Appendix 2 - Open Space Audit Report
Perth and Kinross Council · 26 August 2026
Back to Economy and Infrastructure Committee — 26 August 2026 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
Open Space Audit Report Scope: In accordance with statutory requirements an audit of existing open space provision across Perth and Kinross was undertaken to inform the preparation of the Open Space Strategy (OSS). The purpose of the audit is to undertake an assessment of the quantity, quality and accessibility (i.e. spatial distribution) of existing open spaces. Open space is defined here as "space within and on the edge of settlements comprising green space or civic areas such as squares, market places and other paved or hard landscaped areas with a civic function.” The audit considered all open spaces within or adjacent to settlement boundaries identified in the current Local Development Plan (LDP2) that are 0.2ha or larger, as well as smaller sites considered to be of local importance. Please note that this audit considers all open spaces, including both publicly and privately managed sites. For a breakdown of the Council’s greenspace assets please refer to the Community Greenspace Asset Management Plan (CGAMP). Each site was visited and initially pre-screened to identify a subset of open spaces deemed accessible to the public. The public open spaces (POS) where then taken forward to the quantity benchmarking and quality assessment stage of the audit. A summary of the spaces considered in the audit is provided in the table below. Table 1: Overview of all open spaces considered in audit Summary of Open Spaces Included in Audit Type No. Sites Total Area (Ha) Public open space (POS) 432 906 Open space with limited accessibility or public functions (e.g. golf courses, allotments, natural space with no formal access) 480 1,996 Total 912 2,902 Typologies Each audited open space has been assigned one or more typologies based on the classifications set out in Planning Advice Note 65: Planning and Open Space (PAN 65). To better reflect local characteristics in Perth and Kinross, and to ensure that LDP2
Page 2
designated open spaces are appropriately classified, some categories have been subdivided and additional typologies introduced where necessary. This approach provides a more accurate and detailed understanding of the function and use of open spaces. The table below provides an overview of the typologies and quantities of each identified across all open spaces considered in the audit. Note that most sites will have multiple typologies, for example a public park may also contain a play space, playing field and natural / semi-natural areas. Table 2: Open space audit typologies Type Description Count (all) Count (Primary Typology) Area (Ha) (Primary Typology) Agricultural land Land in active agricultural use, including arable fields and grazing land, located within or adjacent to settlements. While not primarily used for recreation, many will have core paths running through or around fields. No agricultural land was identified as public open space, however given the rural nature of many settlements, some agricultural land is designated in the LDP. 24 21 69.1 Allotments and Community Growing Space Areas of land for growing fruit, vegetables and other plants, either in individual allotments or as a community activity. 20 19 9.8 Amenity Greenspace Informal, landscaped areas that provide visual amenity and serve as a setting for the built environment, often located within housing areas, commercial areas or alongside roads. These spaces may support casual recreation, such as sitting or informal play, but are not specifically designed for formal activities. 189 149 108.9 Churchyard / Cemetery Land associated with burial grounds, including churchyards and cemeteries, as well as ancillary church grounds not currently in active use for burial. These often provide open space with cultural, historic and landscape value, and often contribute to local biodiversity and informal access. 83 83 72.6 Civic Space Squares, streets and waterfront promenades, predominantly of hard landscaping that provide a focus for pedestrian activity and can make connections for people and for wildlife. 5 1 0.8
Page 3
Green Corridor Routes including canals, river corridors and old railway lines, linking different areas within a town or city as part of a designated and managed network and used for walking, cycling or horse riding, or linking towns and cities to their surrounding countryside or country parks. These may link green spaces together. 108 36 124.7 Natural / Semi- Natural Greenspace Areas of predominantly natural vegetation, including woodlands, grasslands, wetlands and countryside sites. This includes both accessible natural spaces (e.g. paths within woodlands or managed sites) and naturalised areas that are not readily accessible. These spaces often have high ecological value, contribution to biodiversity, habitat networks and opportunities for communities to connect with nature. 215 164 721 Play Space Areas specifically designed and equipped for children’s play, typically including fixed play equipment such as swings, slides and climbing structures. These spaces provide safe opportunities for outdoor play and physical activity for children of different age groups. (Note: This figure includes 147 adopted playgrounds and 23 that are privately managed) 168 60 19.6 Private Garden or Grounds Areas of land normally enclosed and associated with a house or institution and reserved for private use. Access rights do not normally apply to these sites, but such sites often provide landscape and biodiversity value. 26 22 57.5 Public Garden Formally designed and managed greenspaces, often of horticultural or ornamental value, which are publicly accessible. These spaces typically provide opportunities for passive recreation, enjoyment of planting and landscaping, and may also contribute to the setting of historic or civic areas. 27 25 7.2 Public Park Formally designed and managed greenspaces which are publicly accessible and provide a range of informal and formal recreational opportunities. These areas may include paths, seating, landscaped areas, play facilities and 121 117 274.2
Page 4
sports provisions. They often serve as key destination spaces within settlements. School Grounds Open space within the grounds of educational establishments, including schools and campuses. These areas may include playing fields, courts and landscaped spaces, and are primarily for use by students and staff, with no general public access. 90 75 122.9 Sport Area Large and generally flat areas of grassland or specially designed surfaces, used primarily for designated sports (including playing fields, golf courses, tennis courts and bowling greens). This includes facilities that are publicly accessible as well as those that are bookable or privately managed. 272 142 1,314.2 Quantity Assessment The total area of POS included in the audit was used to benchmark against the Council’s open space quantity standard which is for every community to have a ratio of 3.5ha per 1000 people. Census 2022 data was used and in some cases population estimates were calculated by multiplying the number of households by the average household size which is 2.2 people. Although the quantity benchmarking focused on populations residing within LDP2 settlements, it is helpful to contextualise the findings at a wider authority scale. If the total Perth and Kinross population of 150,953 (Census, 2022) were applied to the quantity standard, the resulting POS requirement would be approximately 528ha. In comparison, the audit identified around 906ha of POS, indicating that, at an overall level, open space quantity comfortably exceeds the benchmark but requires an accessibility analysis as to whether its distribution is suitable. The table below breaks these figures down by the primary typology of sites. Table 3: Public open space by primary typology Type Count (Primary Typology) Area (Ha) (Primary Typology) Allotments and Community Growing Spaces 1 0.6 Amenity Greenspace 77 37.5 Churchyard / Cemetery 67 59.8 Civic Space 1 0.8 Green Corridor 35 111.6
Page 5
Natural / Semi-Natural Greenspace 36 357.7 Play Space 58 19.5 Public Garden 25 7.2 Public Park 115 273.3 Sport Area 17 38.1 The audit included 36 sites primarily classified as natural / semi-natural greenspace. These comprise countryside sites, woodlands, and blue spaces associated with rivers and lochs that were considered accessible to a broad range of users and contain some level of recreational infrastructure. Collectively, these 36 sites account for approximately 360ha of all POS. The inclusion of these large natural assets contributes significantly to the over-provision identified in a number of settlements, particularly where large countryside sites are present, including Aberfeldy, Alyth, Crieff and Pitlochry. A comprehensive summary of settlement-level results was produced as part of the assessment and is available in the Open Space Audit Results spreadsheet. This is supported by a series of spatial datasets developed during the assessment process available on the Open Space Audit Map. For clarity and easy of interpretation, the following tables present a summary of the results, focusing specifically on LDP2 settlements and Perth neighbourhoods with populations exceeding 1,000 residents. Table 4: Open space audit quantity outputs: LDP2 settlements Settlements (>1000 residents) Population (Census 2022) Open Space Requirement (Ha) Number of Sites Audited Area (Ha) of Sites Audited Meets Quantity Standard Quantity Shortfall (Ha) Perth 49292 172.5 110 371.9 Yes Blairgowrie 9433 33 21 29.5 No -3.5 Kinross and Milnathort 7606 26.6 31 40.6 Yes Crieff 7142 25 17 65.5 Yes Auchterarder 6061 21.2 15 24.3 Yes Scone 5232 18.3 12 34 Yes Bridge of Earn 2918 10.2 10 8.1 No -2.1 Pitlochry 2694 9.4 16 49.3 Yes Alyth 2345 8.2 8 31.7 Yes Coupar Angus 2132 7.5 6 12.9 Yes Invergowrie 1969 6.89 3 7.98 Yes Aberfeldy 1886 6.6 11 63.1 Yes Comrie 1847 6.5 8 8.5 Yes Inchture 1565 5.5 7 8.5 Yes
Page 6
Luncarty 1514 5.3 7 8.5 Yes Errol 1500 5.3 4 5.7 Yes Stanley 1497 5.2 3 1.3 No -4 Abernethy 1425 5 7 3.7 No -1.3 Methven 1301 4.6 4 7 Yes Bankfoot 1254 4.4 7 12.7 Yes Dunkeld and Birnam 1194 4.2 16 22.7 Yes St Madoes and Glencarse 1096 3.8 4 4.9 Yes Longforgan 1079 3.8 3 1.9 No -1.9 Table 5: Open space audit quantity outputs: Perth neighbourhoods Perth Neighbourhoods Population (estimate) Open Space Requirement (Ha) Number of Sites Audited Area (Ha) of Sites Audited Meets Quantity Standard Quantity Shortfall (Ha) Gannochy, Bridgend, Kinnoull, Corsiehill and Barnhill 3933.6 13.77 12 101.3 Yes Letham and Hillyland 9849.4 34.47 15 29.3 No -5.15 Tulloch 5728.8 20.05 19 27.6 Yes North Muirton, Muirton and Balhousie 9356.6 32.75 14 66.5 Yes Moncrieffe, Craigie and Friarton 7986 27.95 13 80.1 Yes Western Edge, Woodlands and Cherrybank 8615.2 30.15 23 32.3 Yes Bertha Park 1443.2 5.05 2 0.5 No -4.55 City Centre 7326 25.64 5 23.8 No -1.85 Almondbank, Huntingtower and Ruthvenfield 3075.6 10.76 7 10.5 No -0.22 Overall, the audit identified approximately 70ha of undesignated public open space within settlement boundaries. Another 425ha of public open space adjacent to settlement boundaries was included in the audit; these primarily comprised of accessible natural spaces (e.g. Countryside Sites) but also include sports pitches, public parks, cemeteries and amenity spaces. These spaces may be protected under other policy measures; however, these will be reviewed during the LDP3 preparation process to ensure effective safeguarding measures are in place.
Page 7
Accessibility Analysis An accessibility analysis was undertaken to assess the distribution of public open spaces in relation to the population based on the Council’s accessibility standards. The findings help to identify areas of sufficient provision as well as locations where accessibility gaps may exist. The analysis was undertaken using network analysis within a Geographic Information System (GIS) to provide a realistic representation of how people move through communities. Rather than a straight-line distance, the approach utilised a detailed pedestrian network composed of streets and paths. Service areas (catchments) were generated around access points mapped for each open space based on the following thresholds: • Public Park – 700m • Playing Field – 1200m • Neighbourhood Equipped Area for Play (NEAP) – 1000m • Local Equipped Area for Play (LEAP) – 400m The table below presents the outputs of the accessibility analysis across all LDP2 designated settlements and for those with over 50 dwellings. These figures reflect that it is often smaller rural settlements that have less variety in provision due to their size, densities and settings. Table 6: Percentage houses meeting accessibility standards across LDP2 settlements Public Park (700m) Playing Field (1200m) LEAP (400m) NEAP (1000m) All Settlements 84% 95% 60% 84% Settlements >50 dwellings 85% 97% 60% 85% A comprehensive set of settlement-level results was produced as part of the analysis, accompanied by mapped catchments that provide a spatial evidence base to inform planning decisions, including the identification of site requirements and developer contributions. For clarity and easy of interpretation, the following tables present a summary of the results, focusing specifically on LDP2 settlements and Perth neighbourhoods with populations exceeding 1,000 residents. The table is colour coded to visualise settlement performance in the audit with those scoring in the 10th decile shown green, 9th yellow, 8th orange and those in the 7th or below (<70%) shown red.
Page 8
Table 7: Percentage households meeting accessibility standards in LDP2 settlements with over 1000 residents Settlement Population (Census 2022) Public Park (700m) Playing Field (1200m) LEAP (400m) NEAP (1000m) Perth 49292 89% 99% 62% 88% Blairgowrie 9433 75% 98% 58% 70% Kinross and Milnathort 7606 82% 100% 69% 91% Crieff 7142 95% 99% 52% 89% Auchterarder 6061 59% 91% 62% 74% Scone 5232 87% 100% 43% 84% Bridge of Earn 2918 100% 100% 63% 76% Pitlochry 2694 87% 97% 59% 85% Alyth 2345 96% 99% 67% 95% Coupar Angus 2132 90% 99% 80% 65% Invergowrie 1969 88% 96% 55% 88% Aberfeldy 1886 94% 100% 84% 91% Comrie 1847 79% 98% 42% 87% Inchture 1565 100% 100% 55% 100% Luncarty 1514 94% 99% 41% 98% Errol 1500 100% 100% 70% 100% Stanley 1497 83% 95% 71% 96% Abernethy 1425 86% 96% 49% 92% Methven 1301 91% 100% 48% 100% Bankfoot 1254 88% 98% 73% 98% Dunkeld and Birnam 1194 97% 94% 72% 96% St Madoes and Glencarse 1096 92% 100% 90% 97% Longforgan 1079 57% 100% 24% 80%
Page 9
Table 8: Percentage houses meeting accessibility standards in Perth neighbourhoods with over 1000 residents Neighbourhood Population (estimate based on no. households) % Houses Meeting Accessibility Standard Public Park (700m) Playing Field (1200m) LEAP (400m) NEAP (1000m) Gannochy, Bridgend, Kinnoull, Corsiehill and Barnhill 3933 98% 99% 54% 71% Letham and Hillyland 9849 100% 100% 89% 100% Tulloch 5728 100% 100% 95% 100% North Muirton, Muirton and Balhousie 9356 99% 100% 67% 100% Moncrieffe, Craigie and Friarton 7986 95% 100% 72% 96% Western Edge, Woodlands and Cherrybank 8615 74% 99% 42% 82% Bertha Park 1443 0% 100% 0% 0% City Centre 7326 100% 100% 17% 100% Almondbank, Huntingtower and Ruthvenfield 3075 29% 77% 32% 49% Quality Assessment A quality assessment was undertaken to evaluate the condition and characteristics of open spaces identified as publicly accessible in the audit. The findings identify those spaces that are performing well and provide good value to communities, as well as those where improvements may be required. Each criterion was scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with an overall quality score subsequently derived for each site. The scores correspond to the following quality classifications: 1 2 3 4 5 Poor Fair Good Very Good Excellent The following criteria were considered during the quality assessment for each site: Accessibility - This criterion considers the accessibility of the site for all users, regarding inclusive and barrier-free access. The following sub-criteria were considered: • Is there appropriate directional signage? • Is appropriate lighting provided at entrances? • Are there safe crossing points on roads leading to entrances?
Page 10
• Are entrances accessible to all forms of mobility? • Are internal paths accessible to all forms of mobility? • Are internal paths in good condition? • Are there areas of importance likely to be inaccessible to people with limited mobility? Place Quality - This criterion considers the overall design quality and provides an indication of how the space is perceived, including feelings of safety. The following sub- criteria were considered: • On approach does the site seem welcoming? • Is the site legible? • Is there appropriate informational signage? • Is there an appropriate level of lighting throughout the site? • Is there evidence of anti-social behaviour? Care and Maintenance - This criterion considers the site’s condition and standard of maintenance. The following sub-criteria were considered: • Are fences, railings and walls in good condition? • Are there issues of litter, fly tipping or dog fouling? • Are there issues of vandalism or graffiti? • Is the infrastructure on site in good condition? • Is the vegetation on site appropriately managed? Biodiversity - This criterion considers the provision of natural assets and habitats within the site and its connectivity to the surrounding green network. The following sub-criteria were considered: • Is there good habitat connectivity across or around the site for wildlife? • Does there appear to be good connectivity beyond the site? • Are there naturalised areas on the site? • Are there waterbodies (including SUDS) or wetlands? Community Use - This criterion considers the provision of recreational infrastructure and how this supports the intended use, user needs and overall quality of the space. The following sub-criteria were considered:
Page 11
• Does the site contain appropriate facilities for its typology, location and size? • Does the quantity and siting of any furniture seem appropriate to the use of the space? • Is there an appropriate provision of bins across the site and are they ideally located? Overall, only ten of the sites assessed failed to meet the required quality standard. The table below sets out the number of sites that scored less than ‘Good’ for each criterion in the assessment. Table 9: Public open space quality assessment summary results Quality Criterion % sites scoring ‘Good’ or above No. sites scoring below ‘Good’ Accessibility 78% 95 Place Quality 84% 69 Care and Maintenance 94% 27 Biodiversity 91% 40 Community Use 87% 57 Overall Quality Score 98% 10 This quality assessment was undertaken using a standardised method across all sites to ensure comparability. However, consideration was given to the type and size of each site when scoring the criteria, recognising that requirements vary across different sites. It is acknowledged that, in future, a more nuanced approach would be beneficial, with quality assessments tailored to reflect specific typologies or hierarchies, allowing for a more context-sensitive evaluation. Conclusions It is important to recognise that a range of factors contribute to identified shortfalls in POS provision in certain settlements: • Historic development of the settlement that did not prioritise open space provision. This is particularly evident in Perth. • The presence of spaces that could not be classified as POS in the audit due to accessibility constraints or lack of clear public function. • Standard open space typologies do not account for the recreational value of accessible countryside, which may lessen demand for formal provision in smaller rural communities.
Page 12
• The phased delivery of larger public open spaces in new developments can result in temporary shortfalls following housing occupation. It is important to note that addressing shortfalls in provision is unlikely to be achieved solely through contributions from new development, as these must be proportionate to the scale of development. However, opportunities will be identified through LDP3, and, in some cases, PKC should seek to secure external funding to address gaps. Addressing identified deficiencies remains a key priority and where they have been identified the following approaches will be pursued: • Safeguard existing POS provision. • Secure appropriate on-site and off-site developer contributions. • Pursue external funding opportunities using the OSS as an evidence-base. • Apply the Infrastructure First principle to ensure POS in new developments are delivered at the earliest practical stage, taking account of other infrastructure requirements and any masterplanning of the site. • Review sites identified in the audit that were not classified as POS, and, where appropriate, improve accessibility and functionality to make them public spaces. • Prioritise quality enhancements to existing open spaces, and path networks, in areas where new provision is not feasible. • Regarding the provision of new play spaces or sport facilities, deficiencies identified in the audit will be addressed following the approaches set out in the Playground Strategy and Policy on Provision of Facilities for Outdoor Pitch Sports.