brentwood.gov.uk

To address these objections, it is requested that policy BE23 be amended as follows:

* Criterion B is amended to require new development to make provision for outdoor sport in accordance with the approach proposed in the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy and the reasoned justification to the policy provides more detail of this approach including how more detailed guidance will be provided of how it will operate in practice i.e. through the IDP, Planning Obligations SPD etc. There will be a consequent requirement to remove the outdoor sport standard from Figure 5.4.
* Criterion D is amended to replace reference to "equal or better quality and convenience" with "equal or better, quantity, quality and convenience". An addition is made to the criterion to allow for the principle of the loss of facilities where the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. The criterion may need to be restructured to facilitate this.

The policy is welcomed in principle as it seeks to protect sport and recreation facilities and proposes that the Council will seek provision of facilities in new development. However, there are the following concerns:
* Criterion B requires development to accord with the Council's open space standards which would include a standard (as set out in Figure 5.4) for outdoor sport despite the Council's evidence base recommending an alternative approach;
* Criterion D only partly accords with Government policy on the loss of open space, sport and recreation facilities as it does not make provision for alternative facilities to be at least equivalent or better in quantity. Furthermore, it does not allow the principle of loss of facilities where the proposal is for new open space/sports/recreation facilities where the benefits outweigh the impact.
In relation to Criterion B, concern is raised about the proposal for developments to comply with the Council's open space standard for outdoor sport of 3.15 ha per 1000 population standard which appears to be derived from the Council's Open Space Strategy (2008). Sport England would not support the use of this standard as a basis for securing outdoor sports provision in new development. The reasons for this are as follows:

* The standard derives from the Council's Open Space Strategy which is substantially out of date as an evidence base for outdoor sport and has now been superseded as an evidence base for outdoor sport by the Council's recently completed Playing Pitch Strategy (2018). The standard is therefore based on an assessment which would not be consistent with paragraph 96 of the NPPF as it would neither be up-to-date or robust. Section 12.3 of the Playing Pitch Strategy provides detailed guidance on the recommended approach to securing outdoor sports facility provision in new development which is supported by Sport England and the sports governing bodies. It was also assumed that the Council supported the approach as it is in their own document and no issues were raised during its preparation. The approach includes a calculator for estimating the demand generated for outdoor sport by new development based on data in the strategy which can be used for calculating developer contributions where commuted sums are an appropriate response for meeting the demand. There is no explanation of why a standard based on a 2008 based evidence base is proposed to be used instead of an approach set out in the Council's new evidence base that has been supported by stakeholders.
* The use of generic standards such as this for securing provision in new development would not fully satisfy the CIL Regulation 122 tests. Sport England has prepared an advice note on this matter which is attached to this representation which provides detailed advice on the issues associated with using such standards in relation to compliance with the CIL Regulations. Consequently, there is potential for the use of the standard to be challenged in practice by developers.
* The proposed standard is based on an aggregation of the facility needs of the main outdoor sports and does not allow the needs of individual sports to be distinguished and would not necessarily result in new development making a proportionate amount of provision for the individual sports. For example, a development could seek to meet the standard through just providing on-site football pitches in accordance with the standard but would not be responsive to the range of pitch needs that the development generates and would be challenged in terms of meeting the CIL Regulation 122 tests.
Consequently, the use of the 3.15 ha per 1000 standard is not justified by the Council's current evidence base, would not be consistent with the CIL Regulations and would not accord with Government policy in paragraph 96 of the NPPF. The approach would therefore not meet the 'justified' and 'consistent with Government policy' tests of soundness.

In relation to criterion D, an exception to the general presumption against development involving the loss of open space, community, sport, recreation or play facilities is where it can be demonstrated that alternative facilities of equal or better quality and convenience will be provided as part of the development. There is no requirement for the alternative facilities to be equal or better in relation to quantity in accordance with paragraph 97(b) of the NPPF. In relation to the evidence base, the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy for instance has recommended that the current level of football provision be retained due to the existing deficiencies that exist. It is therefore essential that the quantity of the playing field provision in the Borough is protected to facilitate this. Without the policy requiring replacement provision to be equivalent/better in relation to quantity, the policy is likely to be interpreted to be met if replacement is acceptable in terms of just quality and convenience. For instance, it could be argued that a proposal to replace a playing field that has space for 5 sports pitches with a new playing field with space for 1 sports pitch would be acceptable on the basis that there is no requirement for the replacement to be equivalent/better in relation to quantity. In Sport England's experience, developers are likely to exploit the wording of the policy to provide inferior replacement open space, sport, recreation etc facilities. This is pertinent in view of the 'quantity' test usually being the most challenging to meet in urban areas. It is has not been explained in the reasoned justification why a departure from Government policy is justified in Brentwood and the Council's evidence base would not support such a departure.

Criterion D is limited in that it does not make provision for the loss of the open space/sport/recreation to be acceptable in principle where the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. Paragraph 97(c) of the NPPF allows for this and it is supported by Sport England. For example, to meet the significant deficiency of artificial grass pitches identified in the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy, it is likely that proposals will come forward for new artificial grass pitches on existing natural turf playing fields on school and club sites. In its current form, such a proposal may be considered contrary to criterion D which does not provide for this exception which may unintentionally result in such facilities being resisted despite them being proposed to address the needs identified in the Council's evidence base.

Consequently, criterion D in its current form would not justified by the Council's current evidence base and would not accord with Government policy in paragraphs 96 and 97 of the NPPF. The approach would therefore not meet the 'justified' and 'consistent with Government policy' tests of soundness.