Support is offered for including a strategic objective (SO2) which seeks to promote design to encourage healthy active lifestyles. This would accord with Government policy in paragraph 91 of the NPPF and Sport England's 'Towards an Active Nation' strategy.

Support is also offered for the strategic objective (SO3) which seeks to sustain active communities through community and social infrastructure. This would accord with Government policy in paragraphs 91 and 92 of the NPPF and Sport England's 'Towards an Active Nation' strategy.

This policy is supported as it requires major developments to promote healthy (and therefore active) environments through the preparation of Health Impact Assessments. The reference to the use of the EPOA advice to inform such assessments is particularly welcomed as the most recent review of the advice has fully incorporated consideration of how a development considers the opportunities for creating environments that encourage physically activity including consideration of Sport England's Active Design guidance.

The policy is supported on the basis it seeks an integrated approach to the provision of Green and Blue Infrastructure which would include outdoor sport and recreation facilities plus seeking new development to make appropriate provision either directly or through financial contributions. This general approach is supported by the Council's evidence base such as the Playing Pitch Strategy and would be consistent with the NPPF.

The policy is supported in principle as it is proposed that new development will make open space (including outdoor sports) provision on-site or through developer contributions to meet the additional needs generated and allows sufficient flexibility to allow commuted sums to be paid in circumstances where on-site provision will not be possible or appropriate. This is important given the Council's evidence base (Playing Pitch Strategy) identifying a need for residential development to make provision for the additional outdoor sports facility needs that they generate. However, in practice, with the exception of some of the strategic housing allocations, it is considered unlikely to be practical or appropriate for most development to make on-site provision for outdoor sport in view of the large land take required to make playing fields and other outdoor sports facilities fit for purpose and sustainable and the need for supporting ancillary infrastructure. The balanced approach taken in the policy is therefore welcomed.

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.

The policy is supported especially criterion (k) which expects developments to meet active design principles. Criteria (a), (e), (f) are also supported due to their promotion of healthy and active environments. As well as according with Government policy in paragraph 91 of the NPPF, this approach would be consistent with the 2018 Essex Design Guide which has embedded design themes such as active design and health/well-being that is referred to in the reasoned justification.

This policy is supported as it seeks to protect existing community assets that would include sport and active recreation facilities while supporting the principle of the development of community facilities that would meet a strategic/local need or would allow co-location/rationalisation. This broad approach would accord with Government policy in section 8 of the NPPF and the Council's evidence base in the Built Facilities Strategy and Playing Pitch Strategy for instance.

To address these objections, the following amendments should be made to the policy:

* Criterion (c) of section A is replaced with a criterion along the lines that that playing fields are either retained for community use or replaced in accordance with policy BE23;
* An additional criterion is added to the policy which expects new educational establishments to be planned and designed to allow use by the community when not required for educational use and which encourages developments on existing establishments to facilitate new or increased community access.

Objection is made to criterion (c) of part A of the policy as it would allow in principle the change of use or redevelopment of an educational playing field if it could be demonstrated that the area of the site is in excess of Government guidelines for playing field provision. This approach is contrary to both the Council's evidence base on playing fields and Government policy in paragraph 97 of the NPPF.

As demonstrated by the Council's new Playing Pitch Strategy, the education sector provides the largest proportion of the community's playing fields in Brentwood Borough and the community is dependent on the retention of educational playing fields for meeting needs. As set out in the strategy's action plan, the strategy seeks to protect existing sites and increase/secure community use on educational playing fields. Criterion (c) of the policy would be contrary to the recommendations of the Playing Pitch Strategy as it would potentially allow educational playing fields to be redeveloped for other uses if they were surplus to educational requirements. No account or reference is made to the community use of playing fields in this criterion. The Government guidelines on playing field provision referred to (the DfE's Building Bulletin 103 at present) do not account for community use of school playing fields as they are entirely focused on educational needs and they represent DfE guidance rather than Government planning policy and are not referred to in the NPPF.

Government planning policy in paragraph 97 of the NPPF does not distinguish between public and educational playing fields and does not allow for educational playing fields to be disposed of if they are surplus to educational needs. It should be emphasised that current Government policy on the protection of playing fields has been strengthened since the 1990s in response to school playing fields being disposed of that were surplus to educational requirements but important for meeting community needs. Sport England was also made a statutory consultee by the Government in order to police the Government's planning policy in response to this. The retention of criterion (c) could potentially result in valued dual use playing fields being unintentionally lost if applicants made the case the proposals accord with this policy despite being contrary to the Council's evidence base, policy BE23 on open space and the NPPF.

Objection is also made to the policy as while the reasoned justification in paragraph 7.95 encourages education providers to share their assets with the community, this is not reflected in the policy itself. Given the importance given by the Government in paragraph 92 of the NPPF to planning policies planning for the provision and use of shared spaces and the importance attached to this in the Council's evidence base (e.g. recommendation 3 of the Playing Pitch Strategy) expecting new educational facilities to be planned and designed to facilitate shared use and encouraging greater shared use of existing facilities would be justified.

In its current form Policy PC15 would not be justified by the Council's current evidence base and would not accord with Government policy in the NPPF. The approach would therefore not meet the 'justified' and 'consistent with Government policy' tests of soundness.

This policy is supported due to the exception made for the principle of new buildings/structures for outdoor sport in the Green Belt. The encouragement of the beneficial use of the Green Belt including opportunities for improving outdoor sport and recreation is also welcomed. The policy approach is considered to accord with the Government's policy approach to outdoor sport and recreation in the Green Belt in the NPPF.