Despite being 89% open Green Belt. The provision of outdoor sports space in articular pitches is insufficient.
If the community is to grow by 7000+ homes we need to provide more formal open recreational space and playing surfaces.
We should also accept that pitches require suitable ancillary building for changing and we cannot provide one without the other.
The standard of council pitches and facilities is poor so we should encourage provision of such facilities by private land owners and community clubs

The policy is welcomed in principle as it seeks to protect sports facilities and proposes that the Council will seek provision of community and recreational facilities. However, there are the following concerns:
* The policy does not take a positive approach to development proposals for new or enhanced open space, sport, recreation facilities etc which meet an identified need. The Council's emerging evidence base (Sport and Leisure Study and Open Space Study) should inform such needs and provide the basis for assessing which proposals could be supported in principle. This will be pertinent if new facilities are proposed in the Green Belt or in out of centre locations where there may be conflict with other plan policies. In such scenarios, a positive approach to the principle of such proposals supported by the evidence base will help inform such decisions. This approach would eb consistent with paragraphs 70 and 73 of the NPPF. An additional paragraph should therefore be added which supports proposals for new/enhanced open space, sort, recreation, play etc facilities where it would meet an identified need.
* Unlike housing, employment and retail, there are no specific proposals in the plan for meeting existing or future community sports infrastructure needs e.g. any new leisure centres, playing fields etc. While this is likely to be due to the current status of the emerging evidence base, the pre-submission local plan should address this by setting out proposals for addressing identified needs e.g. allocations for new or enhanced facilities which are consistent with the strategy and action plan that emerge from the evidence base.
* The third paragraph should be added to allow the principle of loss of facilities where the proposal is for new open space/sports/recreation facilities where the benefits outweigh the impact. As well as allowing consistency with Government policy in paragraph 74 this would provide those that own/manage/use open space/sports facilities with flexibility to provide facilities which respond to community needs and improve facility sustainability e.g. proposals for the conversion of grass pitches to artificial pitches.
* For consistency with paragraph 70 of the NPPF and to reflect the recognition in the plan of the important role that education facilities play in meeting the sports facility needs of the community the policy should explicitly support the principle of shared use facilities such as the dual use of education facilities for sport and other community uses in appropriate locations.

Doesn't emphasise need for disabled access, parking and routes throughout the amenity

In 10.51 you say 'The creation of new LEAPs will be prioritised at the Newham Estate, in line with the Borough's Play Area Strategy.' I am deeply concerned about the loss of the tiny amount of existing green space in the Newham Estate only to be replaced with play equipment especially with the King George's Playing Fields so nearby.

The Council must always oppose any compromise to public open spaces. It is not enough for open spaces to merely exist -- they must also be within easy walking distance, since not everybody has cars, and it should not be necessary to drive or to cross lots of roads to reach an open space. As a child, I grew up in a household without a car, so I feel strongly that open spaces must be local, not in some far-flung periphery.

The Local Plan should recognise, protect and support community and cultural facilities and may need an additional policy to do so.

We welcome Strategic Objective SO11 and Policy 8.6 for Brentwood Town Centre, as these do support culture, however, there is not a clear policy to safeguard and support existing community and cultural facilities. The content of Policy 10.9 alludes to it, but has a focus on recreation. We therefore recommend a new policy is created, or Policy 8.6 or 10.9 are amended to also safeguard existing facilities.

The importance of planning for culture and cultural facilities is emphasised in the National Planning Policy Framework by being included as a core planning principle (Para 17). This is supported by guidance in para 70 of the NPPF which states that to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and services that the community needs, planning policies and decisions should guard against unnecessary loss of valued facilities. Also to ensure that established facilities and services are retained and able to develop for the benefit of the community.

Paragraph 156 also states local planning authorities should set out the strategic priorities in the Local Plan to deliver 'the provision of health, security, community and cultural infrastructure and other local facilities'.

The Planning Practice Guidance notes that a range of issues could be considered through the plan-making and decision-making processes including social and cultural well-being. This takes the matter further than just access to doctors and playing fields. 'Well-being' is having a sense of satisfaction with life. Social and cultural well-being includes the un-measurable personal experiences that make us happy and content. Such experiences are intangible and can either be active (sports) or passive (theatre), and the provision of a variety of community infrastructure and cultural facilities for these activities is vital for their contribution to resident and visitor life satisfaction. Cultural and community opportunities also play a big role in developing, attracting and retaining skilled work force, and this should be promoted in this document.

It is therefore important the local plan safeguard cultural & community facilities which benefit and support sustainable communities which might otherwise be traded in for more commercially lucrative developments. Also to promote new facilities to support the growing population.

To support the objectives, we recommend a policy along the lines of:
Community and Cultural Facilities
The council will resist the loss or change of use of existing community and cultural facilities unless replacement facilities are provided on site or within the vicinity which meet the need of the local population, or necessary services can be delivered from other facilities without leading to, or increasing, any shortfall in provision, and it has been demonstrated that there is no community need for the facility or demand for another community use on site.

For clarity, we recommend that the policy, text and the Glossary contains an explanation for the term 'community and cultural facilities'. We recommend this succinct all-inclusive description which would obviate the need to provide examples: community and cultural facilities provide for the health and wellbeing, social, educational, spiritual, recreational, leisure and cultural needs of the community.

The policy is welcomed in principle as it seeks to protect sports facilities and proposes that the Council will seek provision of community and recreational facilities. However, there are the following concerns:
* The policy does not take a positive approach to development proposals for new or enhanced open space, sport, recreation facilities etc which meet an identified need. The Council's emerging evidence base (Sport and Leisure Study and Open Space Study) should inform such needs and provide the basis for assessing which proposals could be supported in principle. This will be pertinent if new facilities are proposed in the Green Belt or in out of centre locations where there may be conflict with other plan policies. In such scenarios, a positive approach to the principle of such proposals supported by the evidence base will help inform such decisions. This approach would eb consistent with paragraphs 70 and 73 of the NPPF. An additional paragraph should therefore be added which supports proposals for new/enhanced open space, sort, recreation, play etc facilities where it would meet an identified need.
* Unlike housing, employment and retail, there are no specific proposals in the plan for meeting existing or future community sports infrastructure needs e.g. any new leisure centres, playing fields etc. While this is likely to be due to the current status of the emerging evidence base, the pre-submission local plan should address this by setting out proposals for addressing identified needs e.g. allocations for new or enhanced facilities which are consistent with the strategy and action plan that emerge from the evidence base.
* The third paragraph should be added to allow the principle of loss of facilities where the proposal is for new open space/sports/recreation facilities where the benefits outweigh the impact. As well as allowing consistency with Government policy in paragraph 74 this would provide those that own/manage/use open space/sports facilities with flexibility to provide facilities which respond to community needs and improve facility sustainability e.g. proposals for the conversion of grass pitches to artificial pitches.
* For consistency with paragraph 70 of the NPPF and to reflect the recognition in the plan of the important role that education facilities play in meeting the sports facility needs of the community the policy should explicitly support the principle of shared use facilities such as the dual use of education facilities for sport and other community uses in appropriate locations.

The policy is welcomed in principle as it seeks to protect sports facilities and proposes that the Council will seek provision of community and recreational facilities. However, there are the following concerns:
* The policy does not take a positive approach to development proposals for new or enhanced open space, sport, recreation facilities etc which meet an identified need. The Council's emerging evidence base (Sport and Leisure Study and Open Space Study) should inform such needs and provide the basis for assessing which proposals could be supported in principle. This will be pertinent if new facilities are proposed in the Green Belt or in out of centre locations where there may be conflict with other plan policies. In such scenarios, a positive approach to the principle of such proposals supported by the evidence base will help inform such decisions. This approach would eb consistent with paragraphs 70 and 73 of the NPPF. An additional paragraph should therefore be added which supports proposals for new/enhanced open space, sort, recreation, play etc facilities where it would meet an identified need.
* Unlike housing, employment and retail, there are no specific proposals in the plan for meeting existing or future community sports infrastructure needs e.g. any new leisure centres, playing fields etc. While this is likely to be due to the current status of the emerging evidence base, the pre-submission local plan should address this by setting out proposals for addressing identified needs e.g. allocations for new or enhanced facilities which are consistent with the strategy and action plan that emerge from the evidence base.
* The third paragraph should be added to allow the principle of loss of facilities where the proposal is for new open space/sports/recreation facilities where the benefits outweigh the impact. As well as allowing consistency with Government policy in paragraph 74 this would provide those that own/manage/use open space/sports facilities with flexibility to provide facilities which respond to community needs and improve facility sustainability e.g. proposals for the conversion of grass pitches to artificial pitches.
* For consistency with paragraph 70 of the NPPF and to reflect the recognition in the plan of the important role that education facilities play in meeting the sports facility needs of the community the policy should explicitly support the principle of shared use facilities such as the dual use of education facilities for sport and other community uses in appropriate locations.

The policy is welcomed in principle as it seeks to protect sports facilities and proposes that the Council will seek provision of community and recreational facilities. However, there are the following concerns:
* The policy does not take a positive approach to development proposals for new or enhanced open space, sport, recreation facilities etc which meet an identified need. The Council's emerging evidence base (Sport and Leisure Study and Open Space Study) should inform such needs and provide the basis for assessing which proposals could be supported in principle. This will be pertinent if new facilities are proposed in the Green Belt or in out of centre locations where there may be conflict with other plan policies. In such scenarios, a positive approach to the principle of such proposals supported by the evidence base will help inform such decisions. This approach would eb consistent with paragraphs 70 and 73 of the NPPF. An additional paragraph should therefore be added which supports proposals for new/enhanced open space, sort, recreation, play etc facilities where it would meet an identified need.
* Unlike housing, employment and retail, there are no specific proposals in the plan for meeting existing or future community sports infrastructure needs e.g. any new leisure centres, playing fields etc. While this is likely to be due to the current status of the emerging evidence base, the pre-submission local plan should address this by setting out proposals for addressing identified needs e.g. allocations for new or enhanced facilities which are consistent with the strategy and action plan that emerge from the evidence base.
* The third paragraph should be added to allow the principle of loss of facilities where the proposal is for new open space/sports/recreation facilities where the benefits outweigh the impact. As well as allowing consistency with Government policy in paragraph 74 this would provide those that own/manage/use open space/sports facilities with flexibility to provide facilities which respond to community needs and improve facility sustainability e.g. proposals for the conversion of grass pitches to artificial pitches.
* For consistency with paragraph 70 of the NPPF and to reflect the recognition in the plan of the important role that education facilities play in meeting the sports facility needs of the community the policy should explicitly support the principle of shared use facilities such as the dual use of education facilities for sport and other community uses in appropriate locations.

The policy is welcomed in principle as it seeks to protect sports facilities and proposes that the Council will seek provision of community and recreational facilities. However, there are the following concerns:
* The policy does not take a positive approach to development proposals for new or enhanced open space, sport, recreation facilities etc which meet an identified need. The Council's emerging evidence base (Sport and Leisure Study and Open Space Study) should inform such needs and provide the basis for assessing which proposals could be supported in principle. This will be pertinent if new facilities are proposed in the Green Belt or in out of centre locations where there may be conflict with other plan policies. In such scenarios, a positive approach to the principle of such proposals supported by the evidence base will help inform such decisions. This approach would eb consistent with paragraphs 70 and 73 of the NPPF. An additional paragraph should therefore be added which supports proposals for new/enhanced open space, sort, recreation, play etc facilities where it would meet an identified need.
* Unlike housing, employment and retail, there are no specific proposals in the plan for meeting existing or future community sports infrastructure needs e.g. any new leisure centres, playing fields etc. While this is likely to be due to the current status of the emerging evidence base, the pre-submission local plan should address this by setting out proposals for addressing identified needs e.g. allocations for new or enhanced facilities which are consistent with the strategy and action plan that emerge from the evidence base.
* The third paragraph should be added to allow the principle of loss of facilities where the proposal is for new open space/sports/recreation facilities where the benefits outweigh the impact. As well as allowing consistency with Government policy in paragraph 74 this would provide those that own/manage/use open space/sports facilities with flexibility to provide facilities which respond to community needs and improve facility sustainability e.g. proposals for the conversion of grass pitches to artificial pitches.
* For consistency with paragraph 70 of the NPPF and to reflect the recognition in the plan of the important role that education facilities play in meeting the sports facility needs of the community the policy should explicitly support the principle of shared use facilities such as the dual use of education facilities for sport and other community uses in appropriate locations.

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached

See attached.

See attached

See attached.