5 Informal Open Space - Functions and Definitions

5.1 This category of open space covers areas of land which have a recreational or amenity function but which do not have attributes (marking/use for formal pitches or other sports, equipped play areas) which would classify them more formal recreational areas. Although no nationally accepted standards exist, it is a purpose of the current study to provide them.

5.2 It is helpful to divide informal open space into two types: informal recreation space and amenity areas.

Informal recreation space

5.3 This is public open space which can be used for recreational activity, including walking, sitting and informal games. Such areas can often be quite extensive, forming parts of parks, village greens etc and those parts of ornamental parks and gardens which are not marked as formal sports areas. Use may not be formally recorded, but such areas make an important contribution to the quality of life of residents in general and particularly children

Amenity areas

5.4 These are areas of land which are required to improve the setting, layout and visual impact of housing or other built development. This is essentially space which allows occupiers of housing developments to enjoy visual and physical open space by way of relief from enclosed open space and bricks and mortar. Such areas can thus be provided by elements of the following:

a. open spaces around buildings which contribute to their design and setting

b. communal gardens or courtyards

c. incidental green breaks (between houses, around protected trees or nature conservation features)

d. soft landscaping

e. grass verges, edging roads and footpaths

f. hard landscaping with seating and planters

5.5 Often such areas are used by children for kick-about and other games and have traditionally been included within the NPFA’s requirement for children’s play. Whilst there may be sites in North Devon where the amenity open space is large enough and of appropriate design to safely accommodate casual children’s play, this study has taken the view, for the reasons advanced in Section 4, that because:

a. the precise suitability of the land as children’s play space is sometimes difficult to establish and

b. such land often has an important amenity or recreational value for adults also it is more appropriate to include such areas within the ‘informal open space’ category.

5.6 The database lists hundreds of small sites (ranging in size from 0.003has to around 3 has) which can be classified as informal open space. Some of these have great potential for development as more formal or planned areas and these are presented in the Databases (Appendices 5, 6, 7 & 8).

5.7 Levels of provision vary hugely, even between wards, for example from 2.21 has/000 in Ilfracombe East to 0.53 has/000 in Ilfracombe Central (see Table B in this report). It is recognised that computation of these levels of provision is very sensitive to interpretation of the following:

a. the main use of a site

b. the actual area of land included and

c. the area served by the area in question (catchment area), particularly if this extends beyond its immediate ward/parish.

5.8 Levels of informal open space are also much lower in rural areas than the towns. This is for a number of reasons:

a. because of its value and comparative scarcity within settlements, open space in urban areas tends to be closely managed and thus is more likely to be recorded

b. open space in rural settings is often perceived as ‘countryside’ and not recorded separately

c. the database was compiled by NDDC which has more extensive landholdings and knowledge of open space in towns than in rural areas, and therefore many sites outside the towns are less likely to be included.

5.9 The other difficulty is that demand for informal open space is very difficult to quantify. One needs to study in some detail the current distribution, quality and existing levels of use - similar to that required for other areas of open space - before reaching a conclusion.

Recommendations for new provision

5.10 The following areas are relatively poorly provided for informal open space and should be given priority in determining new areas of provision:

a. Barnstaple wards: Pilton, St Mary’s and Trinity

b. Tawstock parish

c. Ilfracombe Central and West wards

d. Braunton East ward

e. Chulmleigh

f. Combe Martin (south)

g. Instow

h Mortehoe

i. Georgeham

j. Swimbridge

k. Bishop’s Tawton

l. North Molton

m. Bishop’s Nympton

5.11 Priority should also be given to improving linkages (walkways, footpaths and cycleways) between existing linear routeways and between areas of existing and proposed open space. Section 9 presents specific recommendations.