Greenspaces Strategy appendices

Respondent viewpoints

Agree

• "I am neurodivergent – 40 pages was a lot, but it looks great, very well written with pictures."
• "It was a typical report, which I read in full."
• “The document is very easy to read and comprehend, but it is overly verbose..."
• "It was easy to read and comprehend but was very long..."
• "Looks valid."

Disagree

• “I lost the will to live”
• “Overwhelmed by management-speak,
• “If you expect me to read a 53-page PDF, you are mad?”
• “Too long, needs more of a summary,
• “A lot of it is vague management consultancy boilerplate…Too wordy and full of jargon, if a summary report had been available… it would have made more sense.

Neutral / conflicting

Respondent viewpoints

Agree

• "Overall I like the main ethos of the vision, especially the focus on biodiversity, more trees etc."
• "Feels like it gets the right balance between creating active spaces (tennis courts, play areas etc) and creating natural spaces. Keen to see more on rewilding..."
• "That high level vision is hard to disagree with... we need to work harder to protect nature."
• "It’s a very good vision for green spaces and it embraces all sections of our community."
• "I agree in general, but I think there should be done more for biodiversity and less for building new areas."

Disagree

• "It’s meaningless waffle as a statement.”
• "The document is largely meaningless guff... your ambition is to sanitise and regulate areas in the name of 'inclusion'."
• "Doesn't explain in any 'real terms' what RBBC will actually do."
• “Too focussed on nature and not people."
• "Couldn’t keep up with all the nonsense the council wrote about how fabulous they were."

Respondent viewpoints

Agree

• “I strongly believe that nature and biodiversity should be a priority – it will positively affect health and wellbeing”
• “Environmental sustainability should be number 1 priority”
• “Nature by its very existence helps Health & Wellbeing of humans”
• “I think nature and biodiversity within it should come first – without that, you won't have the wherewithal to provide for the other things”
• “Health and wellbeing should include providing appropriate amenities”

Disagree

• “More meaningless waffle”
• “Biodiversity sounds expensive. As HS2 found with its bat tunnel.
• “A disgraceful waste of money. Meaningless claptrap that you have no doubt paid a fortune for”
• “Frenches Pond in Redhill always attracts antisocial behaviour in summer and nothing is done about it”
• “Many paths get slippy and waterlogged with huge puddles making walking difficult.

Respondent viewpoints

Agree

• “People can get healthy and active in natural environments…”
• “Access to open/green spaces hugely important”
• “I do agree with ‘encouraging active lifestyles’… this is excellent.”
• “Allotments are very important”
• “Keen to see more hosting of diverse, sustainable community events”

Disagree

• “Allotments currently not well managed…”
• “Fostering cultural engagement sounds like a euphemism for ‘expensive and pointless woke indulgences’…”
• “I walk round the Frenches Pond and… it does not do anything for my mental health…”
• “Parks should not be used for organised events…”
• “The existing football pitches are in a terrible condition…”

Neutral / conflicting

Respondent viewpoints

Agree

• "I especially welcome the creation of a 'tree inventory' and strategy…"
• "To draw up biodiversity baselines… would help to focus targeted conservation efforts…"
• "Emphasize the importance of allotments as biodiversity hubs, and as community diversity hubs!"
• "I would support measures to support environmental sustainability and tackling climate change…"
• "I think it would be good to add outreach projects to link the community with biodiversity projects."

Disagree

• "Point three is utterly nonsensical and impossible to understand…"
• "It will be too expensive"
• "It is evident from your treatment of Earlswood upper Lake… that you have absolutely no clue about nature."
• "Not ambitious at all… No holistic view with neighbouring councils. Very disappointing..."
• "All laudable, but these are all vague. Words like "Enhance" or "Strengthen" convey nothing"

Respondent viewpoints

Agree

• “I think partnering with volunteer groups is very important to share responsibilities for natural spaces and their maintenance... The council needs to engage and maintain these partnerships...”
• “In this increasing computer age more should be done to encourage people, especially the younger generation to exercise... help local wildlife flourish.”
• “Seats and access to them... need to help people access the green areas. Not everyone can stand.”
• “Children’s play spaces are very important. I think there could be more ‘natural’ play spaces, with mud kitchen, logs to climb on...”
• “Everyone should be able to enjoy Greenspaces, without worrying about other people’s thoughtlessness”

Disagree

• “Cars do not enhance local spaces or help with biodiversity. Stop allowing the green spaces to be used as car parking.”
• “Most distressing events I have witnessed relate to the abuse of these areas by the traveling community... inadequate maintenance of barriers...”
• “Banstead always seems to be low down on the list priorities in the Borough compared to Reigate and Redhill.”
• “The respondents to your survey were overwhelmingly elderly (55+) ... you are missing out on many people's views.”
• “Large scale commercial and noisy events in the parks... are detracting from our enjoyment of a peaceful environment.”

Positive feedback headlines

1. Parks and green spaces valued by the community

• Priory Park, Nork Park, and Redhill Memorial Park are praised for their beauty, cleanliness, and role in community life.
• Redhill Common is described as having a daily positive impact on residents’ wellbeing.

2. Battlebridge track seen as a vital asset

• The Battlebridge athletics track is widely recognized as a valuable community space for all ages, with strong support for its improvement.
• Residents and clubs highlight its potential to promote health, youth development, and inclusive exercise.

3. Support for biodiversity and environmental protection

• Strong endorsement for rewilding, “No Mow May,” tree planting, and nature recovery.
• Appreciation for wild areas like St Mary’s Churchyard and Frenches Pond.

4. Community engagement and volunteering encouraged

• Residents express interest in tree planting, rewilding projects, and better promotion of volunteer opportunities.
• Local groups like Friends of Ifold Road Park and Horley Conservation Group want to collaborate with the council.

5. Appreciation for inclusive and creative recreation

• Suggestions for frisbee golf, sensory play areas, pump tracks, and outdoor gyms are seen as fun and inclusive.
• Little libraries, shaded benches, and splash pads are valued by families.

6. Recognition of the need for equitable investment

• Calls for fair distribution of resources across towns and villages, not just flagship parks like Priory Park.

Negative feedback headlines

1. Poor maintenance and infrastructure

• Battlebridge track described as unsafe, outdated, and poorly maintained.
• Redhill Memorial Park and playground seen as neglected compared to Reigate.
• Broken equipment, potholes, flooding, and deteriorating paths are common complaints.

2. Accessibility barriers

• Lack of disabled parking and poor toilet access, especially near playgrounds and splash pads.
• Muddy paths and overgrown grass restrict access for elderly, disabled users, and families with prams.

3. Dog fouling and waste management

• Insufficient bins and lack of enforcement across parks.
• Dog fouling on tracks and pitches (e.g. Battlebridge) and in Priory Park remains a concern.

4. Safety and antisocial behaviour

• Reports of drug use, vandalism, and intimidation in Priory Park and Redhill Common.
• Speeding cyclists on shared paths pose risks to walkers and dogs.
• Rough sleeping and related sanitation issues noted on Redhill Common.

5. Noise pollution and event regulation

• Complaints about amplified sound, poor licensing oversight, and council inaction.
• Concerns about over-commercialization of parks like Priory Park.

6. Strategy communication and transparency

• Survey questions and strategy language seen as vague or poorly articulated.
• Some green spaces (e.g., South Walk and East Walk) omitted from maps.
• Scepticism about consultancy spending and perceived bias toward larger towns.

Next steps (based on suggestions)

Recreation and facilities

• Resurface Battlebridge athletics track with a modern, safe, all-weather surface.
• Improve lighting and drainage at Battlebridge to ensure safe year-round use.
• Upgrade football pitches and ancillary facilities to match community demand.
• Renovate playgrounds at The Acres and Redhill Memorial Park.
• Fix broken equipment and maintain water fountains across parks.
• Add alternative sports facilities (e.g., frisbee golf, skate parks, pump tracks).
• Expand sensory play areas and outdoor gym equipment near residential areas.

Accessibility and safety

• Add more disabled parking spaces near popular parks and green spaces.
• Improve public toilets, especially near splash pads and playgrounds.
• Install anti-cyclist barriers at Redhill Common entrances to reduce speeding hazards.
• Address flooding and drainage issues at Redhill Common and Whitepost Hill.
• Enforce dog fouling rules and improve warden presence in high-use parks.
• Improve signage and education around respectful use of farmland and public paths.

Nature and environment

• Manage duckweed at Frenches Pond to protect biodiversity.
• Balance grass cutting to maintain accessibility while supporting wildlife.
• Strengthen biodiversity and nature recovery efforts with visible action and accountability.
• Support rewilding and tree planting initiatives with allocated budgets and community involvement.
• Ensure green spaces are protected from development pressures and remain accessible to all.

1. The document states that the RBBC Draft Greenspaces Strategy ‘covers a ten-year period, and its scope focuses on parks and greenspaces managed and maintained by the Borough Council’. However, we note with concern that the community survey conducted by your external consultants appears to omit several greenspaces located in the southern part of the borough, including Horley. Some of these spaces are on borough- owned land and fall within RBBC’s responsibilities in terms of greenspace services, community assets, and statutory obligations – for example, Yattendon Recreation Ground and Bay Close. There is also Church Meadows which is borough owned and maintained by HTC through devolved services.
   Given this omission, we must question the validity of the survey focusing on the north of the borough and not borough-wide? Furthermore, while the strategy refers to the four main population centres as Reigate, Horley, Redhill, and Banstead Village, the lack of comprehensive inclusion of Horley greenspaces undermines the completeness and representativeness of the strategy. We respectfully request clarification on how these omissions occurred and whether there are plans to address them to ensure equitable consideration across all areas of the borough?
2. We are disappointed not to have been approached by your appointed consultants during the initial stages of the Draft Greenspaces Strategy, particularly during the information gathering stage. As a local authority with extensive experience in grounds maintenance, public service delivery, biodiversity enhancement and the provision of recreational facilities, we believe our input would have been both relevant and beneficial. This is particularly the case, considering our direct management of several greenspaces, including the six-acre Horley Recreation Ground. This site has been positively recognised in your own evaluations as one of the borough’s most popular parks and has ranked highly across various assessment categories. Our work in this greenspace, such as the installation of new equipment to support health and wellbeing, as well as initiatives like wildflower/tree planting and flood mitigation through verti-draining at Court Lodge playing fields, could have provided strong, relevant case studies to complement those already included in the strategy. We would welcome the opportunity to contribute our experience and insights to ensure the strategy fully reflects the efforts being made across all parts of the borough.
3. We further note that a key objective of the strategy is to “work with stakeholders to access, promote and encourage opportunities to enhance biodiversity and nature.” To meaningfully deliver on this commitment, we believe improvements are necessary in the inclusivity and reach of stakeholder engagement. Specifically, we are concerned that your consultee list does not include HTC or any of our key community partners and volunteer groups, many of whom have an established track record in conservation, environmental enhancement and promoting health and wellbeing. Notable examples include the Gatwick Greenspace Partnership and Horley Conservation Group, both of which are recognised for their contributions to local biodiversity and habitat restoration along with dedicated community work. Inclusion of these organisations would have provided valuable insight and strengthened the biodiversity focus of the strategy together with other important environmental elements.

Additionally, your consultee list does not include Salfords & Sidlow Parish Council and emphasises the omission of greenspaces located south of the borough in our opinion. We would hope that you would be contacting them in the same vein for valuable input on the matter.

In conclusion, HTC is broadly supportive of the overarching principles and strategic priorities set out in the Draft Greenspaces Strategy, including those related to resource efficiency, achieving net zero targets and the adoption of best practices across all themes. However, we believe that further work is needed to improve the robustness and representativeness of the strategy. Specifically, we are of the view that it should only be adopted as a complete, borough-wide strategy once greenspaces south of the borough are fully acknowledged and integrated with those featured north of the borough. Horley is a major commuter town with a rapidly growing population and its exclusion undermines both the inclusivity and the operational reliability of the document. Furthermore, HTC has a proven track record of working collaboratively with RBBC to meet shared objectives, as demonstrated by the recent Horley Open Spaces and Facilities survey. Our expectation is to build on this collaborative foundation to continue delivering positive, measurable outcomes for residents and local communities. We trust that our feedback will be received in the constructive spirit intended and hope it will support more refinement to the RBBC Draft Greenspaces Strategy.

Reigate Area Conservation Volunteers

thank you for the opportunity for RACV to comment of the latest draft of the Greenspaces Strategy.

As you know RACV supports and welcomes such a strategy, and there is a lot of good things in here. for the sake of conciseness, comments below are therefore centred on clarity and where the strategy could be strengthened, and should be seen in that context as constructive suggestions not criticism.

I have not responded to the online survey, as it doesn't give opp to make points, and as someone who professionally designs surveys, is very much designed to give you the answer you want (or that's how it comes across).

• Page 3 - second bullet point on biodiversity says already identified a local need to maximise ecological habitats and opportunities. Where is this set out?
• Page 4 - biodiversity, are not the last two points re enhancing biodiversity actually climate change points? It is also about managing, protecting and enhancing existing biodiversity too. Biodiversity section feels a bit thin. Financial pressures: need to context the cost figure in terms of are we spending more or less over time, how this compares with other Surrey Authorities of National Average (big big point that strategy doesn't emphasize is that we blessed with a great proportion of open space land than many other authorities, therefore will need more resources). A breakdown on what percentage / proportion of budget spent on recreation, what on biodiversity, etc would be useful. Like to see bullet point emphasising manage sites in right way can save money / generate income - grass cutting case in point don't need to mow as regularly and can produce a saleable hay crop, or woodland produce sales. There is also a charging regime that could be looked at to generate income. Third party/grant aid, was a specific fundraising post created in Greenspaces to do this, but for whatever reason didn't bring much in and was abolished.
• Page 5 - housing growth a pop growth repeat / funding point. Last paragraph, not sure sits here, part of introduction / context? Given this section is about key challenges, what is omitted is pressure our open spaces are under from usage.
• Page 7 - do not forget that RBBC are the Conservators for open spaces around Reigate like responsibility re Banstead Conservators, transferred under the 1945 Reigate Act. Map showing designations would clarify matters. Have omitted RIGs from designation.
• Page 8 - I find the circle diagram very useful. Am I correct in understanding the over lapping reflect Greenspaces proportion of SNCI etc, all be it as accurate as can (generalisation refers).
• Page 11 - there are a lot of statements in these three boxes that I'm not sure are fully followed through on subsequent strategy. Interesting that climate change put in the biodiversity box. They are two separate matters, and I would have thought climate change would cut across all box themes. There is nothing on landscape visual elements here. Touches on it re wellbeing. Also nothing on heritage / history side of our greenspaces. Why just tree stock, surely all habitat/species stock?
• Page 12 - principles. Very good that include balancing interests, but I don't see this properly set out in strategy in terms of how achieve, priorities and factors and delivering that balance etc. for example, if SSSI that is of national importance and should trump something of more local importance.
• Page 14 - re establishing the walks programme would meet both health and welbeing and ecological aims.
• Page 15 - nothing on environmental friendly practices on allotments. The case study cited, is not a good example for that strategy. in the case of Petridgewood the site is SNCI, and Whitebushes is part SNCI and football pitch would be if managed correctly (I sat on the SNCI selection panel for Surrey). the reason both wet pitches is because habitat is unimproved wet Wealden grassland. so the case study demonstrates no consideration to other factors as the strategy is proporting to do.
• Page 17 - yet still routing cyclocross event through ancient woodland in Priory Park, and dog control orders do not reflect protection of ancient woodland. Felland Copse for example refers.
• Page 18 - 2.1.6 is this not already done through the designation, SNP and BOA work? Be good to see restoration of historic features such as ponds, hedgerows, etc. RACV paper on restoring lost ponds to Earlswood Common, or Operation Yellowhammer hedgerow restoration over New Pond Farm good examples here.
• Page 19 - a lot of biodiversity is all about joining up areas, corridors, linkages, BOAS, etc. I see nothing of this in actions. Nothing on use pressures, creation of sanctuary areas for wildlife. nothing on geodiversity side of things.
• Page 20 - why just tree stock? Heathland stock, grassland, wetlands. Whilst tree planting important, there is a lot more to biodiversity than just planting trees, particularly when we are England's most heavily wooded County. We have moved on from the 1990s, and I would have thought there was a better case study on biodiversity management than just tree planting.
• Page 21 - says whole systems approach, but climate change not mentioned at all. Also says includes enforcement, but again not reflected in detail.
• Page 22 - good, the balancing of competing interests recognised, but I don't think the actions actually address the issue.
• Page 24 - Merstham case study, says about increasing biodiversity value, but this actually not reflected in the case study report. Reads as a case study for theme 1 recreation.
• Page 25 - individual sites and those with M Plans have annual monitoring and review programmes built in. As ever, the issue in delivery/implementation is resources. I don't see strategy addressing this.
• Page 26 - there's a lot more to Appendix 1 that needs to be added. but I'm not your paid consultant!
• Page 31 - refers to the ranger service. I'm not aware a ranger service now exists. There was a two-staff ranger service created, but that no longer exists as there is a countryside 'odd job' man, that's how he sees himself, and certainly no rangers as Greenspaces don't do enforcement/compliance nor guided walks etc, that core roles of a ranger. I think a lot of us made point that not just ranger Service under resourced, but whole Greenspaces Dept.
• Page 36 and 37 - interesting that all charts are very rec/visitor orientated.