by Jeremy Wilson and Simon Milliken
The development of redundant sports grounds has always been a contentious issue, and this will be intensified as and when the current draft Planning Policy Guidance Note 6, Sports and Recreation, is formally issued. The draft PPG lends support to the “green is beautiful” notion and elevates the amenity value of playing fields as open space as being of equal importance to the question of “need” for such facilities. The combination of these two factors could put an effective brake on the development of redundant, under-utilised sports grounds in built-up areas, resulting in new pressures for development land elsewhere. This is just one aspect of the town-cramming debate which broke in the late 1980s and shows every sign of intensifying into the 1990s.
This article provides an overview of how central government guidance during the past 25 years has influenced the planning issues to be considered when looking at the protection of sports ground facilities and the range of issues which landowners and developers should be addressing when contemplating development.
As long ago as 1938 the National Playing Field Association (NPFA) sought to resist the loss of outdoor playing space and recommended a standard provision of 6 acres per 1,000 people. In 1965 the Sports Council was set up to advise on matters relating to the development of sport and physical recreation services. Circular 33/70, Sports Facilities and the Planning Acts, provided the framework for local planning authorities to consult the Sports Council on land providing sports facilities. Subsequently, Circulars 47/76 and 73/77 recommended local authorities, when preparing development plans and handling planning applications and appeals, to consider regional strategies for sports and recreation.
Approach in the early 1980s
The early 1980s nevertheless saw the continued decline of playing field facilities. A drop in the 15 to 29 age group, coupled with the growth in indoor activities such as squash, badminton and the attractions of golf, resulted in falling demand for team activities. In parallel with these changes the DOE issued Circular 15/84 which attached greater weight to new development within the urban area in preference to development on the urban fringe or countryside.
Planning authorities reflected national advice in structure and local plans. Indeed, several sports grounds appeared on their vacant land registers as surplus to requirements and, therefore, capable of development for alternative uses.
Our analysis of planning appeal decisions relating to development on sports grounds during the early 1980s reflect these changing circumstances. Most decisions for this period were based on a quantitative assessment of whether “need” for the sports ground outweighed (usually) housing need. In only a few cases was specific consideration given to whether the playing field had any recognisable “amenity” value.
Recent changes in attitude
Many former playing field facilities, both public and private, were subsequently lost during the 1980s. The publication by central government of the draft PPG3, Land for Housing, in October 1989 signalled the first warning shot of the new protectionist approach aimed at reversing the presumption in favour of developing underutilised land in urban areas. Although that draft has still not been issued it was followed up in October 1990 by the publication of the draft PPG6, Sports and Recreation. This states that:
The Secretaries of State consider that local plans will generally provide the appropriate context in which to assess local needs for recreational facilities; identify deficiencies in the provision of public open space; identify suitable sites for additional recreational/open space provision; ensure that provision is properly co-ordinated with other forms of development and other land use policies; and protect open space with recreational and/or amenity value.
PPG 12, Local Plans, published in November 1988 underpins this advice by establishing the importance of adopted local plan policy as a material planning consideration. For this reason landowners and developers alike contemplating development on redundant sports grounds must be prepared to make representations on the emerging local plans to try to secure their position. This becomes an even greater necessity when regard is had to some of the sections in the Planning and Compensation Act, which places even greater emphasis on a “plan-led” system for the 1990s.
The thrust of advice contained in these PPGs has recently been followed up by the important publication in April 1991 of the Sports Council’s Playing Field Strategy. This proposes a more sophisticated approach to the assessment of need for playing fields. It confirms that policies which seek to make the maximum use of vacant urban land for housing will need to distinguish between sites which need to be retained for recreation and amenity purposes, and areas which are generally suitable for development. For this purpose the strategy urges authorities to adopt an eight-stage approach to assess requirements. This involves modelling the existing situation; analysing the adequacy of current provision; and predicting future requirements.
From detailed research which we are currently carrying out, it is evident that this tougher approach has worked its way through into appeal decisions. It is clear that inspectors are now considering in every case both need and the amenity value of playing fields proposed for development. Amenity is considered of particular importance when a playing field designation also forms part of a wider open-space policy for the area such as a recognised “green chain”. However, where sites are “landlocked”, inspectors have recognised that the value of the site for amenity reasons is less supportable.
The future
It is evident that attempts to obtain planning permission for development on playing fields, whether by negotiation or appeal, will in the 1990s require a considerably more sophisticated approach in order to boost the prospects of success. It will no longer be sufficient, as was the case for most of the 1980s, to call in aid the more liberal development regime enshrined in circulars of the time. Every proposal will, at the very least, need to have specific regard to the following:
Emerging policy context. For the reasons set out above, the “materiality” of the local plan will become of fundamental importance. Therefore, in the context of this specific issue we must, at the risk of being repetitive, endorse the views of all those consultants who emphasise the need for proposals to become enshrined in local plans if at all possible.
The amenity case. As part of the planning investigative work supporting new development, it will now be necessary not only to address the usual issues such as the site’s policy context, planning history and relevant appeal decisions but also to carry out some form of environmental appraisal of a playing field’s amenity value.
The “need” case. The Sports Council’s Playing Field Strategy proposes a detailed quantitative and qualitative appraisal of existing sporting provision. Where it can be proved that a sports field is surplus to requirements the prospects of securing new development is likely to be greatly enhanced. This will inevitably require that those proposing development of playing fields will have to address these issues — to “talk the same language” in promoting their objectives with planning authorities.
Finally, we must add that from our current instructions involving sports grounds it is evident that a systematic approach to the issues and presentation of the case, particularly in the context of the local plan, can yield positive results.
