Programme.
Funding play
The Strategy examines how play is currently funded in Mendip and investigates future opportunities,
including grants and planning obligations monies. It recommends a creative approach to funding play,
using new models and sources and the setting up of a database of funding opportunities. It also
recommends that the District Council should clearly set out, and formally adopt, a planning obligation
policy as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in the Mendip Local Development Framework. The
basis of this policy as it applies to play and open space is set out in the Strategy.
Evaluation
Finally, the Strategy sets out principles and methods for evaluation. The purpose of evaluation is to help
monitor whether objectives are being achieved and to identify lessons learnt as projects are implemented.
A key principle is that the process should be realistic and tailored to the Strategy. These methods are
generally based on the Audit Commission’s Local Performance Indicator LIB 115 (Development and
Implementation of Corporate Play Policy: Assessing Your Progress).
6
Chapter 1: Introduction
1.1
Where were your favourite places to play as a child? It is very likely that they were outdoors,
informal and away from adults. They were probably a little overgrown and wild, offering adventure
and some risk. You ran, climbed, splashed and spun, testing the limits of your abilities. You built
secret dens and imaginary worlds. You got dirty and tired. You made friends, fell out and made up
again. Above all, you had fun.
1.2
Many of these opportunities are lost to today’s children and young people. In Mendip, despite our
wealth of beautiful countryside, the quality of play is compromised. Instead, more and more
children and young people are confined at home. This Play Strategy is all about reclaiming the
adventure, excitement and fun of play. It is about reasonable risk. It is about offering good quality
play for all. Above all, it is about letting children back out to play in Mendip.
Why a Play Strategy?
1.3
A Play Strategy is the best way of ensuring that children and young people in Mendip have access
to good play opportunities. A Strategy provides a framework and direction for decisions on play
provision. It enables the District and its partners to establish sound policies which create exciting,
high quality and accessible play for children and young people.
1.4
The Mendip Play Strategy has allowed us to take a new and fresh look at the nature of play in the
District.
1.5
The Strategy identifies priorities for play. It also helps us to:
• Identify the direction for the future and how this will be achieved
• Comply with legislation and other requirements
• Improve and create links between relevant individuals and organisations through the
partnership process
• Access the Big Lottery Fund Children’s Play funding allocation and identify other funding
opportunities.
The Big Lottery Fund’s Children’s Play Initiative
1.6
The BLF’s Children’s Play Initiative has allocated each local authority an amount of money based
on the child population of the area and weighted by the level of deprivation. Mendip District
Council has been allocated £214,000. As part of the application process, local authorities must
develop a play strategy to address identified needs. Local authorities are expected to consult and
to use the strategies as the basis for developing project proposals that meet local play needs.
Applications are being invited from each local authority, comprising a portfolio of projects that
reflect the joint interests of the local play partnership.
Scope and purpose
1.7
The purpose of the Strategy is to identify a vision, broad aims and priorities and set out how these
can be achieved.
1.8
The Strategy discusses and recognises the importance of play. It includes the Mendip Play Policy
and Statement. It also describes the policy context for the Strategy. It explains and describes the
process for developing the Strategy and the auditing and consultation work which have been
undertaken as part of this process. At the heart of this document are the strategic priorities and
the Action Plan which they directly inform. The Strategy then describes current funding for play in
Mendip and identifies future funding opportunities. Finally, the Strategy explains how we will
evaluate the effectiveness of the strategy and its proposed actions.
7
8
Chapter Two: The Case for Play and the Mendip Play Policy
A definition of play, children and young people
2.1
The Mendip Play Partnership group endorses the following definition of play:
‘Play is freely chosen, personally directed, intrinsically motivated behaviour that actively
engages the child…. Play can be fun or serious. Through play, children explore social,
material and imaginary worlds and their relationship with them, elaborating all the while a
flexible range of responses to the challenges they encounter. By playing, children learn to
develop as individuals and as members of the community’.
(Best play – what play provision should do for children; NPFA, Playlink, Children’s Play
Council (2001)).
2.2
We define children and young people as being between the ages of 0-18 or 0-24 for those with
additional needs.
The case for play
2.3
The case for play is well documented in government policy and elsewhere. Play is fundamental to
childhood experience. It promotes physical activity, health and well-being and intellectual, social,
cultural, psychological and physical development.
2.4
Good quality play fulfils the five outcomes of the government’s Every Child Matters programme,
namely: be healthy, stay safe, enjoy and achieve, make a positive contribution, and achieve
economic well-being.
2.5
The Big Lottery Fund and Children’s Play Council’s guidance on play strategies, Planning for Play
(2006), states that: ‘Play is of fundamental importance for children and young people’s health and
well-being, their relationships, their development and their learning.’
2.6
Planning policy also recognises the value of play. ‘Open spaces, sports and recreational facilities
have a vital role to play in promoting healthy living and preventing illness, and in the social
development of children of all ages through play, sporting activities and interaction with others,‘
Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (2002).
2.7
Outdoor play in natural environments is recognised as particularly beneficial. A study by Jenkins
and Evans (2006) found that wild spaces offer accessible, meaningful, nature-based occupations
that support a child’s health and well-being. Other research backs this up. The Green Alliance and
Demos (2004) has found that children’s well-being and the quality of the environment are
inextricably linked.
2.8
Play also keeps children physically fit. Children get as much exercise in free play as they do from
more structured activities. The government’s chief medical officer (2004) advises that ‘children
and young people should achieve a total of at least 60 minutes of at least moderate-intensity
physical activity each day.’
2.9
Risk-taking in unsupervised play is increasingly recognised as important for children’s
development. The Mental Health Foundation (1999) has said that opportunities for risk-taking in
unsupervised play help children build self-confidence and resilience – key protective factors for
mental health.
9
2.10
Given the decrease in opportunities for outside and unsupervised play,the report also recognises
the importance of supervised opportunities for play and the role of these services in supporting
children’s mental health.
2.11
Play also contributes to the wider community, making a vital contribution to social inclusion and
safety.
Barriers to play
2.12
Despite the increased recognition of the importance of play, there is growing evidence that
children’s opportunities to play are being restricted and eroded. Children are increasingly confined
indoors. They are battery-reared rather than free-range. Their world has shrunk.
2.13
Today, 25% of 8-10 year olds have never played out alone and children are losing connection with
the natural environment.
‘…as children get older, they need to be able to exercise, they need to be able to roam
(but) ‘the average area within which a child in Britain roams freely now has shrunk in one
generation to a ninth of what it used to be. We have just one acre of playgrounds for our
children for every 80 acres of golf courses.’
David Willetts MP
Shadow Education Secretary
Conservative Party Conference, October 2006
‘…I want a Britain where parents can let their children walk to school – or play in the park
– without incessant worry.’
Charles Kennedy MP
Former Leader
Liberal Party Conference September 2005
2.14
Barriers to play include:
• Increased and faster traffic and the dangers this poses
• Car parking in residential streets, leaving no room for play
• Perception that children and young people who play out by themselves are threatening and
that their behaviour is anti-social
• Fear of litigation by play providers resulting on a focus on minimizing risk of injury at the
expense of other more fundamental objectives
• Sterile play spaces
• Fear of child abduction and paedophilia
• The growth in popularity of electronic media- the average child in Britain watches more
television than children in any other European country, between three and five hours a day,
increasing to 7.5 hours in adolescence (Sigman, 2007)
• More structured activities after school
• Loss of public open space and natural outdoor open spaces (Gill, T. 2005)
• New housing built at high density as flats or as houses with very small gardens
• Poor access so that children with additional needs cannot participate
2.15
These barriers have serious implications for both children’s mental and physical well-being. The
loss of opportunity for spontaneous outdoor play is now one of the main causes of childhood
obesity, with a 50% increase in obesity in children during the last 10 years, (2003, Sproston and
Primatesta).
10
2.16
There is also evidence that not allowing children to take risk leads to anti-social behaviour in
adolescence.
The Mendip Play Policy Statement
2.17
The Mendip Play Partnership has agreed the following Mendip Play Policy Statement. It
incorporates the Mendip vision for play, the broad aims of the strategy, and statements on risk
and inclusive play.
Vision
2.18
The Play Partnership and Mendip District Council are committed to improving the quality and
accessibility of play opportunities for all children and young people throughout the District. Our
vision is to reduce barriers to play and to offer and maintain a range of environments and facilities
that are conducive to play. These should respond to the particular needs of the different towns
and villages across the area. They should make the most of the resources, opportunities and
constraints within the District.
2.19
We recognise the value of play as being of fundamental importance to childhood experience. Play
is a simple activity and is important in its own right, but it has a sophisticated role in children’s
lives.
Aims
2.20
The Mendip Play Strategy will enable us to do the following:
Opportunities for play:
•
To provide a choice of different play opportunities in rich, stimulating and challenging
environments (including through public realm and supervised or indoor play) in the most
appropriate locations
•
Identify and address barriers to children’s outdoor play
•
Ensure that play opportunities are accessible and inclusive
•
Provide play opportunities for all age ranges
•
Ensure that opportunities for play are free or affordable
•
Manage risk and concerns about safety effectively and in a way that accepts that children
need to take reasonable risk and which is not detrimental to the quality of play provision
•
Provide opportunities for play in a cost effective manner (both in the short and longer term)
•
Harness the contribution made by developers and business to play provision more
effectively
•
Ensure that play opportunities are accessible and include all sectors of the community,
including disabled children, those from ethnic minority groups and low income families and
other children who find it difficult to take part in ordinary play.
Policy / process:
•
Ensure a collaborative approach to decision-making about play across the range of play
providers in the district
•
Ensure that children are able to participate in decisions about play provision across the
district
•
Raise awareness about play across the district (including championing play).
11
Risk
In recent years, fear of litigation regarding accidents at play facilities has often
resulted in an approach which focuses on minimsing risk at the expense of
providing stimulating and challenging play environments. However, contrary to
popular belief, there has in fact been no epidemic of compensation claims. The
organisation PLAYLINK comissioned a legal opinion on negligence, play and risk
which stated:
“The proper approach to British or European standards is not to regard
them as laying down a compulsory standard to be followed slavishly in all
cases but as a guideline demonstrating the general consensus as to what
would constitute sensible precautions in any given case. If a rational
process of risk assessment, together with a balance of cost, risk and benefit
can justify departure, then there would be no failure to exercise reasonable
care.”
We recognise that children and young people need an element of reasonable risk
in play. Promoting risky play supports a successful childhood. The real risk lies in
not allowing children to take risk. The following points summarise the key issues
regarding risky play:
•
Children need and want to take risk
•
Safe does not mean accident-free
•
Assessment of risk in play should include consideration of benefits
as well as risks and costs
•
Children have an appetite for risk and adventure but may have to be
re-introduced to it. Play workers can help children to do this
•
Benign neglect of children has a real value – play away from the
adult gaze is enjoyable and essential
We will ensure that play in Mendip allows for reasonable risk and we support the
Statement of the Play Safety Forum: Managing risk in Play Provision (2002). This
states:
“Children need and want to take risks when they play. Play provision aims
to respond to these needs and wishes by offering children stimulating,
challenging environments for exploring and developing their abilities. In
doing this, play provision aims to manage the level of risk so that children
are not exposed to unacceptable risks of death or serious injury”. .
At the same time, we recognise that child protection is an important issue and
support training for play volunteers and others in this area
Inclusive play:
The impact of the decline in play opportunities particularly affects disabled children
and children who are otherwise disadvantaged, such as those from black, minority
ethnic backgrounds, children in care and those with housing problems. For these
children, access to free and enjoyable play spaces is especially important. We will
ensure that play opportunities in Mendip are open and accessible to all, and take
positive action in removing barriers so that those with additional needs can
participate. Mendip District Council is committed to implementing the Kids Inclusion
Framework for Local Authorities (2005) where appropriate. This Framework is
discussed further in Chapter Three.
12
‘Inclusive provision is open and accessible to all, and takes positive action in
removing disabling barriers so that disabled and non-disabled children can
participate,’
Alison John, Kids Charity
Somerset Play Policy Framework
2.21
The Somerset Play Policy Framework (2005) has directly informed the Mendip Play Policy. This
document was produced by the Somerset Play Forum and agreed as policy by the Somerset
Children & Young People’s Partnership and forms a vital part of the County’s work to deliver the
Five Every Child Matters Outcomes for all children and young people across Somerset. It sets a
course for developing the County-wide Play Strategy and for working closely with the five districts
to support the development of local play strategies.The Framework is set out below:
2.22
The Somerset Children & Young People’s Partnership resolves to promote play by:
•
Improving Access and Environment: Ensuring that all children have access to rich,
inclusive, stimulating and challenging environments, free from inappropriate risk.
•
Involving Children and Young People: Working in partnership with children and
young people to listen to their views, respond to their needs and to include them in the
delivery and evaluation of play opportunities.
•
Including Risk: Accepting that children have an innate desire to seek out opportunities
to take risks as part of growing up. We will respond positively to this by extending the
range of environments and opportunities available for children’s play while continuing to
have due regard for their physical and psychological well being. SCYPP adopts the
position statement; ‘Risk and Safety: Managing risk in play provision’ produced by the
Play Safety Forum as an addition to a play policy.
•
Reducing Barriers: Recognising that there are many factors in modern life that have
led to a reduction in children’s outdoor play. SCYPP is committed to taking a crosscutting view on how to compensate children for the loss of informal and formal play
opportunities.
•
Promoting the Value of Play: Working through Somerset Play Forum to ensure that all
those whose decisions affect children’s play are fully aware of the value of play and the
need to take positive action to promote play. Key stakeholders will become part of an
Implementation Group hosted by Somerset Play Forum who will take this policy forward
and devise a cross-cutting detailed play strategy for Somerset.
•
Working in Partnership: Ensuring that the promotion of better play opportunities for
ALL children is a central component of the Children & Young People’s Single Plan.
•
Championing Play: Identifying a member of SCYPP who will take a particular interest
in play.
•
Providing Support and Building Capacity: Looking at ways of supporting Playworkers
and the Play sector for example through better training and increasing the status of their
profession and by working through the Somerset Play Forum to find funding
opportunities for play.
13
14
Chapter Three: Context
Introduction
3.1
The Play Strategy exists within international, European, national and sub-regional policy contexts.
The purpose of this chapter is to set out the case for play within these.
The international context
3.2
The United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. Article 31.1 commits the Government
to recognising the child’s right to play and participate fully in cultural and artistic life. Under the
Convention, children have a right to expect that their needs and wishes will be taken into account
in the provision of local services.
3.3
The Convention states that signatory countries should:
• recognise the right of the child to rest and leisure, to engage in play and recreational
activities appropriate to the age of the child and to participate freely in cultural life and the
arts
•
respect and promote the right of the child to participate fully in cultural and artistic life and
encourage the provision of appropriate and equal opportunities for cultural artistic,
recreational and leisure activities1.
The UK ratified this article in 1992.
3.4
The European Union Green Paper on ‘Promoting Healthy Diets and Physical Activity’ (2005)
emphasises the importance of promoting physical activity amongst children and youngsters. The
EU aims to make a contribution by helping to identify and spread best practice amongst the
member states. The paper acknowledges the importance of the media and advertising, transport
and education as well as the provision of play facilities.
3.5
The Green Paper and its consultation form the first phase in the development of a European
Strategy on Nutrition and Physical Activity. The Green Paper represents one of a number of
consultations planned in the course of strategy development. Others include the meeting of the
EU Platform for Action on Diet, Physical Activity and Health, the WHO Ministerial meeting in
Istanbul, and meetings of the Nutrition and Physical Activity Network. Any local strategy should
work within this context.
The national context
3.6
The Department of Culture, Media and Sport takes the lead on promoting play. However, intersectoral responsibility is to be encouraged and a number of other departments are also involved,
including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The Department for Education and Skills
The Department for Communities and Local Government
The Department of Health
HM Treasury
The Home Office
The Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; and
The Department for Transport.
15
3.7
The Department for Culture, Media and Sport recently produced a document summarising what
each of these departments is doing to promote play. ‘Time for Play’ outlines the department’s
policy on play and suggests ways in which local authorities can carry forward national objectives
for play, as well as how to use funds already allocated to play provision from central government..
3.8
Other key policies are the Children’s Agenda (Every Child Matters), the Health Agenda, and the
Communities Agenda.
Children’s Services
3.9
The Government’s Every Child Matters Agenda encourages far-reaching co-operation and action
to promote the well-being of children, families and communities through statutory guidance and
the 2004 Children Act. The Every Child Matters outcomes are to:
•
•
•
•
•
Be healthy
Stay safe
Enjoy and achieve
Make a positive contribution
Achieve economic well-being.
3.10
The Every Child Matters Green Paper (2003) recognised that ‘communities in which children and
their families live have a fundamental impact on their lives. Children who grow up in communities
scarred by crime and violence, and lacking safe activities, are severely disadvantaged’.
3.11
The Green Paper tackled issues surrounding children and their welfare including parental duties
and rights and childcare. It introduced Sure Start, a programme to deliver the best start in life for
every child which brings together: early education, childcare, health and family support. It also
created a Children, Young People and Families Minister.
3.12
Every Child Matters underwent lengthy consultation. Children and young people said that it was
important to have communities where there is ‘somewhere safe to go and something to do’. Play
is central to this issue.
3.13
The Children’s Act (2004) took forward the ideas in the Green Paper. ‘Every Child Matters:
Change for Children’ is the government’s strategy and policy document based upon the Act.
3.14
The key emphasis of the Act and Every Child Matters is joined-up thinking on children’s services.
For example, Children’s Centres provide multi-agency services that are flexible and meet the
needs of young children and their families. The core offer includes integrated early learning, care,
family support, health services, outreach services to children and families not attending the Centre
and access to training and employment advice. Mendip has one Children’s Centre in Frome and
five more are planned around the district.
3.15
This cross sectoral working is essential with regard to play provision. Key benefits of play include
education and very importantly health, where physical activity is a key factor.
3.16
The Every Child Matters agenda and the Children’s Act require all local authorities, and
specifically County and District Councils to work with external partners and the community to
provide services for young people and children. This is reinforced through the Audit Commission
and Best Value regime. The Act puts a statutory duty on local authorities to provide for a
children’s play and recreation network. Section 10 of the Act states:
“Each children's services authority [including District Councils] … must make arrangements
to promote co-operation between, the authority; each of the authority's relevant partners;
and such other persons or bodies as the authority consider appropriate…”
16
Section 10(2) specifically highlights access to well-being and recreation:
“The arrangements are to be made with a view to improving the well-being of children in the
authority's area so far as relating to … physical and mental health and emotional well-being;
education, training and recreation; the contribution made by them to society …”.
3.17
There is a clear responsibility for District Councils to take an active role in play.
Additional needs
Disability Discrimination Act
3.18
The 1995 Act sets out the basic legal duties in promoting equality for disabled people. Part 3 of
the DDA requires service providers (including play settings) to make ‘reasonable adjustments’ to
‘policy, practice and procedures’ and, since October 2004, to physical features of their buildings.
Under the Special Educational Needs and Disabilities Act (2001), duties were extended to
schools including playtime and after school clubs. Since April 2005, the revised Act has widened
the definition of disability and imposed a new duty on all public bodies and local authorities to
promote disability equality.
The National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services (2004)
3.19
The disabled children’s standard specifically states: ‘Disabled children are able to access all
mainstream children’s services. These promote active participation and inclusion in childhood,
family and community activities.’
Children Act 2004
3.20
Achievement of the Every Child Matters outcomes has to demonstrate improvement of services
for all children and young people- including disabled children.
Kids Inclusion Framework for Local Authorities (2005)
3.21
This document, produced by Kids and the Playwork Inclusion Project, sets out the key areas for
local authorities to address in promoting and supporting inclusive settings. It also provides
guidance on establishing policies, structures, systems and staffing that promote inclusion, as well
as a framework allowing local solutions in local circumstances
Health agenda
3.22
The Department of Health White Paper ‘Choosing Health’ (2004) sets out new initiatives to
promote physical activity and sport inside and outside school. One of its targets is the reduction of
obesity in children.
3.23
The White Paper acknowledges that, overall, many children appear to have fewer opportunities
for physical activity;
“Increasingly, evidence shows that children do not play out as much as they used to and
that opportunities for free play are restricted”.
3.24
The NHS recommends that just half an hour of play daily is enough strengthen bones and
muscles and prevent children putting on weight.
17
Communities and public realm
3.25
The Green Spaces, Better Places (DTLR 2002) report written by the Urban Green Spaces
Taskforce found that young people are often represented as the perpetrators of crime yet they see
themselves as the victims of anti-social behaviour.
3.26
The report also found that young people are very concerned about issues of maintenance in parks
and green spaces. Despite the popularity of parks and green spaces, the report revealed that
there had been a worrying decline in the quality of far too many urban parks
and green spaces. Action was urgently needed if they were to deliver their many benefits.
3.27
The report said that urban parks and green spaces needed to serve the whole community,
especially children and young people. The report suggested sources other than local authority
funding would be needed to help deliver new resources.
3.28
The report concluded that there was a need for training and skills for managers and staff, local
groups and volunteers. There was also a need for more partnership working and community
involvement and a more coordinated approach at national level to guide local green space
strategies.
Planning Policy
3.29
Planning Policy Statement 3: ’Housing’ (2006) places a new emphasis on play space in housing
development. It states that, particularly where family housing is proposed, it will be important to
ensure that the needs of children are taken into account and that there is good provision of
recreational areas, including private gardens, play areas and informal play space. These should
be well designed, safe, secure and stimulating areas with safe pedestrian access.
3.30
Planning Policy Guidance 17 ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ (2002) states that
authorities are required to carry out open space audits. In Mendip, this has been undertaken as
part of preparations for the Local Development Framework. PPG17 audits are limited in their
scope, being concerned strictly, with open space but not necessarily the quality of play areas or
local neighbourhood areas used for play. They do not cover neighbourhood streets and the
general public realm.
Transport
3.31
The Department of Transport Child Road Safety Strategy (2007) incorporates a specific action
point on the creation of safe routes to play areas (Action 16).It also includes a target to introduce
more 20mph zones in residential areas, as well as a need to consider other traffic calming
measures and changes to street layouts to minimise through traffic in areas where children are
active.
3.32
A Homezone is a street or group of streets within an urban area which are designed to primarily
meet the interests of pedestrians and cyclists rather than motor vehicles, enabling the street to
operate primarily as a space for social use and play. There is policy and legal support for
Homezones from the DfT and government. Primary enabling legislation came out of section 268
of the 2000 Transport Act which enables Local Authorities to promote and develop them. DfT
Circular 02/2006 provides the regulations to enable Homezones.
3.33
The Department of Transport’s ‘Manual for Streets’ (2007) highlights Homezones as one of a
number of measures which can be used at the local level to improve the built environment,
making spaces for communities to share and informal space for children to play.
18
Education
3.34
Extended schools are central to the government’s child agenda and referred to throughout Every
Child Matters.
3.35
The Department for Children, Schools and Families defines an extended school as ‘one that
provides a range of activities and services, often beyond the school day, to help meet the needs
of its pupils, their families and the wider community’. Full Service Extended Schools work with
other agencies to provide a range of activities such as lifelong learning, health and social care,
child care and ICT facilities. The childcare element of this is relevant to supervised play.
Climate Change
3.36
‘Warming to the Idea’ is the South West Climate Change Partnership’s Scoping Study, published
in 2003. It sets out the anticipated effects of climate change for the region and looks at actions
needed to adapt to, and mitigate, changes. The anticipated effects of climate change can be
summarised as:
•
•
•
•
3.37
Hotter drier summers
Milder wetter winters
More frequent storm events
Increased flooding
The study sets out the need for action to prepare for the anticipated effects of climate change.
Play Strategies
3.38
The Department for Culture, Media and Sports’, ‘Getting Serious About Play: a review of
children’s play’, published in 2004, was the first full national review of children’s play and covered
the whole of the United Kingdom.
3.39
The review advised the government on lottery funding for play and recommended that: ‘authorities
should take the opportunity... to improve the planning and operation of play facilities across their
area... in partnership with other local agencies, children and young people and local
communities...’
3.40
The Getting Serious About Play document is one of the key drivers behind the production of the
Play Strategy.
3.41
In spring 2005, the Big Lottery Fund announced a strategic funding programme for play provision
in England to the sum of £155 million, to be based broadly on the recommendations of this review.
The Big Lottery Fund has ringfenced funds for every local authority in England on production of a
play strategy which meets the requirements of their guidance (Planning for Play 2006).
Safety
3.42
The Play Safety Forum, a grouping of national agencies involved in play safety, has produced
‘Managing Risk in Play Provision’ to support the work of those involved in play provision of any
kind, including local authorities. Its summary statement says: ‘Children need and want to take
risks when they play. Play provision aims to respond to these needs and wishes by offering
children stimulating, challenging environments for exploring and developing their abilities. In doing
this, play provision aims to manage the level of risk so that children are not exposed to
unacceptable risk of death or serious injury’.
3.43
This statement is supported by the Mendip Play Policy.
19
Performance measurements
3.44
The Best Value system aims to measure the performance of services and value for money
provided by local authorities. Best Value is an important part of the assessment process for local
authorities. In the past, the key Best Value indicator used for play was L61: “The number of
playgrounds and play areas provided by the council, per 1,000 children under 12.” This approach
is now considered somewhat dated, and a new indicator will be developed following the
publication of the play strategy which takes into account quantity, quality and accessibility.
3.45
Although these BVPI are linked to specific outputs, there are a number of other indicators that the
Audit Commission uses to assess performance including education, health and social services.
Play has a role in fulfilling these responsibilities. The Audit Commission now includes Local
Performance Indicator LIB 115:Development and Implementation of Corporate Play Policy:
Assessing Your Progress which sets out criteria relating to the status of the local authority’s
policy and strategy. This indicator is discussed further in Chapter 10: Evaluation.
3.46
The Audit Commission also carries out Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) and
Joint Area Reviews (JAR). The Audit Commission’s 2006 audit of Cultural Services in Mendip
found that overall service was ‘good’ and had some useful specific comments on play:
“The Council makes a strong contribution to many local, regional, and national priorities.
Cultural services effectively target locally identified health needs and understand the role
that they play in developing safer and stronger communities.”
Some town and parish councils have also been involved in agreeing standards for play
areas. However, this is not consistent across all aspects of cultural services.””
3.47
The Play Strategy can help the Council in achieving both its own objectives and the requirements
of the CPA.
Joint Area Review
3.48
As part of the Every Child Matters agenda, the school inspectorate Oftsed has carried out a Joint
Area Review (2007) of the Somerset county area. Joint Area Reviews evaluate how local
services work together to contribute to the achievements, progress and well-being of children and
young people with reference to the Children’s Act. Not do only the reviews assess local authority
services, but they will also look at a wider range of agencies and organisations, including social
care, prisons, youth services, Connexions services and provision for students aged to 19.
3.49
Ofsted inspected Somerset between November and December 2006 and reported in March 2007.
Play was considered in the review. Ofsted found that most children’s services in Somerset were
good or excellent. Play provision was considered under the wider objectives of health and
education. The review considered that in terms of encouraging physical activity Somerset did a
good job of encouraging it through schools.
Policy Context in Somerset
3.50
Somerset Children and Young People’s Partnership (SCYPP) is the ‘Children’s Trust’ for
Somerset, and forms part of the county’s Children and Young People’s Service. The SCYPP is
the statutory body required to be set up by the Children Act 2004.
3.51
The Somerset Children and Young People’s Plan 2006 - 2009 is produced by the Somerset
Children and Young People Service (2006). The plan covers children and young people between
0-19 years old and those with learning difficulties up to 25.
20
3.52
The plan has a much wider remit than just play, and includes a wide range of objectives such as
those of the NHS and Police. It forms the main co-ordination and implementation strategy for
Extended Schools and ‘wraparound’ childcare. The plan also covers Children’s Centres.
3.53
The Plan recognises play as an important element of services to young people. The plan has six
objectives, some of which are relevant to play:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Being healthy in Somerset
Staying safe in Somerset
Enjoying and achieving in Somerset
Making a positive contribution in Somerset
Achieving economic well-being in Somerset
Service management.
3.54
The Somerset Play Policy Framework (2005) was produced by the Somerset Play Forum. The
framework forms a basis for the development of a county-wide play strategy and for supporting
the five districts in the development of their Play Strategies. The Framework can be found in the
introduction to this document.
3.55
Somerset County Council Children and Young People’s Services (SCYPS) organises Somerset
into ten ‘localities’, clustered around schools and towns. Each cluster has multi-professional
teams, and a paid locality manager, these aim to involve children, young people and parents in
provision and co-ordinate efforts by different sections of both councils. Locality development is
concerned with collaborative effort between schools and other agencies, making best use of
resources and mediating referrals.
3.56
The SCYPS is made up of a number of groups and agencies including children’s centres,
community and child mental health workers, drug prevention workers, youth services,
Connexions, youth inclusion support workers, health visitors and child protection. There is a link
between the provision of such services and play, especially with regard to Extended Schools.
3.57
The Somerset County Youth Service, a part of the SCYPS, provides support and promotion for a
number of social and activity clubs in Somerset. Not only does this service include youth clubs
and centres, but club nights for under 18s and activity clubs.
Local Area Agreements
3.58
Local Area Agreements (LAAs) set out the priorities for local areas and are agreed between
central government and most commonly, the local authority or Local Strategic Partnership, as well
as other key partners at the local level. In Somerset the Districts and County have worked
together to co-ordinate efforts for the second round LAA.
3.59
LAAs relate to the Revenue Support Grants local authorities receive to fund services from central
government. In the Somerset LAA (2006), a number of indicators exist for measuring the relative
outcomes. With specific reference to play, the shared objective across the county is ‘to improve
the emotional, physical and mental health of children and young people in Somerset and to
promote healthier and more enjoyable lifestyles’. There are also targets to increase physical
activity, sport and cultural opportunities for 0-19 year olds and to increase physical activity and
reduce sedentary lifestyles in adults (including over 16’s). The LAA identifies some sources of
funding (funding is discussed in chapter 6).
21
Local Area Working Panels
3.60
Local Area Working Panels are forums through which frontline Councillors can take direct control
over County Council spending within local communities. This means that spending can be
directed where it will really make a difference. The initial budget is equivalent to £15,000 per
councillor per year. Mendip’s budget is £180,000. This will increase as the LAWPs develop .This
budget is to be spent on priorities that are common to both the Somerset Local Area Agreement
(LAA) and the local level plans of the communities covered by the Area Working Panel
(Community Strategy, Parish Plans etc).The LAWP itself is made up of the County Councillors as
voting Members. It operates at District LSP level but is likely to want to develop structures at
community neighbourhood level.
Mendip Context
Geography and population
3.61
Mendip is a rural district in the north eastern part of Somerset containing the settlements of
Frome, Glastonbury, Shepton Mallet, Street and Wells. There are 62 parishes. The District covers
a large area of 285 square miles ranging from the limestone summits of the Mendip Hills to the
broad expanse of the Somerset Levels.
3.62
The District is located between Yeovil to the south, the cities of Bristol and Bath to the north, and
the M5 corridor to the west. The towns of Trowbridge and Warminster abut the district to the east.
3.63
About 108,000 people live in Mendip. There are 26,380 children and young people under the age
of 20, the majority of whom live in the main settlements.
3.64
Between 1991 and 2001, the population grew by 6.4%. This is comparable with the growth in
Somerset and higher than the regional average. In Mendip, this increase was due to natural
change in the population and net migration. Migration to the area shows that it is a popular choice
to come to live, particularly by people from the south-east, reflecting its high quality environment,
its robust economy and quality of life.
3.65
Population projections (ONS, 2003) for Mendip suggest that the number of persons aged 0-14
will remain stable. The working age population will increase, but not as rapidly as the 65 plus age
group. This will have the overall effect of an aging population.
3.66
Mendip is a relatively prosperous area with full employment. However, there are pockets of
deprivation in wards such as Glastonbury St Benedict’s, the third most deprived ward in
Somerset, Glastonbury St Edmunds, Frome Welshmill, Frome Keyford and Shepton East.
3.67
Frome is the largest settlement in Mendip with a population of 24,500 people. It contains the
greatest number of jobs, shops and leisure and cultural facilities of all the Mendip towns.
3.68
Street is the second largest settlement with a population of about 11,100 people. Wells is the third
largest of the settlements, with a population of 10,400 people. Shepton Mallet has a population of
9,000 people. Glastonbury is the smallest of the towns (8,800 people), although only marginally
smaller than Shepton Mallet.
3.69
Mendip’s villages are all very different and range in size and the level of services they have
(including public transport). Evercreech, Coleford and Chilcompton are the largest villages with
populations between 2000 – 2300 people.
22
The Mendip Community Strategy
3.70
The Mendip Strategic Partnership (MSP) is responsible for producing the Mendip Community
Strategy (2005). The MSP is made up of the council, and key local stakeholders from the public,
private and community sectors. The community strategy is a vehicle for achieving a vision for
Mendip, based upon extensive consultation.
3.71
The Community Strategy has a number of the key priorities to which the Play Strategy can
contribute, including:
•
•
•
•
•
•
3.72
The shorter term priority, ‘investing in children and young people’
‘Environment’; improving the built environment
‘Ways to learn’; lifelong learning opportunities
‘Feeling safe’; improving the safety of existing facilities
‘Sense of community’; contributing to active vibrant areas
Staying well.
One of the key themes of the Community Strategy is ‘Things to Do’. The long term aims relating to
this theme include reducing anti-social behaviour through leisure, encouraging outdoor pursuits
and increased activity and participation to address wider health benefits to communities.
Mendip Strategic Partnership Climate Change Strategy
3.73
The Mendip Strategic Partnership adopted its Climate Change Strategy in May 2007. It aims to
ensure that organisations begin to think about mitigation measures, reducing the causes of
climate change, and adaptation, to future proof the District against the expected impacts of
climate change. It identifies;
•
•
•
3.74
The need to adapt planting to take account of summer droughts and hotter temperatures
The need to plan for increased flooding and flash flooding
The need to consider measures to reduce the possibility of skin cancer due to increased
exposure to the sun.
The Strategy suggests that all partner organisations, including Mendip District Council, should
consider how they can help to tackle climate change in all their plans, strategies and action plans.
Somerset County Youth Service Mendip Area Plan 2006-2007
3.75
Priorities include: Engage fully in the transition to Locality Team working in Frome and prepare for
the introduction of two other Locality Teams in Mendip; maintain centre-based provision and
develop the programmes on offer to reflect young people’s needs, taking into account the
changing emphasis brought about by Locality Team working and Youth Matters developments;
continue to develop the degree of participation by young people in the delivery of services and
their communities; increase uptake by young people in the delivery of services and in their
communities. Objectives under Every Child Matters Outcomes: Enjoying and achieving- maintain
centre-based provision and develop appropriate programmes: continue building improvements i.e.
Shepton Mallet YCC, pursue a permanent base for youth work in Shepton Mallet; review Disability
Discrimination Act compliance in buildings; review balance of youth work delivery methods in
youth centres; increase summer holiday provision; develop Street Young People’s Centre building
(£200,000 secured for works and planning completed).
Somerset Primary Care Trust- Strategy to Improve Health and Reduce Inequalities
3.76
There is no specific mention of play. However, one of the themes is: supporting families, mothers
and children. General interventions include: preventing and maintaining risk factors such as poor
23
diet and obesity, physical inactivity and high blood pressure; improving the quality and
accessibility of antenatal care and early years support in disadvantaged areas – building on the
lessons of Sure Start. Families, mothers and children are to be supported through several actions
including: developing multi-disciplinary family support teams that reflect the needs of local children
and families, drawing on and developing the skills of local parents and community workers as well
as those of a range of health and social care workers.
The role of the District Council
3.77
Districts are seen as a key part of play and young people’s policy .District councils have a clear
duty to provide play through the Children’s Act and national performance indicators.
Mendip Corporate Plan 2006-2009
3.78
The corporate plan includes a particular objective which is relevant to the provision of play in the
District. Objective 8 looks to: Increase participation in cultural activities within the District.
3.79
In Mendip, the District Council‘s Street and Landscape Services department is responsible for the
development of skate parks,and inspections and management of equipped play areas and
adoption of open space and equipped play areas. It has budgets for developing and upgrading
play and for maintenance and inspection. It has little involvement in supervised play. There is
currently no play officer or one person at Mendip who is dedicated to play.
Mendip Street and Landscape Services Business Plan (2007)
3.80
The Business Plan identifies as a risk the lack of asset acquisition/management strategy for open
space and equipped play areas leading to risk of accidents and/or additional cost.
It states that this is assessed as a Low – Medium Risk issue with Play and Open Space strategies
being developed in line with best practice. These strategies are due for completion by summer
2007. Work on the Local Development Framework is also underway which will provide the
strategic structure for managing this risk.
3.81
A key Street and Landscape Services objective is to “increase participation & opportunity for
recreation and healthy fulfilling lifestyles for all”. It is identified that this links directly to corporate
objectives and priorities. The business plan states “adopted play and open space strategies will
increase the quality of facilities and link to the priority of: Communities & individuals are
encouraged & supported to improve the quality of their life”
3.82
One of the key business plan actions relating to play is also identified in the Corporate plan – “To
complete and deliver Mendip's play and open space strategies”. Targets include that an agreed
play strategy is adopted by August 2007 and that a BIG lottery fund for play (grant of £214,000)
application is to be made by September 2007.
3.83
Another key action is “to increase the quality of children’s play / parks in conjunction with partners
(parishes/developers)”. The target identified for this action is to establish suitable performance
measures through the development of the play / open spaces strategies.
Local Plan (2002) and emerging Local Development Framework
3.84
Other service areas have implications for play. The Big Lottery Fund’s ‘Planning for play’ guidance
emphasises the importance of linking the play strategy to other local policy documents. Of
particular relevance is the emerging Local Development Framework.
3.85
The Local Plan s (2002) Policy Q2– Protection of Spaces and Open Areas of Visual Significance
states that permission will not be granted for development which would harm the contribution to
distinctive local character made by a space or open area of visual significance. Policy SN724
Recreation Space and Facilities for New Housing Developments sets out requirements for
children’s playing space according to the National Playing Fields Association standard at the ratio
of 0.60-0.8ha per 1000 population. The preferred options for the emerging Local Development
Framework’s Core Strategy include a policy for high quality and inclusive design. This states that
development should be designed to taken into account a number of issues, including the
distinction between public and private space and the need for attractive, safe and well-functioning
open spaces, including play space for children. The Council is considering producing
supplementary design guidance.
25
26
Chapter Four: Developing the Play Strategy
Overall approach
4.1
The Mendip Play Strategy has been developed through a partnership approach, led by Mendip
District Council, with support from Baker Associates. A robust audit of play spaces and supervised
play forms the foundation of the work. The principles of stakeholder involvement and consultation
have been central to the process.
4.2
The work has been carried out in parallel with the preparation of The Mendip Open Space
Strategy (carried out in order to fulfill the requirements of Planning Policy Guidance 17) and the
Mendip Playing Pitch Strategy, and this has involved an element of overlap in the process of
auditing and developing indicators and standards.
Step by step process
4.3
The play strategy has been developed over a period of 10 months, using a three stage process
drawing on that recommended by the Children’s Play Council and the Big Lottery Fund in the
guidance document ‘Planning for Play (2006)’. This step by step process is summarised in the box
below:
Stage 1. Preparation and scoping
A. Identifying Stakeholders
• Identify a lead officer and play champion
• Capacity building work within MDC to draw attention to the need for the play
strategy
• Identify a play partnership group and hold first play partnership meeting to
agree Terms of Reference, vision and play policy statement, and scope of work.
B. Agreeing community involvement processes
• Review existing community engagement work to identify key messages to be
taken forward in broad aims and objectives for the strategy
• Planning consultation process for stage 2.
C. Desk Studies
• Conducting a literature review
• Establishing the policy context at a national, regional and local level, including a
review of local plans and policies that provide for play across different sectors.
Stage 2: Review
A. Auditing play provision
• Auditing the play sector and supervised play (who provides play and how,
including
funding mechanisms)
• Auditing provision of play spaces.
B. Second Play Partnership meeting to review the audit and draw out key messages
and priorities for consultation.
C. Carry out consultation – testing the emerging strategic priorities with children and
young people.
Stage 3: Agreement and reporting
A. Drawing together results and developing local standards
B. Preparation of the draft strategy, action plan and evaluation framework
C. Consultation with stakeholders (including 3rd play partnership meeting)
D. Produce final Strategy.
27
4.4
A key element of the work has been the audit of existing play spaces and supervised play. This is
the first time that play facilities and opportunities have been comprehensively audited in the
District in this way and it provides the baseline for future work. There will be a need for regular
audits to monitor change, especially with regard to standards and indicators. More detailed
information on the methods used during this stage of the process is set out in Chapter 4: Current
play in Mendip.
4.5
More detailed information on the consultation process carried out with children and young people
to test the emerging strategic priorities is included within chapter 5. Consultation: Consulting for
the Play Strategy: Asking at Ammerdown.
4.6
The County Play Policy Implementation Group meetings enable the Districts to work together and
share ideas to develop strategies in a coordinated manner across the County. These discussions
have helped shape this Strategy.
The Play Partnership group
4.7
When work on the strategy began, there was no pre-existing play partnership group in Mendip.
Establishing a play partnership from scratch has perhaps been the most difficult task in
developing the strategy. A considerable amount of work was carried out by the Council in the
early stages of the strategy in capacity building for the partnership. Awareness of, and
commitment to, the group has grown throughout the process.
4.8
The Play Partnership Group was set up with the initial task of guiding and contributing to the
development of the strategy. The partnership approach was intended to:
•
Ensure that all those who have an interest in providing play in the area were able to
contribute to its development
•
Improve the quality of information on local play opportunities and ensure that all the
relevant issues in Mendip were addressed
•
Strengthen and build local relationships for the future implementation and delivery of
play opportunities
The group is made up of 29 representatives of public, private and voluntary sector organisations
working in Mendip (see box below). This includes two members with specific interest in inclusion.
In addition, a number of other stakeholders are kept up to date on the development and content of
the strategy.
4.9
Three play partnership meetings have been held during the development of the play strategy. The
specific tasks carried out by the partnership have been to:
•
Agree the process for developing the strategy
•
Help develop and agree a vision for play, the broad aims of the strategy, and a play
policy statement
•
Agree the scope of the strategy and what should be audited
•
Comment on the results of the audit
•
Agree the approach for consultation and engaging children and young people
•
Identify whether there are any emerging projects which should be included in the
strategy
•
Comment on the draft strategy content and action plan
•
Agree the final document.
4.10
Following the publication and adoption of the final play strategy, it is anticipated that the play
partnership will provide an important resource for the future as relationships strengthen and
networking opportunities increase. The formation of an implementation group will now be
reviewed.
28
Mendip Play partnership
Group Membership (May 2007)
Mendip District Council
Cllr Alistair Glanvile (Chair), Portfolio Holder
Ruth Miles, Streets and Landscape Services
Rob Thurston, Streets and Landscape Services
Hayley Bullock, Community Sports and Leisure officer
Keith Bush, Disabilities and Equality Officer
Cathy Day, Streets and Landscape Services
Jennie Wheeler, Priority Leader, Community and Regeneration (Housing)
Tracey Kenyon, Active Lifestyle Officer
Somerset County Council
Lee Constable, Play Safety Officer
Mark Holden, Somerset Youth Service
Kay Farley, Disabilities Officer
Leanne Rayner, Childcare Advisor
Town and Parish Councils
Cllr Joyce Smith, Street Parish Council
Maggy Edwards, Frome Town Council
Jacqueline Peverley, Frome Town Council and Frome Recreation and Open Ground
Supporters
Sue Wilthew, Frome Town Council (Clerk)
Jane Czonij, Glastonbury Town Council
Cllr Higgins , MDC and Glastonbury Town Council
Cllr Margaret Robinson, MDC and Shepton Mallet Town Council
Voluntary sector and other organisations
Michael Hammond, Barnardos / Somerset Play Forum
Andy Gilbert, Somerset Rural Youth Project
John Stow, Community Programme Manager, Somerset Rural Youth project
Ken Marsh / Richard Young, Somerset Playing Fields Association
Cheryl Norton, District Commissioner, Guides Association
PC Adam Brown, Frome Community Police
PC Simon Selby, Avon and Somerset Constabulary /Wells Town Council
Antony Ware, Avon and Somerset Police
Elaine Pugsley, Link Project Manager, NCH Family Support Services, Mendip and
South Somerset
Alice McColl, BANES Play Strategy and Frome Recreation and Open Ground
Supporters
Jane Whitcombe, Children's Advisor to the Diocese of Bath and Wells
Debbie Harvey, The Children's Society
Michelle Hawkes, Somerset PCT
Consultants
Claire Mitcham, Baker Associates planning consultants
Serena Ralston, Baker Associates planning consultants
29
30
Chapter Five: Current Play in Mendip
5.1
A central component of the play strategy is an audit of existing play opportunities and facilities
within Mendip District. The broad aim of the audit is to provide a picture of what play opportunities
exist in Mendip and the extent to which they are fulfilling the needs of children and young people.
The audit has two key roles. It provides the evidence base for identifying where provision needs to
be improved or supplemented (i.e. the strategy priorities), and it sets the baseline for monitoring
and review of the strategy in the future.
5.2
The audit includes two elements; an audit of play spaces / open spaces suitable for play, and an
audit of supervised play opportunities. The following pages summarise briefly the methods used
and set out the key messages to emerge from the work. The full methods and analysis of the
results of the audit has been written up separately and are presented in Annex C. The audit of
play spaces also appears in the Open Space Strategy which forms a companion to this document.
Play Spaces
Assessment Methods
5.3
This part of the audit was combined with the audit of open spaces which was undertaken as part
of the work of the Mendip Open Space Strategy2. It was not confined to an audit of traditional or
formal play facilities, but went beyond this to look more comprehensively at the open space and
play resource across the District. . Specific criteria were developed in order to provide a consistent
basis for including sites in the audit and this included issues such as size thresholds and location.
Following the survey, analysis was carried out on the following:
•
A categorisation of play spaces into a ‘typology’
•
The quantity of spaces
•
The quality of spaces (including their play value)
•
The location and accessibility of spaces.
Typology of spaces
5.4
Following the site survey, the types of spaces found in Mendip were categorised into a ‘typology’.
Information on how this was done is set out in Appendix 1. The different ‘types’ of spaces were
then also classified according to a geographical hierarchy (i.e. strategic, neighbourhood, and
street level). Table 5.1 below sets out both the hierarchy and typology of spaces. The terms to
describe both types of spaces and the level of hierarchy have been used consistently throughout
the strategy.
Table 5.1 Typology and hierarchy of sites
With
facilities
Without
facilities
Level 1 sites
Strategic / Town wide
- Town park
(over 1 ha)
- Skate park
- Civic space
Level 2 sites
Neighbourhood
- Neighbourhood parks
(0.2ha – 1ha)
- Village Greens
- Playing fields &
pitches
(over 0.2ha)
- Natural spaces
- Large Amenity spaces
(over 0.2ha)
Level 3 sites
Local / street level
- Pocket parks
- Playground
- Kickabout area
- Public realm
- Small amenity site
(up to 0.2ha)
2
The Mendip Open Space Strategy forms a companion document to this document and provides further
information on the audit and strategy for open spaces generally across the District.
31
Quantity
5.5
Analysis to establish the quantity of play/open space across the District has identified the
following:
•
Overall quantity of play/open space by settlement against National Playing Field
Association Standards to identify settlements with quantity deficiencies;
•
Quantity by type of space for the five main settlements to identify dominant play/open
space types and deficiencies in each main settlement (this information is also available
for villages but is not presented here in order to keep the strategy succinct);
•
Quantity by ward population for the five main settlements
Appendix 3 indicates the location of play / open spaces within each settlement
Quality
5.6
‘Planning for Play’ advises that the quality of play spaces and opportunities should form part of the
play audit. The aim of the qualitative assessment should be to identify spaces / places that need
enhancement. Current advice is that authorities develop their own quality criteria and a series of
indicators has been developed to measure different elements of the quality of spaces in Mendip.
These are reproduced and explained in Appendix 2. In order to facilitate the analysis of sites, an
overall quality score has been calculated for each site based on 17 indicators which were able to
be assessed for all sites (note that issues such as use could not be assessed for all sites, and this
is explained further in Appendix 2 and Annex C). This overall quality score is as follows:
•
Poor quality: 4-6
•
Average quality: 7-9
•
Good quality: 10 – 12
Appendix 3 presents this information as map-based data for each settlement.
5.7
The quality of spaces has been assessed in the following ways:
•
Overall quality across Mendip and by settlement (using the overall quality score)
•
Overall quality by type of site (to identify whether the quality of a space is linked to type).
•
Use of sites
•
Comparing overall quality and use of sites
•
Age range suitability
•
Condition of facilities
•
Disabled access
•
Anti-social behaviour
Accessibility
5.8
This assessment addresses whether a space is accessible in terms of distance and directness
from where people live. Appendix 4 shows accessibility maps for each settlement surveyed.
Analysis has been carried out for each of the three levels of space hierarchy (strategic,
neighbourhood and local) for each of the main towns and for the villages. Open space buffers
have been used to identify spatial deficiencies in each settlement. These buffers represent
accessibility thresholds in terms of distances that people are likely to travel to reach facilities. (See
Annex C for more detail). The ‘coverage’ of catchment areas at different hierarchies of provision in
each settlement is measurable. Issues such as physical barriers (including busy roads and
railways) have been taken into account in addition to points of entry into all sites recorded in the
site survey.
32
Key Messages
5.9
A detailed analysis of the results of the assessments of Quantity, Quality and Accessibility is
presented in Annex C. This section summarises the key messages to emerge from the work for
Mendip as a district, for the individual towns and for the villages.
Results from across Mendip
5.10
5.11
Quantity
Key messages in relation to quantity were as follows:
•
Overall, Mendip has a ratio of 2.55 ha per 1000 population which is 0.15 ha higher than
the National Playing Field Association six acre standard of 2.4 ha per 1000.
•
This masks significant fluctuations in provision within main settlements and villages in
Mendip District.
Quality
Key messages in terms of quality were as follows:
•
The overall picture is of play and open space sites that are broadly acceptable in quality
terms but which tend towards the lower end of ‘average’; quality could be improved.
•
Across the towns, Shepton Mallet scored highest in overall quality, whilst Street and
Wells scored lowest
•
Overall quality varies in villages, although most fell into the ‘average’ category
•
Sites which scored highly on the overall quality analysis tended to display one or more of
the following attributes or characteristics:
Larger sites, serving a wider range of people,
with variety and stimulation
Different things to do, and serving different age
groups
33
Distractions or natural features that provide
opportunities for creative play
At the local level, linear spaces, or spaces
which link up to form routes
Spaces which provide focal points in the public
realm
Spaces which are well overlooked and easily
accessible for play
Spaces where creativity is allowed /
encouraged
Secret places (although there can be a tension
between children’s need for their own places
and parents need for visibility)
34
Sites which scored poorly on the overall quality analysis tended to display one or more of the
following attributes or characteristics:
Bland or 1 dimensional spaces
Spaces where games or play is discouraged
Spaces with high blank walls and fences,
especially in a poor condition
Spaces which are isolated or hidden away
behind houses with poor access
Spaces which lack natural features
Spaces with a neglected appearance
35
•
•
•
•
The matrix below (table 5.2) compares sites according to their typology by looking at the
quality of sites based on the overall quality assessment and the use of sites by type.
When looking at use and quality together, town parks and neighbourhood spaces were
most successful. Sites with facilities were generally more successful.
Least successful spaces in terms of quality and use were local spaces, especially those
without facilities, or with limited facilities (small and large amenity sites and playgrounds)
Higher order spaces tend to be better used (as expected – they serve a wider area).
Quality
Assessment
Table 5.2 Overall quality of sites compared with popularity (level of use)
High
Natural spaces
Neighbourhood pk
Town park
Small Amenity
Playing fields
Pocket park
Other
Village Green
Public Realm
Civic space
Large Amenity
Medium
Playground
Low
Low
Medium
High
Kickabout area
Skate park
Level of use
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
5.12
This pattern is mirrored in the 0-5 and 12-20 age groups – teenagers in particular travel
further to reach spaces
The 6 -11 age group is the largest user of spaces, and most prevalent at all levels of the
hierarchy. However this group is more likely to stay close to home, using the street,
public realm and local spaces
Very few sites contain facilities for all age ranges
There was only very limited specific provision for young people
At sites with play / leisure facilities, these were generally in good or average condition
At present, 45% of sites are considered suitable for disabled people – this provides a
useful benchmark for the future
Information on anti-social behaviour is absent for towns, as none of the town councils
responded to this part of the questionnaire, but this appears to be only a minor problem
in villages
Accessibility
Key messages in terms of accessibility were:
•
Overall, accessibility across main settlements and villages is subject to significant
variation
•
The accessibility by hierarchy level varies between all the main settlements
•
Village accessibility is greatly influenced by open space quantity and type in addition to
its location within the settlement.
36
Summary of issues and challenges across Mendip
The main issues and challenges that the strategy needs to address overall are:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
The total amount of provision is generally acceptable, but there is room for
improvement in the quality and accessibility of spaces, with some consequent gaps in
provision at strategic, neighbourhood and local levels
There are few spaces with natural features within towns and villages
Whilst larger sites perform well, many local and neighbourhood spaces do not –
especially small playgrounds and small amenity spaces – often because they are
poorly designed, hidden away and not integrated with the public realm in general
The 6-11 age group is the highest user of spaces, but tends to stay close to home –
the quality of local spaces is therefore of particular importance to this group
There is generally very limited provision for young people
The quality of provision could be improved through upgrading sites and changing the
type of provision on offer – examples include increasing natural features in spaces
and adding play and other facilities to playing fields and large amenity spaces
45% of sites were considered to have good accessibility for the disabled
Town summaries
Frome
5.13
Key messages for Frome can be summarised as follows:
Quantity
•
Has a high overall level of open / play space (more than any other town)
•
Has the lowest levels of strategic and neighbourhood park provision of any town – this is
compensated by a high level of playing fields, natural spaces and large amenity spaces
•
Has a reasonable level of local provision
•
Only 1 of 5 wards (Frome Park) has a level of provision below 2.4ha per 1000 population
•
Provision is relatively evenly spread across the wards
Quality
•
Overall, the quality of spaces was fairly evenly distributed between the different scores
or grades
•
There are a large number of sites of medium quality
•
Poorest quality sites were the smallest sites and often on housing estates – there are a
number of sites here where signs saying ‘no ball games’ tend to prevent children from
using the public realm for play
•
Highest quality sites were more central (town parks)
•
Town parks were the most well used of all the sites (this included a skate park)
•
Age range suitability was relatively evenly distributed, with the 6-11 age group slightly
better catered for
•
The DDA accessibility profile for MDC-owned sites with play facilities is skewed towards
medium and high accessibility
Accessibility
•
There is a significant gap in strategic level provision on the north-east side of the town
•
Neighbourhood level provision is weakest on the south-western side of the town
•
Coverage of local spaces is relatively even and considered average.
37
Summary of issues and challenges in Frome
The main issues and challenges that the strategy needs to address in Frome are:
Strategic provision
•
There is currently a gap in provision in the North-East of the town – there is no town
park providing for this area and no skate park.
Neighbourhood provision
•
There is a gap in the provision of neighbourhood parks in the South West, North East
and central areas
Local provision
•
There is a reasonable level of local provision but gaps inevitably exist. There is an
overall need to improve quality of provision. The poorest quality sites tended to be
smaller sites on housing estates. Since opportunities to create new space at this level
are inevitably limited, the challenge will be to improve the quality of provision from
existing sites and the public realm.
Glastonbury
5.14
Key messages for Glastonbury can be summarised as follows:
Quantity
•
Has a surplus of play / open space provision over the minimum standard
•
Has a reasonable level of strategic provision
•
Has the highest level of neighbourhood provision but a dearth of natural spaces
However, there is good access to local countryside at Glastonbury Tor and Wearyall Hill
to the south – this provides both strategic and neighbourhood provision
•
Has the least amount of local level space of all the main settlements
•
Has 2 of 4 wards below the minimum standard (both have steep topography).
Quality
•
Glastonbury had a high level of sites of both poor and good quality and fewer sites of
medium quality – overall, the quality was fairly average compared to other towns
•
There are no strong themes in terms of distribution but some of the poorer quality sites
were found on the edges of the town
•
Use was split between the town park and neighbourhood parks
•
The skate park was particularly popular
•
No one was seen using local spaces
•
Age range suitability was relatively evenly distributed
•
The DDA accessibility profile for MDC-owned sites with play facilities was skewed
towards medium and high accessibility
Accessibility
•
The town is generally well covered by strategic level provision, with the exception of the
northern extremity
•
The skate park is located at the southern extremity and poorly accessible from most of
the town
•
Three areas have poor access to neighbourhood level provision: the northern extremity,
the housing estate south of the town park, and an area in the centre of the town (the last
two are compensated by strategic level provision).
•
The low level of local provision is reflected in poor accessibility at this level
38
•
Provision for the northern extremity is least good.
Summary of issues and challenges in Glastonbury
The main issues and challenges that the strategy needs to address in Glastonbury are:
Strategic provision
•
The skate park is popular but aimed at more advanced users. Whilst it is a good
quality facility, it is poorly accessible. Its location and exclusivity risk undermining its
value to the local community
Neighbourhood provision
•
There is a gap in neighbourhood provision at the northern extremity of the town
Local provision
•
There are significant gaps in provision at the local level – Glastonbury has the least
provision at this level and there is an overall need to improve quality of provision.
However, since opportunities to create new space at this level are inevitably limited,
the challenge will be to improve the quality of provision from existing sites and the
public realm.
Street
5.15
Key messages for Street can be summarised as follows:
Quantity
•
Street is the only town that has a deficit of open space provision (5.3ha) compared with
the national standard, and this is quite significant
•
Street is the only town with no skate park provision
•
There is a good proportion of strategic provision in the form of a large ‘town park’ north
of the bypass, but this has the character of a large playing field with additional facilities,
rather than a park
•
Has more neighbourhood parks than any other town but low levels of other
neighbourhood provision and has no natural spaces
•
Has low levels of local provision
•
2 of the 3 wards fall below the minimum standard provision but distribution across the
wards is relatively even.
Quality
•
There is a marked tendency for sites to be towards the lower end of the quality scale
•
There are no sites considered to be of high quality and the town is dominated by medium
quality sites, with some lower quality sites to the north-east
•
Most people were seen using pocket and neighbourhood parks (reflecting the
inaccessibility of strategic provision)
•
The age range suitability of sites was relatively evenly distributed, although there are
slightly fewer facilities for 6-11 year olds.
•
The DDA accessibility profile for MDC-owned sites with play facilities is skewed towards
medium and high accessibility
Accessibility
•
Strategic level provision is poorly accessible from most of the town (everywhere south of
the dual carriageway)
39
•
•
•
There is no skate park, and although the Glastonbury park is accessible from the
northern fringe (within 400m), its location necessitates walking along a busy road and
this compromises its accessibility.
Neighbourhood level provision is relatively good and evenly distributed across the
settlement, although reliant on neighbourhood parks and large amenity spaces for
accessibility
Coverage of local level sites is relatively even but there are gaps due to the lower level
of overall provision at this level compared to other towns.
Summary of issues and challenges in Street
The main issues and challenges that the strategy needs to address in Street are:
Overall
•
Street is the only town with an overall deficit in provision (approximately 5ha)
Strategic provision
•
There is no specific provision for young people and no skate park
•
There is a town park, but the character of this is more akin to a large playing field with
play provision than a more traditional park. Furthermore, its location north of the main
road makes it quite inaccessible to large parts of the population
Neighbourhood provision
•
Whilst there is good provision of neighbourhood parks, there is a deficit generally in
neighbourhood level spaces – this is largely due to a lack of playing fields and natural
spaces
•
A specific gap in provision exists in the west of the town
Local provision
•
There are low levels of local provision and an overall need to improve the quality of
this provision. The opportunities to create new space at this level are inevitably
limited. The challenge will be to improve the quality of provision from existing sites
and the public realm.
Shepton Mallet
5.16
Key messages for Shepton Mallet can be summarised as follows:
Quantity
•
•
•
•
•
Overall, there is a good level of provision, with a surplus over the minimum standard
Has the highest level of strategic provision and the largest town park in the district
Has the lowest percentage of neighbourhood level provision in the district
Has the largest percentage of local level provision in the district
One of the two wards is below the minimum standard (with the town park situated in the
other ward)
Quality
•
Overall, Shepton Mallet performed better than the other towns in terms of the quality of
its sites.
•
Most sites are of medium quality, with two notable differences; Collet Park, which
provides a high quality strategic level site to the east, and SM32, the large playing fields
to the west which were of poorer quality.
•
The quality of local level spaces appeared to be higher than in other towns.
•
The town park was most well used, as well as the skate park at SM32.
40
•
•
The age range suitability of sites was relatively evenly distributed, with slightly fewer
facilities for 6-11 year olds.
The DDA accessibility profile for MDC-owned sites with facilities shows only two sites of
medium to high quality
Accessibility
•
The town park is accessible from almost all of the town, with a small gap at the northwestern extremity.
•
A skate park exists within SM32 (playing fields) and this is accessible only for the
western part of the town.
•
At neighbourhood level, There are three main gaps in provision; an isolated area on the
eastern edge of the town, the central and northern residential areas, and the northwestern extremity (also lacking at strategic level).
•
At local level, coverage is well distributed and provides accessibility for a large
proportion of the population.
Summary of issues and challenges in Shepton Mallet
The main issues and challenges that the strategy needs to address in Shepton Mallet are:
Strategic provision
•
Whilst the town park is well located and of high quality, the skate park is less well
sited at the south-western extremity of the town. There is therefore a gap in provision
east of the town centre.
Neighbourhood provision
•
Provision is poorer at this level. Gaps in provision exist to the north of the town centre
and at the eastern end of the town in the Charlton area
•
Only 1 playing field exists – at the south-west extremity of the town – and hence this
provides only limited coverage. However, playing fields at the town park help to
remedy this.
Local provision
•
Although the quality appears to be higher than in other towns, there is still a need to
improve the quality of this type of provision. The opportunities to create new space at
this level are inevitably limited. The challenge will be to improve the quality of
provision from existing sites and the public realm
Wells
5.17
Key messages for Wells can be summarised as follows:
Quantity
•
Wells has good overall levels of provision, well above the minimum standard
•
It has the second lowest level of strategic provision relative to other towns
•
It has average levels of neighbourhood and local provision. There is a lack of natural
spaces within the town, but a large area of very accessible countryside to the south.
•
None of the wards fall below the minimum standard; this is the only settlement with a
relatively even distribution across the wards
Quality
•
Wells had perhaps the poorest quality of sites of all the main towns
41
•
•
•
•
•
There are a number of sites judged to be of poor quality and these are distributed across
the town, although there is a particular concentration towards the east. Many of these
sites are relatively large, unlike other towns
Sites in the central area tended to be of better quality
The most used sites were the town park and large amenity spaces, although sites at
neighbourhood level were also quite well used
The age range suitability of sites with facilities was relatively evenly distributed
The DDA accessibility profile for MDC-owned sites with facilities was centred on medium
accessibility
Accessibility
•
The town park and skate park are both reasonably central and provide good access to
the majority of the town, with small gaps on the east and western fringes
•
Overall coverage at neighbourhood level is good, with a large number of well distributed
sites of different types. The main gap in provision is an area of land running north west
from the town centre.
•
At the local level, accessibility is good outside the central area and to the east and west
of the town. There are a number of gaps in provision, including the town centre, and the
areas to the north and west.
•
Overall, the area least well provided for is the southern part of the town centre and a
tranche of land moving towards the north-west.
Summary of issues and challenges in Wells
The main issues and challenges that the strategy needs to address in Wells are:
Strategic provision
•
Although absolute levels of provision are low, both the town park and skate park are
well located (within the central area) and serve the great majority of the town – no
specific gap is identified for this level.
Neighbourhood provision
•
The main gap in provision is the a wedge of land stretching north-west from the town
centre
Local provision
•
There is an overall need to improve the quality of this provision. The opportunities to
create new space at this level are inevitably limited, the challenge will be to improve
the quality of provision from existing sites and the public realm.
Villages
5.18
Key messages for the villages can be summarised as follows:
Quantity
•
In general, the villages have less open space than the main settlements. Only 21 are
considered to have a good level of provision. 20 have a major deficit of open space and
a further 15 are considered to have a minor deficit
Quality
•
Generally, the villages performed very well in terms of the quality of sites, better than any
of the individual towns
42
•
•
•
•
•
When comparing the overall quality within villages, the great majority were considered to
be ‘average’ (43). A further 11 villages had an overall quality rank that was poor, and
only two villages came out as good quality
Use was quite evenly split between neighbourhood and local level sites
The age range suitability of sites with facilities was relatively evenly distributed, with the
6-11 age group slightly better catered for.
The DDA accessibility profile for MDC-owned sites with facilities is skewed towards the
lower end of the acccessiblity range.
Anti-social behaviour was reported in 14 of 31 villages responding, although this only
appeared to be significant in 4 villages.
Accessibility
•
Overall 27 villages were categorized as having good accessibility to open space
provision, 10 had average accessibility and 9 had poor accessibility. None of the villages
benefited from complete coverage
•
Factors which limited accessibility included the linear nature of some villages which
makes it harder to achieve coverage, the propensity for some settlements to locate
provision on the edges of settlements, or simply because there was very limited or no
provision.
5.19
The following table summarises the overall position in each village by combining the scores for
quantity, quality and accessibility.
Table 5.3 Overall assessment in villages
Villages
(Alphabetically)
Baltonsborough
Batcombe
Beckington
Binegar / Gurney Slade
Bleadney
Buckland Dinham
Butleigh
Chantry
Chewton Mendip
Chilcompton
Coleford
Coxley (including Coxley Wick
and Upper Coxley)
Cranmore
Croscombe
Dinder
Ditcheat
Doulting
Draycott
Dulcote
East Horrington
East Lydford,
Easton
0
1
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
Quantity
Score -1, 0,
1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
-1
0
0
1
-1
1
1
1
-1
0
1
-1
-1
Quality
Score -1, 0,
1
Access
Score -1, 0,
1
1
-1
0
-1
-1
0
1
-1
0
1
1
Overall (-3 to
+3)
0
-1
-1
-2
-3
-1
2
0
1
2
2
-1
1
1
0
1
1
0
1
1
-1
1
-1
2
0
1
2
2
-1
0
2
-3
0
43
Evercreech,
Faulkland
Great Elm,
Henton
Holcombe
Kilmersdon,
Lamyatt,
Leigh on Mendip
Litton
Meare
Mells
North Wootton
Norton St Philip
Nunney
Oakhill
Pilton
Priddy
Rode
Rodney Stoke
Stoke St Michael
Ston Easton,
Stratton on the Fosse
Trudoxhill
Upton Noble
Walton
Wanstrow
West Horrington
West Lydford
West Pennard
Westbury sub Mendip
Westhay
Witham Friary
Wookey Hole
Wookey
0
0
1
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
-1
0
-1
0
0
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
0
-1
0
0
-1
0
0
0
1
0
-1
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
-1
1
1
-1
-1
0
1
0
-1
1
-1
-1
-1
1
1
1
1
1
1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
1
0
1
1
1
1
0
-1
1
1
-1
0
0
-1
-1
-1
0
1
-1
1
-1
-1
-1
1
-1
1
0
1
2
-3
-1
1
-2
2
1
-1
2
1
1
1
1
-1
1
1
-3
1
1
-2
-2
-2
1
1
-3
1
-2
-2
-3
2
0
2
Summary of issues and challenges in Villages
The main issues and challenges that the strategy needs to address in villages are:
•
A number of villages lack any provision at all and in others there are accessibility
issues.
Note that there is no strategic provision within villages.
5.20
The above represents a summary of the audit and the main conclusions which can be drawn from
the work. It should be noted that the audit, and in particular the play / open space database
44
developed as part of the study, provides a resource for continuously updating and enhancing
information about play and open space sites across the District. The summaries above,
particularly in relation to the villages, provide a starting point but it will be important to consider the
information in more detail when making decisions about the need and potential for change,
particularly in rural parishes.
45
Supervised Play
Supervised Play: A Definition and Types of Play
5.20
We define supervised play as where an adult is present, where the children are free to attend as
they wish and where activities are freely chosen. We have taken supervised play to include the
following:
•
School-based after school clubs
•
Holiday playschemes, both school-based and in other locations such as churches and
leisure centres
•
Toddler groups
•
Youth centres
•
Mobile play (playbuses etc)
•
Soft play
•
Groups for children with additional needs.
Children and young people may need to pay to attend supervised play opportunities.
5.21
We have excluded the following as not being within the remit of supervised play:
•
Activities that happen within the school day
•
Sports/drama/music classes and clubs
•
Crèches
•
Pre-schools and nurseries.
The activities offered by the first two groups are not freely chosen. The primary role of a crèche is
childcare; for instance when a parent/carer leaves a child at a gym crèche to go to an exercise
class.Pre-schools, although offering an element of play, are mainly educational. Nurseries are
primarily concerned with childcare and education.
Identifying Play in Mendip
5.22
There was no central source of information on play in the District. We identified supervised play
provision in Mendip through:
•
Surveying Parish and Town Councils (see Appendix 5)
•
Researching the County Council database for pre-school care in the district
•
Researching the County Council database for extended school care (after-school clubs,
holiday playschemes)
•
Ofsted reports
•
Researching listings publications and websites for parents, children and young people in
Mendip (for example, Somerset Children’s Information Service, Mumsnet, Somerset
County Youth Service, Young Somerset websites and The Family Grapevine magazine.)
•
Contacting organisations including play providers, funders and organisers, charities and
head teachers. (See Appendices for a list of those contacted)
•
Using information from the Diocese of Bath and Wells Play Audit (2007)
•
Consulting the Play Partnership.
Findings
5.23
Based on this research, we have built up a comprehensive database identifying where play is
offered in Mendip and what sort of play is offered. However, this is not exhaustive and will
continue to evolve.
5.24
The following table shows the types of play available in the District and what sorts of organisations
provide it.
46
Table 5.4 Play Providers and Types of Play
Type of play
Under 5s
Toddler
groups
Soft play
5-12 years
After-school
clubs/
Holiday
playschemes
Youth
groups/clubs
Mobile play
Young
people (1218 years)
Youth
clubs/centres
Youth
projects
Total
TOTAL ALL:
Total:
SCYS
SCC Early
Years, Play
& Childcare
Service
SCC
Leisure
Centres
2
42
Faith
Groups
Charity
7
Other
Voluntary
Schools
31
Special
needs
groups
2
2
2*
12**.
12
4
12
4
10
18
4
2
6
2
2
20
Private
business
8
3
9
1
1
8
2
3
24
3
48
12
6
2
109
* also used by primary school children
** Run by a mix of schools themselves and parent associations
47
5.25
We have identified a total of 109 play opportunities, of which 71% are provided by the voluntary
sector, including faith groups. Private business has little involvement, with just under 6% of the
total.
5.26
The under fives age group has the second largest number of play opportunities with the number of
toddler groups and two soft play facilities representing 40% of the total.
5.27
Primary school children have marginally the largest share of play opportunities with 42% of
opportunities.. They are catered for by after-school clubs, holiday clubs and play schemes and, for
those over eight years old, 16 groups or clubs. They can also use soft play facilities
5.28
Young people have just under 20% of provision. There are 20 youth clubs and centres and one
youth project.
5.29
In addition to the play opportunities listed above, there are eight mobile youth workers; six funded
by Somerset County Council and two funded by faith groups.
5.30
Of the total number of play opportunities, 68% of settings welcome those children and young
people with additional needs and had premises which were physically accessible by disabled
children and young people. Only just under 3% do not cater for those with additional needs.
However, many of the play providers who do welcome children and young people with additional
needs comment that, where an individual has severe needs, there is not the funding to provide an
extra member of staff or specialist help.
Who runs supervised play?
District and County Involvement
5.31
The District Council has not recently been a provider of supervised play, apart from its Community
Sports and Leisure service scheme which hires or loans play equipment and provides advice to
communities wishing to run their own holiday playschemes.
5.32
The Somerset County Adult Leisure and Learning team, which replaced the Community Education
department in 2002-2003, and previously had been involved with play, now focuses on sport for
the over 8s. This team runs holiday play schemes at the district’s leisure centres but these are
expected to be self-financing.
5.33
The County Early Years team is predominantly involved in pre-school groups and nursery
schools. It has little direct involvement in play. However, Somerset County Council has
contributed to the establishment of the Key Children’s Centre in Frome and the Glastonbury
Children’s Centre, both of which are part of the government’s Sure Start programme. The Sure
Start agenda chiefly focuses on childcare. However, it does have a small element of play. Both
Children’s Centres have a toddler group.
5.34
Somerset County Youth Service (SCYS) funds and runs 7 youth centres in the district and 6
mobile youth workers as well as the Mount Youth Club for over 13s at the Key Centre in Frome.
Volunteers
5.35
Supervised play opportunities rely heavily on volunteers, particularly for activities for young
people. There is a healthy demand for more activities for young people but a real shortage of
volunteers. For example, the Stoke St Michael Parish Plan reports a need for more things to do
for children and the young but no one is willing to come forward and organise them.
5.36
There are two major barriers to more people volunteering:
48
•
•
Changing lifestyles
More legal requirements and resulting paperwork.
5.37
Both men and women are working longer hours and struggling to manage their own commitments.
Finding time to volunteer is increasingly difficult.
5.38
There is a fear of litigation and a perception that the requirements of the Children’s Act and Office
for Standards in Education (Ofsted) registration are onerous and off-putting. Whereas, before, a
parent could set up a painting group for young children in a village, this is now involves
considerable form filling and insurance policy fees. One village youth group leader told us that,
whilst he wanted to take young people out for adventures in the surrounding countryside, he felt
he could not because of the paperwork and insurance involved. He was also embarrassed to ask
volunteers for the required Criminal Records Bureau checks.
5.39
Child protection is an important issue. There are trained child protection tutors within the
Community Sports and Leisure team at Mendip District Council who could deliver training in this
area to volunteers. CRB clearance can be done through Somerset County Council.
Faith Groups
5.40
Many play opportunities set up by faith groups also depend on volunteers. The Diocese of Bath
and Wells and other faith groups such as the Methodist Church and Salvation Army do not fund
play but they offer support and other practical resources.
5.41
The Diocese of Bath and Wells provides encouragement, support, training and resources to
churches who wish to organise groups. Faith group play tends not to be registered with Ofsted.
Relationships between providers
5.42
There are few relationships between the disparate groups. Historically, there has been little
strategic thinking on supervised play in the district. There is no umbrella body or meeting point for
those involved in play and therefore no means of sharing knowledge. The Mendip Play
Association used to be run by Somerset County Council’s Community Education Team which was
disbanded due to the restructuring of the team. Mendip District Council was a partner of the
Association. The current manager of Mendip’s Community Sports & Leisure Team is the only
former member of the Play Association in post. Much valuable play knowledge has been lost.
5.43
The SCYS is being absorbed into a number of multi disciplinary Locality Teams as part of the
SCC Children's and Young People's Directorate. The SCYS is also having to bear some budget
cuts over the next two financial years that may affect levels of provision. There will be three
locality teams by April 2008. Frome (already exists), Shepton Mallet/Wells and
Street/Glastonbury. Whilst it is too early to say how Locality Team working will affect play
provision, the SCYS in Mendip hopes that it will enhance play in the future.
The picture in the main settlements and villages
5.44
This is discussed in the full version of the audit in Annex C.
Types of play:
1. Under 5s
The following table shows who provides play in this category.
Table 5.5. Play provision for under fives
49
Type of play
Provider
Toddler Groups
Voluntary sector. The Diocese of Bath
and Wells supports and advises
churches in setting up groups. SCC
supports Children’s Centres’ parents
and children group
Soft play
Private business.
2: After School Clubs and Holiday Play schemes
5.45
We have excluded after-school clubs that are ‘activity’ clubs such as chess, football or crafts
because they do not offer opportunities for play. We have included after-school clubs which
provide childcare as these offer a chance to play freely.
5.46
After school clubs and holiday schemes are largely for primary school age children. The survey
showed that there are very few holiday play schemes, holiday sessions or after-school clubs in the
district outside the main settlements. Where after school clubs exist in villages, they are wellattended but only run two or three days a week. This raises the question of where these children
go to play on the other days of the week and if there is a need for more after school clubs in
Mendip. However, it is possible that more schools will offer after school clubs and holiday
playschemes through the government’s Extended Schools programme. Currently, five schools in
Mendip meet the programme’s criteria. Extended schools are discussed further in Chapter Nine:
Funding. The following table shows who provides play in this category.
Table 5.6 After school clubs and holiday play schemes
Type of play
Provider
5.47
After-school clubs
Run by schools and also external
organisations such as neighbouring
pre-schools or by separate ventures
set up by parents themselves. On
site. Usually exclusively for the
school’s pupils but sometimes for
children from neighbouring schools
Holiday playschemes
Run by faith groups as well as private
groups and schools who run afterschool clubs. SCC runs the GAP
holiday playscheme in Glastonbury.
From discussions with a leading playscheme leader, it is clear that there is a healthy demand for
playschemes but funding and a lack of suitable premises hampers attempts to establish more of
these groups. However, the picture is different for after-school clubs in Glastonbury where two
clubs have closed because of lack of demand.
3: Mobile Play
5.48
Mobile play includes play buses and other sorts of play on the move.
Table 5.7 Mobile play
Type of play
Provider
Play in the park
Run by voluntary groups. Frome
Recreation and Open Ground Supporters
hold Play in the Park events at Mary
Bailey Park in Frome. Children’s World
holds a three-day play in the park event in
Abbey Park, Glastonbury.
4: Middle childhood (5-13 years)
Mobile play facilities
There is one known scheme,
a mobile skate ramp housed in
Westhay.
50
5.49
Apart from after-school clubs and holiday playschemes, there are 18 clubs for this group. These
are run by voluntary groups.
5: Young People (11-19 years)
5.50
A common theme in any consultation work is that young people feel that there is not enough to
do, particularly in rural areas. This perception is not necessarily matched by reality in towns.
5.51
There are six Young People’s Centres run by the Somerset County Youth Service in Street,
Glastonbury, Wells, Shepton Mallet, Frome and Coleford. The SCYS also runs a club in the
Windmill Hill Community Centre as well as the Mount Youth Club for over 13s at the Key Centre in
Frome. The SCYS also manages detached youth workers: two in Frome, two in Street and two in
Shepton Mallet one evening a week. The work of the SCYS focuses on the 13 to 19 age group.
SCYS also funds youth workers at the Coleford Youth Club.
5.52
Other opportunities for young people are reliant on volunteers. There are around 12 other youth
clubs in the villages, which are run by volunteers. There are also other clubs run by faith groups.
5.53
In addition, charities work with young people in Mendip. Chief among these are Young Somerset
and the Somerset Rural Youth Project. The SRYP works to engage with young people aged 11-25
through services and in projects in all rural areas of Somerset. Play is an important part of its
remit.
5.54
Young Somerset is a voluntary youth organization which supports young people’s groups in
Mendip and the rest of Somerset. It is a community development agency which provides support
and accredited training to adults and senior members working with young people.
The following table shows who provides play for young people:
Table 5.8 Provision for young people
Type of
play
Provider
Young
People’s
Centres
Somerset
County Youth
Service
Youth Clubs
Youth Project
Other groups
Run largely by
faith groups
and
volunteers.
Somerset
Rural Youth
Project
Volunteers.
Detached
Youth
Workers
SCYS. Youth
workers at
large in streets
and parks in
Frome,
Shepton Mallet
and Street
6: Additional Needs:
5.55
There are two opportunity groups in Mendip. These are both pre-school groups. Critchill Special
School in Frome runs an after-school club in Frome one a week and a holiday club in the summer
holidays for one week.
5.56
Although all supervised play throughout the district is hampered by a lack of volunteers,
additional needs groups particularly suffer, according to leaders. Many people are put off running
a group because they have to be specialist-trained.
51
Summary of Issues
5.57
The following issues have emerged:
•
Villages lack playschemes and after school clubs
•
Youth clubs and groups run by volunteers can only offer limited experiences to young
people because of administrative constraints. It is very difficult to take young people out
and away from club premises
•
There is a piece-meal approach to play with no one organisation specialising or
focussing on play
•
There is little strategic thinking on supervised play
•
Important play knowledge has been lost, particularly since the demise of the Play
Association
•
Play opportunities depend heavily on volunteers and there is a decline in the number of
people able to volunteer
•
Funding sources are fragmented with organisations chasing different pots of money
Recommendations
5.58
We make the following recommendations for supervised play:
•
There should be more holiday playschemes and after school clubs in rural areas
•
There should be a single district-wide play database for Mendip which would be
managed by a play co-ordinator. This would also need to link to the work of the District’s
Voluntary Sector Grants officer and the Community Sports and Leisure team
•
There should be a point of contact for play, such as a play co-ordinator/play officer, at
the district council
•
There should be wider support for voluntary groups in terms of sourcing funding and in
offering more opportunities for children, especially off site. The Community Sports and
Leisure team could organise training for play leaders, loan play and arts equipment and
allocate staff hours to help get playschemes off the ground
•
The Mendip Play Association could be resurrected as a network group.
•
There should be more support for volunteers with child protection. The Community
Sports and Leisure team could run training courses for volunteers in this area
•
There should be synergies between the roles and activities of MDC, the locality teams
and the voluntary sector
•
Children and young people need experiences, not just buildings. Volunteers need to be
supported and funded in taking children and young people out of settings.
52
Chapter Six: Consultation
6.1.
This chapter summarises past consultation with young people and children in Somerset and then
describes the consultation undertaken as part of the preparation of this Strategy.
Previous consultation
6.2
Whilst there has been a considerable amount of consultation in Somerset, before Barnardo’s
undertook consultation with children for the Mendip Play Strategy, there had not been any work
specifically targeted on play in Mendip. Most of the existing work focussed on issues other than
play and covered the county as a whole. Most conclusions were rather general and there were
gaps in terms of information about rural areas, different age and gender groups, and different
areas. Generally, there was less information available for children than for young people, although
this may only reflect a stronger need and desire for facilities for young people.
6.3
Nevertheless, a number of these exercises have had implications for the play strategy in that they
asked questions about facilities, activities and places to play or hang out for children and young
people. A full report on previous consultation can be found in Annex A: Summary of Consultation
Events and Processes.
6.4
There are various general themes that have emerged from the existing work.
6.5
Community consultation in Mendip has revealed that there are not enough facilities or activities for
young people, or places for them to hang out. This includes indoor and outdoor facilities. Specific
requests were made for improved facilities for young people in parks. This was perceived to be
the case in every one of the main towns and in the rural areas. Consultation for the Mendip
Operational plan also highlighted the need for youth clubs as a key priority for young people.
There is also a strong demand for skate parks.
6.6
There is also a perceived lack of facilities and activities for children, although this came through
less strongly than for young people.
6.7
Local consultation has also shown that there needs to be more entertainment, activities, cafes,
sports and leisure facilities for young people, including places to meet and hang out. In some
towns there was a sense of a lack of play areas for children. This seemed to be less of an issue in
rural areas, although here there were some concerns about the quality and condition of
equipment.
6.8
The sense of loss of space to play was a strong theme. Consultation identified a need to introduce
more variety and stimulation in the design of spaces and facilities to make them more userfriendly (e.g. toilets, picnic benches).
6.9
Levels of satisfaction between the towns and the rural areas varied to some extent, with speeding
traffic a particular concern in villages. Where playing fields in villages were of good quality they
were highly valued. However, there appeared to be some difficulty getting to these, especially in
places where playing fields were on the edge of villages.
6.10
In one consultation exercise, children and young people said they preferred to spend their free
time going out rather than staying at home, and when out, often stated that they liked to spend
time in natural spaces such as parks, playing fields, and other less formalised areas.
6.11
Consultation which covered the county resulted in similar issues to the District consultation.
6.12
In terms of overall provision, there was a need for a greater number and range of leisure facilities
and supervised play opportunities for children and young people. This included holiday and after
53
school clubs as well as a range of places for play. When asked, most children and young people
said they liked to play outside and with others. Parks and adventure playgrounds were a strong
preference.
6.13
Young people said there was a need for more youth venues (indoor and outdoor) and more
provision for young people, including informal recreation spaces for hanging out in.
Activities and facilities for young people needed to be affordable, accessible (including public
transport / cycling) and inclusive for disabled people. Parks also needed to include facilities /
equipment designed for young people. Young people in rural areas felt isolated. Young people
wanted opportunities to participate in decisions that affected them.
6.14
Safe play areas were particularly important for young children. Location in relation to facilities for
older children needed careful consideration as older children can be intimidating. Roads were
often seen as dangerous places.
6.15
The most relevant consultation work for the Mendip Play Strategy is the Mendip Participation
Project (2006), by Somerset Children’s Fund and the Mendip Strategic Partnership. This directly
informs the consultation ‘Asking at Ammerdown,’ which was carried out for the Mendip Play
Strategy
6.16
The aim of this work was to empower children and young people in Mendip to influence current
developments in how services are delivered to them in line with the government’s Every Child
Matters Five Outcomes..
6.17
A total of 78 children, young people, parents and staff took part. They included two inclusion
groups and other minority groups such as travellers and looked-after children.
6.18
Participants felt that there needed to be more to do, although often this perception was down to a
lack of information. Play emerged as the top priority for children with additional needs.
6.19
Participants felt that the open space available to them in their communities was being slowly
diminished. There was a loss of space in which to play. They wanted the number of parks and
open spaces increased and to be made more user-friendly.
6.20
They commented that they wanted spaces that would light them up with anticipation and not just
more, tired traditional play spaces. Participants wanted more opportunities to enjoy the Mendip
countryside.
Themes
6.21
The main themes to emerge from both County and District-wide existing work were that there was
a need for more facilities and a greater range of play opportunities and more variety and
stimulation in play space and open spaces. Children and young people said they preferred to
spend their free time out of the house. They gravitated towards natural spaces. There was a need
for safe play areas, and roads are considered dangerous. Finally, there appeared to be more
need (or desire) for facilities for young people.
6.22
This existing work helped to answer a number of questions in general terms and helped to inform
the Play Strategy.
54
‘Asking at Ammerdown’: Consultation for the Mendip Play Strategy
6.23
Barnardo’s carried out this consultation work for Mendip District Council, as a key part of the Play
Strategy process, in March 2007. Eighteen children were consulted for one day at the
Ammerdown Centre near Frome. There were eight 10 and 11 year olds and ten 6 and 7 year olds.
The consultation consisted of practical workshop activities including:
•
Outdoor play
•
Looking at images of play spaces and commenting on them
•
Thinking about play rangers and commenting on this concept
•
Describing playing outside and what stops them playing outside.
6.24
Parents and carers also completed a questionnaire. A full copy of the consultation report can be
found in Annex B.
6.25
Certain key messages emerged for the themes of play spaces, play rangers and attitudes to play
and play rangers.
Play Spaces
6.26
Children told us that landscaped features with play value were a popular choice. Children
preferred natural playspaces to formal playspaces. Static equipment was popular. Ball courts
were important as a space for playing sport. Additional features such as water and moveable
equipment were popular choices for inclusion in a play space.
Play Rangers
6.27
Children had clear ideas on the type of person they thought would best suit being a play ranger,
the type of activities they could do, and venues for those activities. They thought that Play
Rangers would make them feel safer when playing outside and that they would be able to play
outside more often.
Attitudes to Play
6.28
Children were aware of the benefits of playing outside and enjoyed this. They were prevented
from playing outside as much as they’d liked because of fears of bullying, bad weather and
comments by adults.
6.29
When playing outside, children received more negative messages about their play than positive
ones from parents and other adults.
6.30
The children thought it was important that adults were educated about the value and importance
of outdoor play but were unsure of how this could be achieved.
Parents’ Opinions
6.31
Parents were supportive of the idea of encouraging children and young people to play outside
more. Their opinions of what stopped children and young people playing outside were similar to
those identified by the children.
6.32
Parents were supportive of the idea of play rangers and believed that this project would result in
more children and young people playing outside more often. They liked the idea of including
different types of play experiences in play spaces.
6.33
The key issue for parents was safety; this was mentioned almost every time they were asked to
identify problems.
55
6.34
The consultation report made the following recommendations:
•
Play Rangers are supported as a project to be promoted through the Play Strategy.
•
Including additional features and different types of play experiences in playspaces are
promoted through the Play Strategy
Parental concerns over safety are considered seriously during the development of any
projects and ideas
More work needs to be carried out to develop a project that will change attitudes to play.
•
•
6.35
However, the two recommendations above might result in a change of attitudes if
are successful and have positive results.
they
56
Chapter Seven: Strategic Priorities
How priorities have been identified
7.1
This section identifies the five key priorities for the Mendip Play Strategy. These priorities have
naturally emerged from knowledge about the baseline situation and through developing a
consensus about the objectives for play in the District. This process included the following:
•
Developing a vision for play and play policy statements for Somerset and Mendip
(Chapter 1);
•
Identifying broad aims for the strategy as part of the play policy statement (Chapter 1);
•
Gaining an understanding of national and local policy objectives (Chapter 2);
•
Carrying out an audit of play opportunities across Mendip (including play space and
supervised play) (Chapter 4);
•
Understanding the views of stakeholders, in particular through the meetings of the
Mendip Play Partnership (Chapter 3); and
•
The results of a number of consultation exercises with children, young people and adults
about what children want and need from play opportunities. This includes a specific
consultation exercise to test the priorities during the spring of 2007 (Chapter 5).
7.2
The process is more clearly set out below:
Develop
Vision for play
and play
policy
statements
Identify broad
aims
underpinning
strategy
Audit of play
opportunities
across Mendip
Review of
previous
consultation on
play and CYPP
Understand
national and
local policy
objectives
Test initial ideas
on strategic
priorities
with
Play Partnership
Consult children
and young people
on
Strategic priorities
Agree strategic
priorities
57
Broad aims of the strategy
7.3
The broad aims of the strategy are set out in the play policy statement (chapter 1). These aims
underpin the whole strategy and should be taken forward as appropriate through the
implementation of the priorities. The aims are repeated here for clarity:
Opportunities for play
•
A choice of different play opportunities in rich, stimulating and challenging environments
(including through public realm and supervised or indoor play) in the most appropriate
locations
•
Identify and address barriers to children’s outdoor play
•
Ensure that play opportunities are accessible and inclusive
•
Provide play opportunities for all age ranges
•
Ensure that opportunities for play are free or affordable
•
Manage risk and concerns about safety effectively and in a way accepts that children
need to take risks and is not detrimental to the quality of play provision
•
Provide opportunities for play in a cost effective manner (both in the short and longer
term)
•
Harness the contribution made be developers to play provision in a more effective
manner
Policy / process
•
Ensuring a partnership / collaborative approach to decision making about play across the
range of play providers in the district
•
Ensuring that children are able to participate in decisions about play provision across the
district
•
Raising awareness about play across the district (including championing play)
•
Promoting play through other policy documents and strategies by play ‘proofing’ those
documents
•
Providing support and capacity building for the play sector
The Key priorities
7.4
Key priorities or strands for the strategy are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
7.5
Play / Open spaces: providing and improving play opportunities through formal and
informal play areas and open spaces
Play in the local environment: managing the local environment and public realm so
that children can play
Play promotion , capacity building and supervised play: raising awareness about the
importance of play and taking initiatives to support play provision
Consultation and community action; and
Long term development: securing future funding.
There is an inevitability that these themes will overlap, for example, consultation should be an
important element of providing and improving play opportunities as part of priority 1.
Taking forward priorities: more detailed objectives
7.6
Mendip District Council has taken the lead role in bringing together the Play Partnership and
developing the strategy. The Council will continue to have a key role in driving the strategy
forward. It is therefore leading on the priorities, supported by Play Partnership members who are
actively involved in overseeing their implementation. It is anticipated that the role of the Play
Partnership will continue to evolve, with members taking increasing roles in implementing
elements of the strategy.
58
7.7
Within the overall priorities, a number of objectives and activities have been identified in order to
take forward the strategy. These are set out below.
1. Play / Open spaces: providing and improving play opportunities through formal and informal
play areas and open spaces.
7.8
Key objectives under this priority will be:
•
Improve the quantity, quality and accessibility of play and open space in line with Mendip
District Council’s standards and targets for play and open space provision (see box)
•
Plug gaps in provision – both in terms of geography and age range
•
In towns, priority will go to ensuring accessibility to (coverage of) town parks, which tend
to be of the highest quality
•
Town parks provide greatest coverage. They should therefore have a role in providing
innovation and demonstration projects. The aim of these projects should be to increase
people’s aspirations about what they can expect from play facilities
•
Enhance neighbourhood play spaces to mix fixed play with natural play
•
Local play spaces – the aim will be identify how they can be better designed and
maintained as a canvas to play and integral to the public realm (see priority 2)
•
In rural areas, priority will be given to villages with less provision and where provision is
of poorer quality or a significant gap in provision (by type or in accessibility) has been
identified. Table 5.3 gives a score to each village based on an analysis of quantity,
quality and accessibility. It identifies which villages are most in need.
•
Increase the amount of natural features and wild areas in play and open spaces (within
existing sites and in new sites where appropriate). Designing and delivering spaces that
act as a canvas for play so that children of all ages can be creative in determining how
they will use spaces for play.
•
The need to prepare for hotter drier summers, including consideration of shading of play
areas and allowing for drier summer conditions in the design of planting associated with
play facilities
•
The need to prepare for wetter milder winters in the design and location of play facilities
•
Look for opportunities to improve funding for inspection and maintenance of play
equipment. This is a particular issue for sites not owned by MDC, and especially in rural
parishes
•
Encourage Parish Councils to talk to schools and the LEA in regard to the use of school
sites as play / open space resources outside school hours. This may be most
appropriate in enhancing provision in villages where a deficit has been identified.
However, there may be issues to resolve in regard to insurance.
7.9
Chapter 4 identifies a series of specific issues and challenges that the play strategy will need to
address in each of the five main towns. The summaries for each town below highlight those
challenges and make suggestions for how these can be addressed.
59
Priorities and opportunities in Frome
The following opportunities exist to address the particular issues and challenges relating to
play space provision in Frome:
Strategic provision
•
A gap in provision in the North-East of the town has been identified. There is potential
to remedy this by upgrading the Cheese Ground from a playing field to a town park,
possibly including the provision of a skate park for the area. This site is already used
as a playing field and open space and so this should be relatively easy to achieve.
Neighbourhood provision
•
There are gaps in the provision of neighbourhood parks in the South West, North East
and central areas.
•
In the North East this could be addressed by upgrading large amenity spaces.
•
In the central area, Garsdale may provide an opportunity to include increased
neighbourhood provision and to improve connections to existing spaces through
linear networks
•
In the South-West, priority should go to the improvement of local spaces in areas
furthest from the Town Park and playing fields
Local provision
•
Priority 2 identifies suggestions at the local level
Priorities and opportunities in Glastonbury
The following opportunities exist to address the particular issues and challenges relating to
play space provision in Glastonbury:
Strategic provision
•
The skate park is popular but its location and exclusivity risk undermining its value to
the local community. There is little opportunity for change in the short term, however
in the medium to longer term, when the park’s facilities need renewing, an alternative
location that better serves the needs of the local community should be considered
(see box on criteria for locating skate parks)
Neighbourhood provision
•
There is a gap in neighbourhood provision at the northern extremity of the town.
There may be potential to remedy this in the future as part of new development in the
area (i.e. at the Avalon trading estate)
Local provision
•
Priority 2 identifies suggestions at the local level
•
It should be noted that there are significant gaps in provision at the local level in
Glastonbury.
60
Priorities and opportunities in Street
The following opportunities exist to address the particular issues and challenges relating to
play space provision in Street:
Overall
•
Street is the only town with an overall deficit in provision (approximately 5ha), and
opportunities to remedy this should be taken. Agricultural fields with existing public
access exist in the centre and to the south of Street, within the urban area (south of
Elmhurst school, and south of Portway / Middle leigh). Together they could remove
this deficit.
Strategic provision
•
There is no specific provision for young people and no skate park. The Parish Council
has identified a site for a new skate park and this is likely to be taken forward,
however it is our view that the chosen location (north of the busy main road adjacent
MacDonalds) could be improved upon by locating a skatepark more centrally within a
new town park (see below)
•
A need for a new town park south of the main road, and in a more central location has
been identified. There may be an opportunity to re-design the agricultural field in the
centre of Street (south of Elmhurst School) as a town park, however this has not been
tested with the owners. The existing character of the fields should be retained as far
as possible to create an informal park with natural features.
Neighbourhood provision
•
There is a lack of playing fields and natural spaces. There may be a possibility to plug
this gap by identifying the agricultural fields south of Portway / Middle leigh as playing
fields. However this has not been tested with the owners The existing character of the
fields should be retained as far as possible to create an informal park, with natural
features.
•
A specific gap in provision exists in the west of the town. The Houndwood
development provides an opportunity for a new neighbourhood park and every
attempt should be made to facilitate connections between this site and the area to the
south-west.
Local provision
•
Priority 2 identifies suggestions at the local level.
61
Priorities and opportunities in Shepton Mallet
The following opportunities exist to address the particular issues and challenges relating to
play space provision in Shepton Mallet:
Strategic provision
•
There is a gap in skate park provision to the east of the town centre. Collet Park
would provide a better location for a skatepark, as it is more central and could be
located away from housing but with surveillance from the high number of park users.
This would be a good location, either for an additional park, or as a long term
alternative when the existing skate park comes to the end of its life.
Neighbourhood provision
•
Gaps in provision exist to the north of the town centre and at the eastern end of the
town in the Charlton area
•
North of the town centre there is no obvious solution in terms of finding a site for a
neighbourhood park. Accessibility in and out of the area is also constrained by the
A371 Wells Road and the B3136 north. Priority should therefore be given to improving
the local spaces and public realm in this area
•
East of the town centre, in the Charlton area there is no obvious solution to the
creation of a neighbourhood park. However, priority should be given to irmproving the
local spaces and the public realm. In particular, there may be good opportunities to
connect the area to a linear network of spaces using the disused railways.
Local provision
•
Priority 2 identifies suggestions at the local level
•
Shepton Mallet has a particularly good opportunity to create linear spaces linking up
existing sites, as it has two disused railway lines running east-west and north-south.
Priorities and opportunities in Wells
The following opportunities exist to address the particular issues and challenges relating to
play space provision in Wells:
Strategic provision
•
No specific gap is identified for this level.
Neighbourhood provision
•
The main gap in provision is a wedge of land stretching north-west from the town
centre. There are several possibilities in this area to improve provision, either by
upgrading amenity sites or by using the playing fields of the ‘Blue School’ or by using
the agricultural field to the north of the school.
Local provision
•
Priority 2 identifies suggestions at the local level
•
Wells has potential to create linear spaces linking up existing sites.
62
Criteria for Skate Park location
The location of skate parks within towns and villages is a sensitive issue. On the one hand,
skate parks can be considered noisy and some residents object to living in close proximity to a
skate park. On the other hand, it is important for reasons of safety and security that skate parks
are overlooked in some way, either by other park users, or by housing (or preferably both).
Siting skate parks outside, or on the edge, of towns can lead to problems of accessibility and
anti-social behaviour. The following principles should be observed when locating (or relocating) skate parks:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Young people, other members of the community and stakeholders such as police and
youth workers should be involved in the planning and design decision making process
The potential for noise disturbance should be realistically assessed and weighed
against the benefits of a particular location; noise should not necessarily be the
primary issue in deciding location
Locations should be accessible – in the towns this should be in a central location
wherever possible, rather than outside the main urban area
The location should minimize the risk of crime and anti-social behaviour or bullying by
increasing surveillance from nearby properties and/or passers by
Where possible, facilities should be located near to shops, café and toilet facilities
Sites adjacent to busy roads, or where a busy road must be crossed for access are
not considered ideal
Accessibility should be freely available at reasonable hours (parks should not close at
6.00pm)
Risk should be accepted and managed in accordance with the principles set out in the
introduction to the play strategy; risk assessments should include consideration of
benefits (BSI PAS 35 provides a guide)
Skate parks should not be exclusive but inclusive – they should be as accessible as
possible to all
The site should incorporate room for expansion
2. Play in the local environment: managing the local environment and public realm so that
children can play
7.10
Key objectives under this priority will be:
•
Gradual re-design and change to small spaces in local areas that currently provide very
little play value to make them more interesting to children
•
Looking at the way traffic is managed in existing streets to make them safer for children’s
play and educating local adults about the need for children to be able to use the street
for play (the role of different streets should be carefully considered, with some streets
suitable for designation as ‘play streets’ - in the longer term looking at opportunities for
home zones or similar initiatives)
•
Provide ‘safe routes’ in towns and villages to larger parks and playing fields - a linear
network of paths and spaces can help achieve this – it is recognized that this is easier
within new development, but there may be opportunities to retrofit a network
•
New development should incorporate high standards of design. This could include
designing in a linear network of local spaces conducive to play and ensuring that
residential layouts and the design of street space enables children to play – the
relationship between parking, traffic through routes, the use of the street for play, and
how spaces and streets together create the canvas for play, should be carefully
considered. Where facilities are provided, the focus should be on providing pocket parks,
including natural features. Very small play areas (i.e. 2/3 pieces of equipment) hidden
63
behind buildings should no longer be provided. Play and open spaces can also provide
opportunities to design in resilience to storm events and increased flooding.
Existing local3 play spaces: A challenge
Play spaces in new development can be designed to fulfill the requirements outlined above.
However, the re-design of existing small spaces is a more difficult challenge, since the design
and layout of the local area has already been established. In the future in Mendip, small play
and open spaces will be managed differently. The following principles are important in making
improvements:
•
Local spaces should be considered together with the overall public realm and the
management of moving and parked vehicles
•
It is important to be realistic about spaces and their potential; funding is difficult to
obtain for local improvements within existing neighbourhoods, and there are many
local spaces. Priority should go to those areas where the quality of local spaces in an
area is generally lower, or where there is a lack of neighbourhood spaces
•
When making any changes to local spaces residents should be consulted and actively
involved in the process
•
The council should fully consider land assets in the context of play and open space
provision before any disposal is agreed
•
Resources for necessary improvement to Mendip play facilities will be sought through
a phased capital programme bid that can be considered against other council
priorities
•
In spaces where play equipment already exists, this should remain until the end of its
life. When it is replaced, this should include more natural features, and kickabout
areas / ball courts, depending on the potential of the site, and what local residents
would like to see.
•
Local residents who have ideas or schemes for changing the way local spaces are
designed and used should be able to bid for money from the local play spaces fund (if
and when this is set up)
•
The Council will identify opportunities for creating linear natural space networks
linking existing play and open spaces in the five main towns
•
Opportunities to provide additional spaces should be taken where they arise in areas
where there are gaps in provision
•
Signs prohibiting ball games should be removed where appropriate, taking into
consideration the needs and requirements of residents of all age groups. If there are
tensions between use of space they should ideally be worked through with the local
community.
•
As many spaces as possible should be made accessible for disabled children
3. Play promotion, capacity building & supervised play: raising awareness about the
importance of play and taking initiatives to support play provision
7.11
Key objectives under this priority will be:
•
Use play rangers to facilitate and enable play in parks and open spaces. Ensure that
they receive inclusive play training and adopt Kids’ All of Us Inclusion Checklist for
Settings
•
Provide play buses as mobile play facilities – particularly for rural areas. Ensure that
providers receive inclusive play training and adopt Kids’ All of Us Inclusion Checklist
for Settings .
3
In this context, ‘local’ play spaces refer to all those spaces which fall within level 3 of the hierarchy identified in table
5.1
64
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide a web and/ or paper based resource with comprehensive information on play
opportunities
Identify a play co-ordinator for the District
Give support and advice to play providers through the play co-coordinator, including
on inclusion issues
Offer staff development and training in-house so that staff can support the Strategy’s
priorities and initiatives. This should include inclusive play training which will foster a
growing commitment to inclusion issues.
Embed the strategy in emerging plans and policies and continue to develop links with
sectors which can impact on play
Continue to develop the Play Partnership and take forward its role and that of the
political play champion, working with partners to create synergies between MDC,
localities, other statutory organisations and the voluntary sector
Provide increased support for the voluntary sector in its role in providing supervised
play opportunities (including support for those setting up playschemes and a
programme of networking, training and information opportunities) and work with both
internal and external partners in doing this. Encourage voluntary and other settings to
receive inclusive play training and adopt Kids’ All of Us Inclusion Checklist for
Settings. Work with external organisations such as CHYPPS, a group that supports
the children and young people's voluntary and community sector in Somerset.
Develop awareness raising initiatives aimed at adults and parents focusing on the
importance of play and inclusion in play, the barriers to play opportunities today and
the consequences for children and the community of restricting play opportunities.
4. Consultation and community action:
7.12
Key objectives under this priority will be:
•
Involve children and young people, including children with additional needs, in
developing and reviewing the play strategy
•
Involve children and young people, including children with additional needs, in the
design and development of new and improved play spaces / facilities
•
Involve children and young people, including children with additional needs, in
evaluating play spaces before and after improvements have been made
•
Set up a fund for play in Mendip, with clear criteria reflecting the strategic priorities,
from which communities can bid for funds to plug gaps in play provision.
5. Long term development: securing future funding
7.13
Key objectives under this priority will be:
•
Continue to research and pursue future funding opportunities beyond BLF monies
•
Make better use of planning obligations to fund improvements to play, setting out
clear
criteria for how money will be collected and spent.
•
Identify opportunities for ‘in kind’ reciprocal activities which do not require capital costs
Implementation
7.14
The timeframe for the strategy is identified as ten years. However, this should be a rolling
timeframe with a review of the strategy taking place every five years.
7.15
Chapter 8 sets out an action plan for taking forward the priorities and more detailed objectives
identified above. This identifies a series of projects reflecting the objectives. It is suggested that
this action plan should be reviewed more frequently than the strategy as a whole, on an annual
basis.
65
7.16
Chapter 9 provides a review of funding opportunities which could be used to implement the
strategy. The action plan takes this one stage further and identifies funding options (where
possible) for particular project ideas. Funding opportunities for implementation broadly fall into the
following categories:
•
Big Lottery Fund (short term)
•
The planning process through 106 contributions to open space provision
•
Other longer term funding.
7.17
In addition, the planning process provides a mechanism for taking forward elements of the
strategy through the design and layout of new development.
Mendip District Council
Draft Standards and Targets for Play and Open space provision
Purpose
A key objective under priority 1 of the strategy (Play / Open spaces) is the need to improve the
quantity, quality and accessibility of play and open spaces in Mendip. The audit of play
spaces identifies differences across the District in all three of these key areas of play space
provision. In summary the picture is as follows:
•
Quantity – In general, the amount of space provided meets the NPFA standard.
However this is not the case for all settlements, and under-provision is an issue in some
places, particularly when spaces are identified by hierarchy
•
Quality – Across the district, quality is generally average. Very few sites were judged to
be of ‘good’ quality, and very few were ‘poor’. However, the profile does lean towards
the poorer end of the quality scale. Again there is significant variation between
settlements and individual sites.
•
Accessibility – There is great variation in levels of accessibility. In towns geographical
gaps in provision exist both at different levels of the space hierarchy and in some places
across all levels of the hierarchy. In villages, accessibility is linked to the quantity of
provision.
The use of standards and targets provides a means of identifying goals for improvements in
provision. Their principal purpose is to provide a basis for the negotiation of planning obligations
during the planning application process. However, these standards and targets can also be used
as a basis for making decisions about where to prioritise spending from funds from other
sources.
Standards and Targets
The Mendip Local Quantity Standard of a minimum of 2.4 ha per 1000 people will be used to
identify the quantity of open space required by new residential development and its potential
financial cost. The nature of the open space requirement will be determined by the Council on a
case by case basis using standards and targets identified in the Mendip Open Space, Play and
Playing Pitch Strategies. This evidence base will determine the quantity and type of on site
provision required and the quantity and type of open space or improvements that will be funded
by the developer through a commuted sum. This decision will be based on the following factors:
•
The quantity and type of existing provision. Mendip District Council requires a minimum
of 2.4 ha per 1000 people. This standard is indicatively broken down as follows but will
always be determined on a individual basis:
1. Level 1 Strategic Provision 0.3 ha per 1000 people
2. Level 2 Neighbourhood Provision 1.7 ha per 1000 people
3. Level 3 Local Provision 0.4 ha per 1000 people
66
•
•
(See below for an explanation of types of space and the space hierarchy)
The quality of existing provision. The Strategy sets targets to improve all types of open
space in the district to the following minimum levels:
4. Town parks - grade 11 or 12
5. Pocket parks, neighbourhood parks, playing fields & pitches, natural
spaces, village green, Other - grade 9 or 10
6. Skate park, kickabout areas, public realm, civic spaces, playgrounds, large
amenity areas, small amenity areas - grade 8
(See below for an explanation of types of space and quality grades)
The accessibility of existing provision. The strategy aims to ensure that the catchment
areas of sites at each level of the hierarchy provide full coverage in each settlement.
Implementation
The standards provide a basis for negotiation. However, in relation to planning obligations, it is
important to recognize that flexibility is needed in coming to a decision about what is required
from any particular development. The local situation will be important in identifying whether
quantity, quality or accessibility is the key issue in each case. The maps in Appendix 3 and 4
provide an overall picture of the amount, quality and accessibility of sites in each settlement. In
addition, the Council has a database with more detailed information on the baseline situation at
each site.
Planning obligations, particularly from smaller developments and towards strategic and
neighbourhood provision, will be pooled at the Council’s discretion and used to address the
cumulative effects of new development. The Council will normally require planning obligations
towards local provision (level 3) to be provided on site or spent on areas of open space or
children’s play space that serve the development. Planning obligations towards strategic and
neighbourhood provision (levels 1 and 2), will be spent on provision or improvements that are for
the benefit of the residents across a wider area to reflect its strategic nature.
The design and layout of new provision is an important consideration when fulfilling the
obligation. The Council will insist of on new provision forming an integral part of the development
scheme, ensuring only the best quality open space is provided. Size is not the determining factor
of quality; the Council will only accept good design and layout of the open space (a
Supplementary Planning Document on neighbourhood design will be published to assist in this
process).
Types of space and the Space Hierarchy in Mendip:
Level 1
Level 2
Strategic / Town wide sites
Neighbourhood / village wide
sites
• Town / large Parks (over
• Neighbourhood parks (0.2
1ha)
– 1ha)
• Skate Parks
• Village greens
• Civic spaces
• Playing fields & pitches
(over 0.2ha)
• Natural spaces
• Large amenity spaces
(over 02.ha)
Level 3
Local or street level sites
•
•
•
•
•
Pocket Parks
Playgrounds
Kickabout areas
Public realm
Small amenity sites (up to
0.2ha)
67
68
Chapter Eight: Action Plan
This Plan sets out ideas for play projects and their funding in Mendip. These proposals have been agreed in principal by the Play Partnership. The Plan
also includes measurable outcomes and suggested evaluation arrangements for individual projects. Many of these are predicated on the continued
existence of the Play Partnership and its ability to meet on a quarterly basis. General evaluation issues are discussed in the next chapter.
Priority 1.
Play / open spaces: providing and improving play opportunities through formal and informal play areas and open spaces
Project name
Project description
Timeframe*
Partners
Funding
Measurable
outcomes
Successful completion according to
the original objectives of the project.
Cheese Ground in
Frome
(demonstration
project)
Upgrade to Town
Park status.
Demonstration
project including
natural space such
as fallen trees, minor
land modelling and
use of rocks to
increase people’s
aspirations. Include
consultation with
CYPP (priority 4)
Short-term
Town
Council/children
and young people,
Agricultural
society, showfield
steering group.
Also possibly Play
England/CABE
Space
FROGS
BLF
Street skate park
New skate park
Short-term
Town council/and
skater groups
Funding, maintenance and
management arrangements
Need to be explored further.
Possibly BLF.
See above
Play spaces fund
(also under
priority 4)
Fund from which
community groups
and parishes can bid
to improve provision
in line with strategic
priorities
Short term
Uncertain – possible sources
include SCC/multi-agency
public sector funding/S106
contributions but only if handled
carefully/ Voluntary and not-forprofit sector fundraising
programmes/Income-generating
opportunities such as cafes and
pavilions in parks/Local Area
Agreement, Local Area Working
Panels
Whether a target sum has been
reached within the first 12 months.
How much of that money has gone
to fund play spaces
Numbers of children and young
people of all abilities using the
space. How they use the space and
their enjoyment of it. Scope for
imaginative and adventurous play.
Usage relating to catchment area
and gender, ethnicity, age and
impairment
69
*Long-term: five or more years, Medium term: 3-5 years, Short-term: 0- 2 years
Ideas for longer term projects required:
e.g.- a town park for southern street?
- something identified for each town based on audit results
- projects to plug gaps in coverage at neighbourhood level
- projects for rural areas
70
Priority 2: Play in the local environment: managing the local environment and public realm so that children can play
Project name
Project description
Timeframe
Partners
Funding
Design SPD
Produce SPD on design in
new development (including
homezones and integrating
amenity spaces better in
the public realm)
Short-term
MDC
Managing
streets
Investigate possibility of
reducing car speeds in
streets – hierarchy of
streets
Linear network of spaces
established to town parks
Short term
Internal: Planning
Policy and
Development Control,
SCC, developers,
Play Partnership,
Play England
SCC
Medium longer term
SCC transport,
Sustrans, others
MDC, SCC (CYP
directorate), LAA
Re-design of
local amenity
spaces
To make existing local
amenity spaces more
interesting to children –
designed as focal points,
integral to the public realm,
with natural features retrofitting
Medium longer term
MDC
Home zones
Street or group of streets
where pedestrians have
priority and cars travel at
little more than walking
pace. Features inside the
home zone include
extended pavement areas
where children can play
and small equipped play
areas. Also encourages
children to walk and cycle.
Long-term
for retrofit
Internal: Planning
Policy and
Development Control,
SCC, Play
Partnership
(If existing spaces,
unclear whether DC
involvement required)
Internal: Planning
Policy and
Development Control
Safe routes to
parks
Short-term
new build
(see above
on design
SPD)
SCC
MDC, SCC (CYP
directorate), LAA
-Under next funding
round for LTP 3 in around
2010
-S106 contributions
Measurable
outcome
Short-term:
Ensure Design SPD appears in
Local Development Scheme.
Long-term: Adoption. Incorporation
of design standards for play in new
development and the public realm
More children and young people
playing in streets and walking to
school
Have opportunities to increase
linear networks been identified and
taken?
More children playing in existing
spaces
Home zones appearing in new
developments
Creation of retrofit home zones in
residential areas affected by ratrunning and heavy traffic
Developers
71
Priority 3:
Play promotion and capacity building: raising awareness about the importance of play and taking initiatives to support play
provision
Project
name
Play rangers
Project description
Timeframe
Partners
Funding
Measurable outcome
A play rangers’ team to
enable children to play in
parks and out locally,
including in rural areas.
Gives parents/carers the
confidence to let children
out to play. Ensure that
play rangers receive
inclusive training and
adopt Kids’ All of Us
Inclusion Checklist for
Settings
Play officer to co-ordinate
Play Fund, Play
Database, Play Network.
Ensure that play cocoordinator receives
inclusive play training
To provide details of play
opportunities, spaces,
workers and funding
Short term
- ongoing
MDC in conjunction
with SASP (County
Sports Partnership) to
organize sports-based
training for rangers for
specific activities.
Somerset Play Forum/
Barnardo’s
BLF short term –
Potentially the application
of the special expenses
rate after the three years
of BLF funding
Establishment of team
More children of all abilities playing out
without parents/carers
and feeling safe doing so
Short-term
Somerset Play Forum/
CHYPPS
MDC – pursue through
cost neutral review of
existing staff resources
Short term
Somerset Play
Forum/CHYPPS/SCC,
play partnership
MDC/ SCC
Play
partnership
and play
champion
Continue to develop links
and consider future role
of partnership – possible
play forum
Short term
- ongoing
Play Partnership and
other stakeholders
MDC / SCC
Play coordinator to be recognized and
known throughout District and County
as an authority on play. Play fund, play
database and play network to be
established within 6 months of being in
post
To be established within 6 months of
play officer confirmed in post. To be
publicly accessible if appropriate or to
play sector workers and voluntary
groups
Play partnership continues to steer
play in the District and has major role
in decision-making and evaluation.
Appropriate number of members
representing all facets of play
Play
Network
To offer increased
support for voluntary
sector – networking,
training and information
Mobile play for preschool and primary
Shortmedium
term
CHYPPS, Somerset
Play Forum
MDC and payment in
kind
Short to
medium
SCC, local community
groups
Possibly Local Network
Fund (applications would
Play
coordinator
Play
database /
paper-based
publication
Play buses
Service reaches isolated and excluded
children on a regular basis within 6
72
Intersectoral
play
promotion
Rural holiday
playschemes
school children with toys
and arts and crafts
materials and playworker.
Possibility that play
rangers could use this in
their work. County Youth
Service is considering a
mobile service. District’s
Community Sports and
Leisure Team, in
conjuction with the
County Sports
Partnership, could
provide a play session for
children whilst parents
are involved in a sporting
activity. Ensure that
providers adopt Kids’ All
of Us Inclusion Checklist
for Settings
Ensure the strategy is
embedded in emerging
plans and policies. Look
for synergies in
implementation of
projects and funding
Holiday playschemes for
villages. Ensure that
these adopt Kids’ All of
Us Inclusion Checklist for
Settings
term
need to be in by
September)
Help Yourselves
Landfill Communities
Fund for scheme near a
landfill site (local
authorities can apply for
this)
Ongoing
Play Partnership,
SCC, MDC internal
Medium
term
Voluntary groups.
MDC’s Community
Sports and Leisure
Team could allocate
staff hours and would
aim to help all
playschemes get off
the ground. Could
organize training for
leaders including on
child protection, as
well as loaning play
and arts equipment.
months of inception
Strategy embedded in emerging plans
and policies.
Part funding from
District’s annual rural
leisure budget
Affordable and accessible
playschemes for rural children
73
Priority 4: Consultation and community action
Project name
Project description
Play spaces fund
for parishes (see
under priority 1)
Fund from which
community groups and
parishes can bid to improve
provision in line with
strategic priorities.
Consultation with
children and
young people
Several activities:
- To develop and review
play strategy.
- To engage with design
and development of new
and improved play
spaces/facilities
- Evaluating play spaces
before and after
improvements
Timefra
me
Short
term
Partners
Short
term
Somerset
Play
Forum/SCC/
Youth clubs/
voluntary
groups/
schools/
CHYPPS/
Play
Partnership
Funding
Measurable outcomes
Uncertain- possible sources include
SCC/multi-agency public sector
funding/S106 contributions but only
if handled carefully/
Voluntary and not-for-profit sector
fundraising programmes/ Incomegenerating opportunities such as
cafes and pavilions in parks
YOF (Separate BLF fund)
See priority 1
The number of children and
young people consulted against
the number of projects.
The quality of the consultation
exercises
The spread of ages, abilities
and backgrounds of the
children and yps
The relevance of the outcomes
74
Priority 5: Long-term development: securing future funding
Project name
Research funding
Applications to funds
In-kind reciprocal
activities
Project description
Build on the contents of
chapter 6 (funding
opportunities) to identify
future funding
opportunities
Increase bids to funds
identified in chapter 6.
Timeframe
Short – medium term
Partners
Play Partnership
Short – medium term
Supporting networking
(see priority 3)
Short – medium term
MDC, Play
Partnership, voluntary
groups, SCC
MDC, Play
Partnership, voluntary
groups, SCC.
Funding
MDC in
kind
Measurable outcome
Other funding sources found
Applications to funds and
successful bids
75
76
Chapter Nine: Funding Play in Mendip
Introduction
9.1
This chapter gives an overview of current funding in Mendip and examines future opportunities for
funding. It also explains what the BLF’s Children’s Play Programme will fund. A table of grantmaking organisations and contacts for further information can be found in the Appendices.
BLF Funding
9.2
The box below gives examples of what the BLF’s Children’s Play Programme will and will not
fund:
Will fund:
Projects such as:
-adventure playgrounds
-BMX and skateboard parks
-holiday and after school play activities
-small public playgrounds
-informal sports facilities
-mobile play team
-creating a play area
-playworkers (either paid or volunteers).
Staff costs
Fundraising for continuing projects once grant is over
Monitoring and evaluation
Building and engineering works for delivery of individual projects
Purchase of land, buildings, equipment or fixtures and fittings for individual projects as a capital
cost
Won’t fund:
Costs incurred or expenditure committed, before grant is awarded
Funds to build up a reserve or surplus
Contributions to general appeals
Purchase of land or buildings as a portfolio management cost
Building and engineering works as portfolio management cost
General improvements to public areas unless essential to individual project
Short leaseholds (various conditions apply)
(from Children’s Play Programme Guidance Notes, (2006)
How play is currently funded in Mendip
9.3
Funding for play in Mendip presents a fragmented and complex picture. Play is funded from a
myriad of sources from traditional local authority funding for parks and equipped play through to
supervised play opportunities funded by grants from charities. This section discusses how the
different types of play are currently funded in the District.
Play areas and open spaces
9.4
Play areas and open spaces are funded by both Mendip District Council and the parish and town
councils.
77
9.5
9.6
The District Council has a £43,000 budget for developing and upgrading play and £88,765 for
maintenance and inspection.
The Council charges out these maintenance and development costs to parishes and town
councils that have Council-owned play facilities in the form of a Special Expenses Rate (SER). All
play areas owned by Mendip District Council are now funded through the Special Expenses Rate
except for the skate parks.
9.7
Those Parishes not wishing to pay the SER charge can take on play areas and manage and
maintain them directly.
9.8
Town and parish councils generally fund their own play areas. They may charge inhabitants
through the parish precept which is collected through the Council Tax system or off-set
expenditure through income from other sources
Skateparks
9.9
There are various funding arrangements for the District’s four skateparks. Whilst the District
Council funds inspection and maintenance and some equipment, some parish and town councils
have paid for equipment. Skater groups have also raised money for equipment.
Supervised play
9.10
There are many different funding sources supporting supervised play. Some play opportunities,
such as soft play, are run as a business and are self-financing whilst others, such as rural youth
groups, rely on voluntary fund-raising, government or charity grants. The District Council does not
currently fund supervised play and has no Service Level Agreements with voluntary groups.
However, its Community Sports and Leisure Team provides advice and equipment to
communities wishing to run their own holiday playschemes and after-school clubs.
9.11
Toddler groups are generally funded by parents and carers. However, the parent and pre-schooler
group at the Frome Children’s Centre is partly supported by money from the government’s Sure
Start fund.
9.12
There are several different methods for funding after school clubs and holiday playschemes.
Some schools are eligible for funding through the government’s Extended Schools programme.
To be eligible for funding through the programme, schools have to meet five criteria:
•
After-school activities
•
Childcare including before and after school and during the holidays
•
Community access
•
Swift and easy referral to other services
•
Parenting support
9.13
In Mendip, the following schools meet these:
•
Brookside Primary School, Street
•
Elmhurst Junior, Street
•
Walton Church of England Primary School
•
Christchurch Church of England First School, Frome
•
Frome College
These schools decide themselves on which part of the programme they will fund and they may or
may not choose to use their funding to provide after school clubs and holiday activities.
9.14
Schools do not have to offer childcare themselves if they can sign-post the way to other childcare.
However, schools must consult with parents first on what they wish to see provided. The
Community Learning Partnership coordinator decides on which schools meet the criteria while the
County Council advises on extended schools and carries out auditing.
78
9.15
Aside from those covered by this programme, clubs and holiday playschemes are either selffinancing or receive funding from town councils. In a few cases, they may receive help with
staffing from the County Council. Additionally, leisure centres in the District run holiday activities
which are self-financing.
9.16
Playschemes in rural areas may be able to receive part-funding from the District’s Community
Sports and Leisure Team’s annual rural leisure budget in future. Each project would be examined
separately to see if it fitted with the business plan.
9.17
Youth provision is also funded in a variety of ways. The Somerset County Youth Service (SCYS)
is being absorbed into a number of multi-disciplinary Locality Teams and is expected to bear
budget cuts.
9.18
Other money also supports these activities including town/parish council funding and grants from
the government’s Youth Opportunity Fund which is allocated by Somerset County Children and
Young People’s Service but for which young people themselves must apply. Young people in
Mendip received £203,000 worth of grants for projects in the financial year up to and including
April 2007.
9.19
Other youth provision funded through fundraising, grants, self-finance and other sources such as
Local Network Fund, the BLF Reaching Communities fund, Mendip Housing’s charity’s PIDNEM’s
Community Chest and the Aggregates Levy Fund. Stoke St Michael Youth Club received some
funding from the latter. The Somerset Rural Youth Project has been allocated £494,376 from the
BLF’s Reaching Communities fund. This will support a four-year programme in which young
people create and run projects to improve life in 15 Somerset villages, including in Mendip. These
community projects will include play.
9.20
Additional needs groups find funding a particular challenge. One group leader has said that 40%
of the additional funding needed on top of ordinary nursery grants comes from County Council.
The rest comes from donations, fees and grants. This involves a lot of fundraising work. The West
Mendip Opportunity Group received an award of £5000 from Mendip Housing charity PIDNEM in
March 2007 as well as funding from BBC’s Children in Need..
9.21
Critchill After School Club relies on funding from a range of sources including the charities Scope
and the Autistic Society as well as the town council..
Beyond the BLF’s Children’s Play Programme: Future funding sources
Play areas and open spaces
9.22
There are several possible models for future funding for play areas and open spaces. Some of
these are taken from CABE Space’s report ‘Paying for Parks:
•
•
•
Multi-agency public sector funding- from a range of government departments and
agencies for the delivery of projects that meet cross-cutting targets. For example, the
BLF’s Playful Ideas programme is another source of funding for parish and town
councils for the initial build costs of play spaces. West Lydford is submitting a bid to
this programme for the complete refurbishment and development of a larger play
area. Registered charities, voluntary or community groups, charitable or not-for-profit
companies and social enterprises can also apply. Playful Ideas funds capital and
revenue for projects lasting up to five years. These projects must support innovation
and new ways of providing for children’s play
Planning agreements/S106 agreements (see below)
Income-generating opportunities such as cafes and pavilions in parks
79
•
•
•
•
•
Endowments from the interest gained on investments- an endowment is an asset that
generates income. The income, or part of it, is used to fund the green space while the
capital remains invested. The endowment could be a property portfolio
Voluntary and not-for-profit sector fundraising programmes- ‘Friends’ groups who
maintain and train others to maintain green spaces. Also includes partnerships which
have a degree of joint responsibility with local authorities. This may include
partnerships based on corporate sponsorship
Grant-making organizations - Some communities in Mendip may be eligible for landfill
tax community grants for projects near landfill sites. The SITA Trust Enhancing
Communities Programme supports projects within the vicinity of a SITA landfill site.
Funding is available for the installation of play facilities. Eligible groups include
voluntary groups, charities, local authorities and parish councils. The Avon and
Somerset Police Community Trust funds local initiatives including play spaces with
priority is given to those groups and individuals who help themselves by raising cash
to match the funding from the Trust. Somerset Crimebeat also offers grants of up to
£1000 for local environmental, urban renewal and conservation projects for groups
such as youth and local amenity groups and schools and parish and village councils
Local Area Working Panels: these are forums through which frontline County
Councillors can take direct control over County Council spending within local
communities so that it is directed where it will really make a difference. Mendip's
budget is £180k. This will increase as the LAWPs develop .This budget is to be spent
on priorities that are common to both the Somerset Local Area Agreement (LAA) and
the local plans of the communities covered by the Area Working Panel (Community
Strategy, Parish Plans etc).The LAWP is made up of the County Councillors as voting
Members. It could decide to extend membership by co-opting non-voting members. It
operates at District LSP level but is likely to want to develop structures at community
neighbourhood level
Local Area Agreement: MDC is promoting play through its area representatives.
There will be a new LAA from April 2008. The existing stretch targets will continue to
run until the end of period of the current LAA which was due to finish 31 Mar 2009.
However, there will be no stretch targets in the new LAA and so no pump priming
money or reward grant. The LAA will have 35 targets chosen from a prescribed list
from the Government and 18 DfES indicators. It may be possible to ensure that there
is a target relating to play. If this does not happen, it may be possible to include a
local priority on play.
Home zones/play streets
9.23
There are two types of home zone: a new zone as part of a new development or a retrofit zone on
existing streets. Home zones in new developments can be promoted through a design
supplementary planning document and ensured through planning conditions or be funded through
Section 106 agreements (see above). However, retrofit home zones are more expensive with
larger-sized zones costing around £1m.
9.24
Funds are scarce for retrofit zones. There is no funding available under the current Local
Transport Plan. Lobbying for future funding could take place under the next Local Transport Plan
round.
Play rangers
9.25
Play rangers are usually funded from the BLF Play Programme. Otherwise, the Special Expenses
Rate could be extended to cover the cost of rangers. Another possibility is the Extended Schools
programme which partly funds play rangers in South Gloucestershire. They could also be partly
funded through programmes such the Youth Opportunity Fund if young people themselves
applied.
80
Play coordinator/officer
9.26
A review of existing staff resources has been undertaken from which it is proposed that a
dedicated play officer could be established on a cost neutral basis.
Mobile play- play buses
9.27
There are several possible funds for mobile play. This could be funded in partnership with other
local authorities or as part of a play rangers’ project in which rangers used a bus to provide play in
rural areas. The County Youth service is understood to be considering running some mobile play.
The District’s Community Sports and Leisure Team, in conjunction with the County Sports
partnership, could provide free play sessions for children when their parents and carers are taking
part in sports activities. The team has the equipment and the contacts to provide the staff.
Funding could come from projects such as the County Sports Partnership’s Active Somerset
project.
9.28
There are sources of funding for local community mobile play such as Help Yourselves, the fund
created by Save the Children and British Gas to help isolated and excluded children and young
people, and the Local Network Fund. The latter stops accepting applications in September. The
LAWP may be another source.
Other supervised play
9.29
Landfill tax community grants discussed above already fund some youth projects and it may be
possible to apply to these for other projects.
9.30
Other current sources which could be approached again include the Mendip Housing charity
PIDNEM Community Chest Fund and the Youth Opportunity Fund. Somerset County Council’s
Youth Service will be allocating monies from the latter to young people in the coming financial
year.
9.31
The Lloyds TSB Foundation has three programmes which offer up to £5000 for everyday costs
and up to £16,000 for bigger projects. Its community priority programme has targeted rural
disadvantage as a priority in the South West. Only charities can apply.
9.32
Other sources are the BLF’s Youth Capital Fund and BLF’s Awards for All. For the latter, not-forprofit groups or parish or town councils, schools or health bodies can apply for grants of between
£300 and £10,000 for local community projects, including play.
9.33
There are also various voluntary youth sector grants available from Somerset County Council
which are managed by CHYPPS, the newly forming umbrella group representing the Children and
Young People's Voluntary and Community Sector in Somerset.
9.34
The 02- It’s Your Community Award offer grants of up to £1000 for local environmental, urban
renewal and conservation projects for groups such as youth and local amenity groups and schools
and parish and village councils. Somerset Crimebeat also offers grants of up to £1000 for local
environmental, urban renewal and conservation projects for groups such as youth and local
amenity groups and schools and parish and village councils.
9.35
The Local Area Agreement and the LAWP may also be a source of funding in this area.
81
Community consultation
9.36
Grants for particular projects often include some funding for consultation with young people,
especially if young people themselves run the project. For example, the BLF’s Young People’s
Fund 2 may fund this activity.
In kind contributions
9.37
This could include information sharing, networking and training opportunities between the District
Council and the voluntary sector. The Play Partnership will need to investigation this further.
Section 106 Agreements
9.38
Planning Obligations can be secured through S106 agreements to address the impacts of new
development and make them acceptable in planning terms. Specifically, new residential
development facilitates population growth which leads to an increased requirement for open
space. To make the development acceptable, the developer can provide the open space on site.
Where this is not possible, a contribution can be provided in terms of finance or land. An open
space obligation will be fulfilled using a combination of on and off site contributions.
9.39
Planning obligations will be an important funding source. Current Government guidance is seeking
to improve the clarity, certainty and the efficiency of S106 agreements. Good practice is
increasingly moving towards clear, calculated methods to secure contributions from every
residential development, even smaller residential developments that have traditionally not been
subject of planning obligations.
9.40
Planning obligations can be secured for:
• On-site open space and play provision
• Off -site open space and play provision
• Improvements to existing provision
• Maintenance of provision
9.41
In Mendip, the District Council currently seeks contributions towards open space and play space
from new development. This includes maintenance contributions. The Mendip Core Strategy
proposes 9,000 new dwellings by 2026 and it is important that a clear policy is developed to
improve the level of planning obligation secured from new development. This number of new
homes with a reducing average household size of 2.25 people will generate approximately 20,250
new people. Therefore, assuming a standard open space and play space requirement of 2.4 ha
per 1000, this would result in a requirement for 48.6 ha of new open space in Mendip. This
requirement is directly related to new development and it is important that funding is secured from
new development.
9.42
It is envisaged that the policy approach would require smaller residential developments to
contribute via a standard charge secured through a unilateral undertaking, reducing the resource
implications whilst ensuring their impacts are addressed. These contributions could be pooled to
fund improvements as well as provide new space in line with deficiencies and needs identified in
the Play Strategy and Open Space Strategy.
9.43
The Mendip Local Quantity Standard of a minimum of 2.4 ha per 1000 people could be used to
identify the quantity of open space required by new residential development and its potential
financial cost. The nature of the open space requirement could be determined by the Council on a
case by case basis, using standards and targets identified in the Mendip Open Space, Play and
Playing Pitch Strategies. This evidence base will determine the quantity and type of on-site
provision required and the quantity and type of open space or improvements that will be funded by
82
the developer through a commuted sum. This decision could be based on indicative standards to
start negotiation for large developments:
The quantity and type of existing provision. Mendip District Council requires a minimum of 2.4
ha per 1000 people. This standard is indicatively broken down as follows but will always be
determined on a individual basis:
7. Level 1 Strategic Provision 0.3 ha per 1000 people
8. Level 2 Neighbourhood Provision 1.7 ha per 1000 people
9. Level 3 Local Provision 0.4 ha per 1000 people
The quality of existing provision. The Strategy sets targets to improve all types of open space
in the district to the following minimum levels:
1. Town parks - grade 11 or 12
2. Pocket parks, neighbourhood parks, playing fields & pitches, natural spaces,
village green, other - grade 9 or 10
3. Skate park, kickabout areas, public realm, civic spaces, playgrounds, large
amenity areas, small amenity areas - grade 8
The accessibility of existing provision. The strategies aim is to ensure that the catchment
areas of sites at each level of the hierarchy provide full coverage in each settlement.
9.45
These standards could provide a basis for negotiation. However, in relation to planning
obligations, it is important to recognize that flexibility is needed in coming to a decision about what
is required from any particular development. The local situation will be important in identifying
whether quantity, quality or accessibility is the key issue in each case. The strategies provide an
overall picture of the amount, quality and accessibility of sites in each settlement and the Council
will have a database with more detailed information on the baseline situation at each site.
9.46
Planning obligations, particularly from smaller developments and towards strategic and
neighbourhood provision, could be pooled at the Council’s discretion and used to address the
cumulative effects of new development. The Council will normally require planning obligations
towards local provision (level 3) to be provided on-site or spent on areas of open space or
children’s play space that serve the development. Planning obligations towards strategic and
neighbourhood provision (levels 1 and 2), will be spent on provision or improvements that are for
the benefit of the residents across a wider area to reflect its strategic nature.
Recommendations
•
•
•
•
•
Take a creative approach to funding play, using new models and sources
Continue to promote the importance of play in the District through the Local Area
Agreement and the Local Area Working Panels
Set up a funding database to keep track on funding opportunities
Update the database regularly and make it publicly accessible
The District Council to clearly set out, and formally adopt, a planning obligation policy
as a Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) in the Mendip Local Development
Framework.
83
84
Chapter Ten: Evaluating the Play Strategy
Purpose
10.1
The purpose of evaluating the Strategy is twofold; firstly it should provide a clear indication of the
extent to which it has achieved its objectives; and secondly, it should clarify the lessons learnt so
that methods and approaches can be improved in future.
10.2
It is important to be clear about the relationship between the evaluation of the Strategy (which is
broad in its approach) and the evaluation of individual projects as they are delivered (which is
much more specific). Whilst these are distinct activities, they are closely related and the
evaluation of individual projects will assist in the overall evaluation of the Strategy. This chapter
sets out the over-arching framework for evaluating the Play Strategy and identifies some key
principles for evaluating projects.
How we will evaluate
10.3
Evaluation should seek to identify the range of effects of the Strategy, both positive and negative.
It should also go some way to assessing both the outcome and process and the relationship
between cause and impacts. The Audit Commission has developed local performance indicators
to help Councils assess their progress in developing and implementing policies for play. This
framework provides some assistance. However, the most effective evaluation processes are often
those which are to a certain extent tailor- made. These are better able to respond to the strategy
or project which they are evaluating.
10.4
Above all, evaluation should be realistic. The overall approach and methods for evaluating should
not be so time consuming that they detract from the delivery of the strategy or project. The aim of
this evaluation framework is therefore to find the appropriate balance between the requirements of
organisations such as the Audit Commission and what is appropriate for this Play Strategy.
10.5
The Audit Commission’s Local Performance Indicator LIB 115 (Development and Implementation
of Corporate Play Policy: Assessing Your Progress) sets out criteria relating to the status of the
local authority’s policy and strategy for play. Its primary focus is on the play policy itself, its
content, the process through which it was developed and how it will be implemented. In assisting
with the development of an evaluation framework for the Play Strategy, the most useful criteria is
the last of these as it provides targets for monitoring and reporting. This is set out below:
Requirement:
A framework is in place for monitoring progress and regular reporting on plans:
Advanced
A framework is in place that
ensures:
● delivery against targets and
objectives is monitored and
on a minimum of a quarterly
basis
● progress is reported back to
management and
stakeholders
● the policy/strategy is
reviewed annually, with a
comprehensive review at
least every five years.
Established
A framework is in place that
ensures:
● delivery against targets and
objectives is monitored and
on a minimum of a quarterly
basis
● progress is reported back to
management and
stakeholders
● there are no plans in place
for the review of the policy.
Emerging
There is no framework in
place.
85
10.6
The framework below takes forward the three key points according to the ‘advanced’ criteria.
However, we have serious reservations about the appropriateness of measuring ‘strategic’ goals
contained within long term policy documents on a quarterly basis. Any evaluation done on a
quarterly basis will therefore need to be very simple in order to keep the evaluation process both
meaningful and realistic.
Evaluating the Strategy Priorities
Delivery against targets and objectives
10.7
The measurable objectives contained within the Play Strategy are the five key priorities identified
in Chapter 7. Progress and delivery against these objectives will be monitored in the following
way:
•
A short quarterly report will be prepared identifying which projects have been taken
forward during the previous 3 months, and which priority they help to deliver. (The report
will use a pro-forma ideally with 1 side per project) It will include:
o summary of progress made on each project
o what has worked well and what has not and reasons why this might be the case
o barriers to progress and how these might be overcome
•
The report will concentrate on projects currently being progressed (i.e. projects identified
in the action plan as short term), but will also allow for reporting on planning and fund
raising to take forward medium and longer term projects
•
Quarterly reports will also summarise the results of any recent ex-post evaluation
exercises undertaken for completed projects (principles of evaluating individual projects
are set out below).
Progress is reported back to management and stakeholders
10.8
The following mechanisms will be used to report on progress:
To management
•
Quarterly report including performance against Audit Commission PI to scrutiny board
•
Annual performance report to scrutiny / cabinet
•
Periodic update to scrutiny board on specific project issues
To stakeholders
•
A brief report on progress in relation to the priorities and the projects set out in the action
plan will be made to the play partnership at each of its meetings (anticipated to be 2/3
times per year)
•
More detailed progress reports and summaries will be sent to the Play Partnership
annually (these reports will be based on the review described below). The reports will
also be made available for wider viewing on the MDC website. Once a play network and
web resource is established, this will provide an excellent forum for sharing this
information
•
Regular reports to Mendip Strategic Partnership (MSP)
The policy/strategy is reviewed annually, with a comprehensive review at least every five
years.
10.9
The annual review will draw together the results of the quarterly progress reports identified above.
This review will also provide an opportunity to reflect more clearly on overall progress towards the
objectives during the year, the lessons learned and how any barriers might be overcome. More
specifically, the review will include:
•
A review of progress towards priorities and projects in the action plan, drawing on the
quarterly reports
86
•
•
10.10
A review of process issues; how well is the play partnership working, and to what extent
are stakeholders involved in the process
Funding status report
- Specific project funding updates
- Overall level of new / additional funding acquired
A full review of the Play Strategy will take place every five years. This will include the following:
•
Consultation and surveys with children and young people, parents and stakeholders on
the projects that have been delivered and progress towards the overall goals and
objectives
•
A full audit of play spaces and supervised play
•
A review of funding opportunities, and progress in using section 106 funds
•
Changes in legislation
•
Any relevant strategy, policies or partnership opportunities emerging at national and
local level as well as existing guidance such as Kids Inclusion Framework and Planning
for Inclusion
This review will be undertaken by Mendip District Council working with the Play Partnership in a
manner similar to the development of the original play strategy. It should aim to highlight emerging
best practice in the district, projects and initiatives which have been successful, and those which
have not worked so well (including the reasons for this).
Evaluating the Projects
10.11
The Action Plan in chapter 8 identifies a series of projects that will be taken forward to deliver the
priorities of the strategy. It sets out key criteria against which individual projects should be
evaluated and suggests evaluation methods. However, the detailed framework for the evaluation
of individual projects will be developed at the same time as the project proposals. Evaluation
methods will vary depending on the type of projects (projects to develop playspace will be
evaluated differently from capacity building work). The evaluation of individual projects will be
based on the following principles:
.
•
Stakeholders, users, and community groups (including all age groups and those with
additional needs) should be involved in ex-post evaluation or projects relating to specific
places or spaces
•
The Play Partnership should have a role in supporting the play co-ordinator to develop
evaluation frameworks for individual projects.
•
Evaluation should seek to identify what has worked well and what has not and reasons
why this might be the case (including both process and outcome issues)
•
It should also identify the lessons to be learned from the project, how any problems
might be remedied and what might be done differently in the future on other similar
projects.
Roles and Responsibilities
10.12
The Council will take the lead role in evaluating and monitoring the outcomes of the strategy and
will be responsible for communication with the Play Partnership and other partnerships and
services. However, project partners will also take a role once individual projects have evolved and
frameworks for this evaluation will be further developed.
87
88
References
Chapter 2
A Child’s Place – why environment matters to children, Gillian Thomas and Guy Thompson Green
Alliance/Demos, 2004
At least five a week: Evidence on the impact of physical activity and its relationship to health Chief Medical
Officer, 2004
Best play’– what play provision should do for children; NPFA, Playlink, Children’s Play Council (2001)
Bright Futures: Promoting children and young people’s mental health The Mental Health Foundation
1999Planning for Play, The Big Lottery Fund and Children’s Play Council, (2006)
Children and Media Conference, Sigman, A,, House of Commons, April 2007
Health Survey for England 2002: volume 1: the health of children and young people, Sproston, K. and
Primatesta, P. The Stationery Office. (2003)
If you go down to the woods today, Gill, T. Ecologist Magazine September 2005,
Kids Inclusion Framework for Local Authorities, Kids and Playwork Inclusion Project, 2005
Managing risk in play provision: a position statement The Play Safety Forum 2002
Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation, ODPM, (2002)
Planning for Pla,y Big Lottery Fund and the Children’s Play Council (2006)
Somerset Play Policy Framework Somerset Play Forum (2005)
The therapeutic benefits of unstructured outdoor play, Jenkins,G.and Evans, S, University of the West of
England (2006)
Chapter 3
Best Value Performance Indicators, Department of Communities and Local Government
Child Road Safety Strategy, The Department of Transport (2007)
Choosing Health, White Paper Department of Health (2004)
Cultural Services: Mendip District Council, Audit Commission, 2006
Getting Serious About Play: a review of children’s play, The Department for Culture, Media and Sport,
(2004)
Green Spaces, Better Places Department of Transport Local Government and the Regions (2002)
Joint Area Review, Somerset, Ofsted, (2007)
Local Area Agreement, Somerset, Somerset Strategic Partnership, (2006)
89
Manual for Streets, Department of Transport (2007)
The Mendip Climate Change Strategy, Mendip Strategic Partnership, (2007)
Mendip Community Strategy, Mendip Strategic Partnership, (2005)
Mendip Corporate Plan 2006-2009, Mendip District Council, (2006)
Mendip Local Plan, Mendip District Council, (2002)
Mendip Street and Landscape Services Business Plan, Mendip District Council, (2006)
The National Service Framework for Children, Young People and Maternity Services , Department of
Health, 2004
Population projections, Office for National Statistics, (2003)
Planning Policy Statement 3:Housing, Department of Communities and Local Government, (2006)
Promoting Healthy Diets and Physical Activity The European Union Green Paper Dec, 2005)
The Somerset Children and Young People’s Plan 2006 - 2009, Somerset Children and Young People
Service. (2006)
Somerset County Youth Service Mendip Area Plan 2006-2007, Somerset County Council
Strategy to Improve Health and Reduce Inequalities, Somerset Primary Care Trust
Time For Play, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (2004)
Warming to the Idea, South West Climate Change Partnership, 2003.
Chapter 4
Planning for Play, Big Lottery Fund and the Children’s Play Council (2006)
Chapter 5
Diocese of Bath and Wells Play Audit, Diocese of Bath and Wells, (2007)
Chapter 6
Asking at Ammerdown, Barnardo’s, (2007)
Mendip Participation Project, Somerset Children’s Fund and the Mendip Strategic Partnership, (2006)
Chapter 9
Children’s Play Programme Guidance Notes, Children’s Play Council, (2006)
Paying for Parks, CABE Space, (2006)
90
Chapter 10
Local Performance Indicator LIB 115 (Development and Implementation of Corporate Play Policy:
Assessing Your Progress) Audit Commission
91
92
APPENDICES
93
Appendix 1 – Typology for Play and Open spaces
A1.1
The audit of play and open spaces identifies spaces that are publicly accessible and have
potential as a resource for play. The typology is a tool for categorising and describing the spaces
in a consistent manner so that they can be more easily analysed, and so that trends and themes
can be identified.
A1.2
The methods for developing the typology drew on advice contained within ‘planning for play’ and
within the Mayor of London’s guide to preparing play strategies.
A1.3
In order to ensure that the typology was responsive to the particular spaces found in Mendip, It
was important not to pre-determine the different ‘types’ of space before the survey work had taken
place. Sites were recorded during the survey based on two classifications: firstly by the character
or type of place, and secondly by the type of play or other facilities provided. The table below
illustrates the options for each of these two classifications.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
A1.4
Tier 1. Type of Place
Playground – primary purpose of the space is as a playground – with
equipment
Large open space (e.g. Playing field, sports pitch or informal large space over
0.2ha)
Small open space (0.2ha or less) – including small ‘amenity’ open space in
housing areas.
Small Park – for village, neighbourhood use in local residential areas (0.2 –
1ha)
Large park – for town or wider area (destination park) (over 1ha)
Ball games / kickabout area – hard surface
Wheeled sports area
civic space – e.g. town square, public space or other small hard space
Village Green
School (with play facilities potentially available outside school hours)
Natural / semi natural green spaces (including green corridors & spaces with
biodiversity value)
Streets and adjacent sites used together / shopping areas
Other – describe (e.g. tourist destinations)
Tier 2. Play facilities provided
None specific
Play equipment for younger children / toddlers (2-5) and number of items &
what they include (e.g. slide / sand pit etc)
Play equipment for older children (up to 10/11), number of items and what they
include
Equipment for games / sports for all ages (e.g. basketball hoop / ball court /
skate area) – list equipment
Wheeled sports facilities (e.g. skate park / BMX track)
Facilities for young people: e.g. Youth shelter / hang out area
Adventure playground
Other – describe
Following the survey, a typology was developed based on the types of sites actually observed
within towns and villages. The table below presents the typology. It shows how the typology was
developed based on the two classifications above
94
Typology
Playground
School
Natural Spaces
Public Realm
Large Amenity space (over 0.2ha)
Playing fields & pitches (over 0.2ha)
Small Amenity space (up to 0.2ha)
Pocket Park (up to 0.2ha)
Neighbourhood / small park (0.2 – 1ha)
Town / Large park (over 1ha)
Kickabout area
Skate park
Civic space
Village Green
Other
A1.5
Tier 2 Classification
2,3,4
any
1 (6)
1 (2,3)
1
2,3,4,6
1
2,3
2,3
2,3,4,5,6,7,8
1
1
1
1
any
In order to simplify parts of the analysis, types of spaces were grouped together into their different
geographical levels or ‘hierarchies’. The 3 level hierarchy and how the typology relates to this is
reproduced below:
With
facilities
Without
facilities
A1.6
Tier 1 classification
1
10
11
12
2
2
3
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
13
Level 1 sites
Strategic / Town wide
- Town park
(over 1 ha)
- Skate park
- Civic space
Level 2 sites
Neighbourhood
- Neighbourhood parks
(0.2ha – 1ha)
- Village Greens
- Playing fields &
pitches
(over 0.2ha)
- Natural spaces
- Large Amenity spaces
(over 0.2ha)
Level 3 sites
Local / street level
- Pocket parks
- Playground
- Kickabout area
- Public realm
- Small amenity site
(up to 0.2ha)
All the terms within the typology and hierarchy are used on a consistent basis throughout the
strategy.
95
Appendix 2 – Play space quality indicators
A2.1
Local authorities are advised to develop their own criteria for measuring the quality of spaces and
a series of indicators has been developed in Mendip to measure different elements of the quality
of spaces. The indicators have drawn on best practice advice from the planning and open space
sectors,4 as well as urban design knowledge and research on the nature and qualities of spaces.
A2.2
The main analysis of site quality concentrates on those indicators which can be assessed on a
consistent basis for all sites to enable a meaningful comparison to be made between sites. A
series of 17 indicators was developed for this purpose. These cover four main areas and are listed
below:
Condition and overall appearance
•
General appearance and condition
•
Does the space feel welcoming
•
Noise levels
Health, safety and security
•
Potential for natural surveillance (e.g. from adjacent housing / passers by)
•
Any danger from traffic or other hazards adjacent to the site
•
Any danger from hazards within the site (e.g. glass, dog mess, water)
Sociability of spaces (social play value); and
•
Opportunities to sit
•
Opportunity for shade
•
Opportunity for shelter
•
Potential to socialize through layout and design
•
Opportunity to run around
Physical qualities of spaces (including physical play value).
•
Is there landscaping, slopes and trees to encourage different types of play? / places to
hide
•
Potential for contact with natural forms and materials (including sensory stimulation)
•
Opportunity to change the environment
•
Potential for challenging / stimulating play
•
Potential for creative / exploratory play
A2.3
In order to facilitate the analysis of sites, a numeric value was assigned to each site for each
indicator; -1 = poor, 0 = medium and 1 = good. The values were combined to give an overall
quality score. This enabled sites to be given a general category of poor, average or good, based
on their score (see below).
•
Poor quality: 4-6
•
Average quality: 7-9
•
Good quality: 10 - 12
A2.4
In addition to this analysis of overall quality, several other key indicators are assessed separately
because data was only available for a limited number of sites. These indicators are as follows:
•
Use (including whether the space was being used, how many people were present,
their age, gender and ethnicity)
•
Age range suitability
•
Condition of facilities (for both children and adults)
96
•
Disabled access.
A2.5
The use of sites is an important indicator of quality. However, during the audit of sites, people
were observed in only 23% of sites. Use is intermittent and dependent on time and weather.
Therefore it would not be appropriate to draw conclusions about the quality of individual sites
depending on whether they were in use at the time of survey. For this reason, use is assessed
only in terms of the limited number of sites where people were present.
A2.6
Indicators such as age range, suitability and condition of facilities can only really be assessed at
sites where facilities exist and so these are also assessed separately.
A2.7
Disabled access was assessed separately as this draws on the DDA data collected by Mendip
District Council and this applies only to sites with play facilities owned by Mendip District Council.
A2.8
It is important to understand that there are limitations with any method which attempts to assess
quality. In fact, some commentators feel that the quality of spaces cannot be measured as it is
necessarily dependent on subjective evaluation. The approach used in this audit was to train a
small group of site assessors to try to ensure that sites were assessed in the same way. However,
there may well be some anomalies and it is anticipated that these will be ironed out over time as
sites are re-surveyed as part of the five yearly review. In addition, the indicators may need to be
revised as knowledge, opinion and understanding of the quality of spaces evolves.
97
Appendix 3: Quality maps for play spaces.
This Appendix is provided as a separately bound document.
98
Appendix 4: Accessibility maps for play spaces.
This appendix is provided as a separately bound document
99
Appendix 5 : Supervised Play Questions and contacts.
A5.1
We asked town and parish councils, play providers and others about play opportunities in towns
and villages. We asked about 7 different types of supervised play:
•
After-school clubs
•
Holiday play schemes
•
Youth clubs/ or other clubs for children and young people
•
Play events (i.e. parks playdays
•
Mobile play (i.e. playbuses)
•
Soft play
•
Toddler groups.
A5.2
We also asked about any other types of supervised play that didn’t fall into these categories.
A5.3
We asked those contacted about the following issues:
•
Funding
•
Organisation
•
Attendance
•
Age group
•
The activities and play equipment offered
•
Hours available
•
Catering for additional needs.
A5.4
The following organisations contributed to the survey:
Baltonsborough Church of England School
Baltonsborough Youth Club
Batcombe Toddler Group
Beckington Primary School
Brookside Primary School
Chats Café
Chilcompton Youth Club
Critchill School
Diocese of Bath and Wells
F.A.H.A Playscheme
Frome Family Centre
Frome Leisure Centre
Frome Youth Centre
GAP Playscheme
Glastonbury Children’s Centre
Glastonbury Leisure Centre
Guides
Hillmead Kidz Club, Shepton Mallet
Hindhayes Infant School
Holcombe Youth Club
Holy Trinity Church Frome
Junction 21 Soft Play, Frome
Key Children’s Centre, Frome
Little Footprints, St Catherine’s Church, Frome
Mendip Housing Association
Methodist Church
National Childbirth Trust, Street
Nunney First School
Opportunity Group Frome and District
Pyramid Children’s Centre, Frome
100
Salvation Army
Saint Catherine’s Church, Frome
St Mary’s Church, Frome
Saint Peter and Saint Paul’s Church, Shepton Mallet
Scouts
Shepton Mallet Leisure Centre
Somerset County Adult Leisure and Learning team
Somerset County Council Childcare Advisory Service
Somerset County Council Early Years
Somerset County Young People’s Service
Somerset Play Forum
Somerset Rural Youth Partnership
Sparks After School Club, Stoberry Park School, Wells
Street Harvest Church
Sunflower Club, Frome
Town and parish councils
Wells Blue School
Wells Children’s’ Forum
Wells Leisure Centre
Wesley Church, Frome
West Mendip Opportunity Group
YMCA
Young Somerset
101
Appendix 6: Funding: Sources of Information
A5.1
The following are sources of information and advice:
Rhiannon Prys-Owen
Children and Young People’s Voluntary Sector Partnership in Somerset (CHYPPS)
34, Wellington Road
Taunton
Somerset
TA1 5AW
01823 257917
Musetta Lench
CHYPPS
01278 722300
[email protected]
Information on grants
GRANTnet- free funding search available through the SVSN web site. Searchable database for
funding sources, free to all with a Somerset postcode. http://www.svsn.org/page/grantnet
Sally Gubb, Voluntary Sector Grants Officer, Mendip District Council 01749 341411
[email protected]. Support and advice to small and larger voluntary organisations seeking
additional funds for work in the Mendip area.
Mendip Community Support
07966-697596
Advice for all voluntary and community groups in Mendip with a focus on the local groups rather
than national organisations.
The Somerset Community Foundation
The Somerset Community Foundation http://www.somersetcf.org.uk/grants.html runs a variety of
grant-aid programmes and advises on suitable grant programmes or recommends an alternative
funder if the project falls outside the Community Foundation's criteria. Each of these funds is open
to small voluntary and community groups who have a bank account, constitution and produce
annual income and expenditure accounts. All applications are considered by an independent
panel of local people with the skills, knowledge and experience to make decisions on awards.
Grants are monitored for their effectiveness.
Julia Resenterra, Grant Funding Officer, Somerset County Council - Environment
01823 356284
Funding advice on local, national and strategic sources mainly to officers and managers within
County Hall, but also to members of community groups or the general public on request
Jane Worth, External Funding Manager,External Funding Team, Children and Young People’s
Services, Somerset County Council, 01823 356168
Rachel Chainey, Somerset Play Forum, 01935 381855, Advice on local, national and strategic
funding
The Somerset Voluntary Sector Network http://www.svsn.org.uk/index.php
102
A county-wide organization, committed to supporting and strengthening the voluntary community
sector in Somerset. It aims to bring together voluntary organizations and community groups, to
share experience and skills. It also gives details of the Somerset Funding Advice Workers’
Network.Tel: 01823 338782
Table of funding sources
Funding source
PIDNEM
http://www.mendiphous
ing.com/residents/com
munity.html
County Council Local
Area Working Panels:
Youth Opportunity
Fund
http://www.everychildm
atters.gov.uk/youthmatt
ers/
How it works
Mendip Housing’s Community Chest Fund. Total of £40,000
available for grants from £1,000 to £5,000. Grant applications go
to grants committee which meets four times a year. £10,000
available for small projects which need no more than £1,000. A
decision on funding can usually be made within eight weeks of
application. Applicants for the Community Chest funds do not have
to be Mendip Housing tenants.
West Mendip Opportunity Group received an award of £5000
Mendip Housing partly has funded the Hillmead Kidz Club in
Shepton Mallet
Forums through which frontline Councillors can take direct control
over County Council spending within local communities. Mendip's
budget is £180k. This will increase as the LAWPs develop .This
budget is to be spent on priorities that are common to both the
Somerset Local Area Agreement (LAA) and the local plans of the
communities covered by the Area Working Panel (Community
Strategy, Parish Plans etc).The LAWP itself is made up of the
County Councillors as voting Members. It could decide to extend
membership by co-opting non-voting members It operates at
District LSP level but is likely to want to develop structures at
community neighbourhood level.
Somerset County Council’s Youth Service has been allocated
money from the Government’s Youth Opportunity and Youth
Capital Funds.
The aim of the Youth Opportunity Fund is to involve young people,
especially those who are to hard to reach, in identifying positive
things to do, and to support their role as decision makers, grant
givers and project leaders. No restrictions on the range of
initiatives and activities that the YOF can support provided that
they are supporting the outcomes from Every Child Matters.
Partnerships and joint-funding with other statutory, voluntary,
community and private partner organisations encouraged as is
collaboration with other young people from different cultural and
social backgrounds.
Last financial year and early into this year, young people in
Mendip successfully applied for £203,000 worth of grants for
projects.
Youth Capital Fund
http://www.everychildm
atters.gov.uk/youthmatt
ers
/
BBC Children in Need
www.bbc.co.uk/pudsey/
Youth Capital Fund is aimed at enabling local authorities to
develop new approaches to strategic investment in youth facilities
and involve young people in this. Targeted at deprived
neighbourhoods and disadvantaged neighbourhoods
Fund with a particular focus on disadvantaged children and those
with special needs
103
Comic Relief’s Red
Nose Programme
http://www.comicrelief.c
om/apply-for-agrant/uk
West Mendip Opportunity Group received £2,652 in the year
starting November 2006
Focuses on supporting community-based projects that work with
young people as well as others. Grants awarded for up to 3 years’
duration. Most grants between £15,000-£40,000. All are over
£5000
Scope
http://www.scope.org.u
k/
UK disability organisation whose focus is people with cerebral
palsy. Critchill After School Club has received funding from this
source
National Autistic
Society
www.nas.org.uk/
The National Autistic Society champions the rights and interests of
all people with autism and ensures that they and their families
receive quality services appropriate to their needs.
Critchill After School Club has received funding from this source
Registered charities, voluntary or community groups, charitable or
not-for-profit companies, parish and town councils and social
enterprises can apply. Playful Ideas funds capital and revenue for
projects lasting up to five years. These projects must support
innovation and new ways of providing for children’s play.
West Lydford is submitting a bid to the BLF Playful Ideas
programme for the complete refurbishment and development of a
larger play area.
BLF’s Playful Ideas
programme
http://www.biglotteryfun
d.org.uk/prog_childrens
_play.htm
Aggregates Levy Fund:
The South West
England Environmental
Trust (SWEET)
http://www.sweet-uk.com
Landfill Communities
Fund
http://www.hmrc.gov.uk
The SITA Trust
Enhancing
Communities
Programme
http://www.sitatrust.org.
uk/
T he BLF Reaching
Communities
www.biglotteryfund.org.uk
Whenever waste is buried in the ground by a landfill site operator,
a landfill tax is payable by the operator to Customs and Excise.
The landfill tax credits scheme allows a LSO to divert up to 6.5%
of this tax, as a credit, to certain types of academic, commercial or
community projects. The scheme is voluntary and regulated by a
Government agency called Entrust. Grants include::
Aggregates Levy Fund: The South West England Environmental
Trust (SWEET) supports environmental projects such as the
provision of public amenities and run by nonprofit making
organisations. These have to be within 10 miles of an active
landfill site in the South West
Landfill Communities Fund offers grants to trusts, co-operatives,
societies and companies for environmental and community
projects
The SITA Trust Enhancing Communities Programme supports
projects within the vicinity of a SITA landfill site. Funding is
available for the installation of play facilities. Eligible groups
include voluntary groups, charities, local authorities and parish
councils
Alternative funding for organizations that are not local authorities.
Applicants must either be a registered charity, a voluntary or
community group, a statutory body, a charitable or not-for-profit
company or a social enterprise. Grants from £10,000 to £500,000
are available for projects that respond to needs identified by
communities and actively involve them. Projects must help those
most in need. Objectives include creating improved rural and
urban environments, which communities are better able to access
and enjoy and healthier and more active people and communities.
Competition for funds is fierce. Somerset Rural Youth Project has
been granted £494,376,.
104
Local Network Fund
www.everychildmatters.g
ov.uk/strategy/localnetw
orkfund/
Invests directly in the activities of local community and voluntary
groups working for and with children and young people aged 0 19. Government initiative that exists to help disadvantaged
children and young people achieve their potential by Grants from
£250 to £7000 are available. This programme will stop accepting
applications at the end of September 2007.
Help Yourselves
http://www.helpyoursel
ves.org.uk/index.jsp
Funds projects and activities that help children and young people
who are excluded and isolated. This may apply to children living in
rural areas in Mendip.The charity aims to support adults and
young people working together. Created by Save the Children and
British Gas, the Here to Help awards. 50 Awards of up to £1,000
to give away for projects that can take place between September
and November 2007. Priority will be given to disadvantaged
communities and groups. .
To be eligible for funding through the programme, schools have to
meet five criteria:
- After-school activities
- Childcare including before and after school and during the
holidays
- Community access
- Swift and easy referral to other services
- Parenting support
Extended Schools
Programme
http://www.everychildm
atters.gov.uk
The BLF’s Big Boost
http://www.biglotteryfund.
org.uk
Young People’s Fund 2
http://www.everychildm
atters.gov.uk
Voluntary Youth Sector
Grants from Somerset
County Council and
Connexions Somerset.
Somerset Crimebeat
Simon Paul Selby
Co-ordinator
Tel: 07768598106
Schools do not have to offer childcare themselves if they can signpost the way to other childcare. However, schools must consult
with parents first on what they wish to see provided. The
Community Learning Partnership coordinator decides on which
schools meet the criteria while the County Council advises on
extended schools and carries out auditing. Five schools in Mendip
meet the criteria.
Part of the Young People’s Fund. Aims to support projects from
individual young people that will improve local communities and
offer more opportunities to young people. Grants of between £250
and £5,000 will be allocated to help individuals and small groups
of young people run a project in their area. The deadline for
applications is November 2007.
Launched Spring 2007.
Will be for voluntary and community organizations to run local
projects that involve young people from start to finish. Under this
scheme grants will only be made to community led, not-for profit
organisations. This means that many types of voluntary and
community organizations can apply, including charities.
Partnerships involving statutory organisations, but led by voluntary
and community organisations, may also apply.
These are managed by CHYPPS, the newly forming umbrella
group representing the Children and Young People's Voluntary
and Community Sector in Somerset
Aims to give children and young people up to the age of 25 an
opportunity to help combat crime in the community.
Grants of up to £1000 available –
Recent support has been given by Gerrard Investment Managers,
C & J Clark International Ltd, Jupiter Asset Management Ltd,
Clarke Willmott, The Drapers Company, ITV West, Michael Eavis
and Foster Yeoman amongst others.
105
Local Area Working
Panels
Formed by the Constabulary in July 1999 to assist the community
to tackle a wide range of issues that affect everyone’s safety and
quality of life, with particular emphasis on helping the young,
vulnerable and elderly. Funds local initiatives including play
spaces with priority is given to those groups and individuals who
help themselves by raising cash to match the funding from the
Trust.
Forums through which frontline County Councillors can take direct
control over County Council spending within local communities.
Mendip's budget is £180k. This will increase as the LAWPs
develop .This budget is to be spent on priorities that are common
to both the Somerset Local Area Agreement (LAA) and the local
plans of the communities covered by the Area Working Panel
(Community Strategy, Parish Plans etc).The LAWP itself is made
up of the County Councillors as voting Members. It operates at
District LSP level but is likely to want to develop structures at
community neighbourhood level.
Lloyds TSB Foundation
www.lloydstsbfoundatio
ns.org.uk/
Three programmes. Up to £5000 for everyday costs and up to
£16,000 for bigger projects. Its community priority programme has
targeted rural disadvantage as a priority in the South West. Only
charities can apply
Millfield Students’ Fund
www.millfield.somerset.s
ch.uk
Students at Millfield have chosen to raise money to create a fund
with Somerset Community Foundation to support local community
organisations in and around Street. The students will be involved
in selecting which groups succeed. Applications are now being
accepted
The Avon and Somerset
Police Community Trust
www.avonandsomerset.
police.uk
106
107