Local Plan 2011-2031 Proposed Submission Draft

This policy is supported especially criterion (a), (b) and (f) as they would be consistent with Government planning policy on creating healthy communities set out in section 8 of the NPPF plus would accord with Sport England's strategy and planning policies.
However, there is considered to be one criterion missing from the policy. The design of new development can play a major role in encouraging healthy and active lifestyles. Sport England and Public Health England have published the Government endorsed 'Active Design' which provides principles, case studies and detailed guidance on how to help create active communities through design which has been referenced in paragraph 9.14 of the plan. Criterion (f) of the policy covers physical and green infrastructure but these only represent a few elements of how development can be designed to encourage active lifestyles.

Concern is raised in relation to the site allocation policy not providing any policy guidance in relation to how community sports facility infrastructure should be provided for by this development. The Council has completed up-to-date assessment and strategies relating to bot indoor and outdoor sports facilities which have identified a range of needs together with priorities about how the identified needs should be addressed. This development will generate significant additional demand for community sports facilities which the existing facilities in the Baldock area will not be suitable for accommodating. This strategic allocation also represents one of the few opportunities where it would be appropriate to secure new sports facility provision on-site as part of the development in view of the scale of the development and the opportunities that exist to co-locate facilities in a potential new secondary school. For example, the evidence base identified a need for an additional sports hall and artificial grass pitches and specifically refers to the need for the local plan strategic housing allocations to be reviewed to consider how sports facility provision should be made.

Concern is raised in relation to the site allocation policy not providing any policy guidance in relation to how community sports facility infrastructure should be provided for by this development. The Council has completed up-to-date assessment and strategies relating to both indoor and outdoor sports facilities which have identified a range of needs together with priorities about how the identified needs should be addressed. This development will generate significant additional demand for community sports facilities which the existing facilities in the Luton area will not be suitable for accommodating. This strategic allocation also represents one of the few opportunities where it would be appropriate to secure new sports facility provision on-site as part of the development in view of the scale of the development and the opportunities that exist to co-locate facilities in a potential new secondary school. For example, the North Herts evidence base identified a need for an additional sports hall and artificial grass pitches and specifically refers to the need for the local plan strategic housing allocations to be reviewed to consider how sports facility provision should be made. Regard should also be had to Luton Borough Council's evidence for base for indoor and outdoor sport given that functionally this allocation will be an extension to Luton and residents in the development will orientate towards Luton for meeting their sports facility needs rather than North Hertfordshire.

The reference to Active Design in the supporting text to policy D1 is welcomed and considered justified in view of the importance attached to creating healthy communities in the local plan

The content of policy HC1 is broadly welcomed as it encourages the principle of new and enhanced community facilities (that would include indoor sports facilities) and seeks to protect existing facilities. The policy principles are considered to broadly accord with Government policy in section 8 of the NPPF especially paragraphs 70 and 74. However, the following issues are identified with the content of the policy which should be addressed to ensure that it is consistent with Government planning policy:
* The criterion (i) relating to facilities being replaced in appropriate alternative locations does not require the replacement facility to provide equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality. Paragraph 74 of the NPPF (and Sport England's planning policies) specifically advises this. Sport England has had experience of adopted policies in local plans which are similar to this which due to the lack of explicitness about the quantity and quality of replacement facility requirements have resulted in inferior alternative facilities being proposed due to developers exploiting the lack of clarity and guidance on this matter.
* In relation to sports facilities, paragraph 74 of the NPPF permits the principle of existing facilities being built on if the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss. As the section of the policy relating to the loss of facilities does not make provision for this, for consistency with the NPPF and to avoid issues arising during the implementation of the policy, an additional criterion is requested to cover this but the scope only needs to cover sports facilities.
* For consistency with paragraph 70 of the NPPF and the recommendations in the Council's Indoor Sports Facility Strategy, and to reflect the importance of community facilities being multi-functional the policy or the supporting text should explicitly support the principle of shared use facilities such as the dual use of school facilities for sport and other community uses in appropriate locations.

No objection is made to the principle of the policy as its intention is to protect green space including outdoor sports facilities which is welcomed and supported by the Council's evidence base in terms of the recently completed Playing Pitch Strategy.

However, in its present form the policy is not considered to be adequate in terms of protection for outdoor sports facilities as it would not fully accord with paragraph 74 of the NPPF or Sport England's playing fields policy http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/development-management/planning-applications/playing-field-land/ that is used for assessing planning applications affecting playing fields where Sport England is a statutory consultee. In particular, there are the following concerns:

* In relation to criterion (a), the first part relating to "It can be demonstrated that the open space is surplus to requirements" accords with paragraph 74 of the NPPF. However, the three subsequent sub-criteria (i-iii) do not as they would allow development on open space if it could be justified on other grounds even if the open space was not surplus to requirements. The three sub-criteria require a subjective assessment to be undertaken of matters such as the quality and accessibility of the open space and alternative public open space. For outdoor sports facilities, these criteria would be inadequate for addressing a scenario where there is a quantitative deficiency in provision. While the quality or accessibility of an outdoor sports facility or nearby alternatives may be a consideration in assessing a proposal, if there was a shortfall in quantitative provision, these criteria would not account for this. For example, it could be argued that a poor quality sports pitch could be lost on the basis that there are better quality accessible sports pitches nearby. However, if all of the sports pitches in the area were used to their capacity, the sports pitch would still justify protection to ensure that sports pitch provision was adequate for meeting the community's quantitative pitch needs regardless of its quality/accessibility. The criteria in its current form could allow the loss of outdoor sports facilities without mitigation which would be contrary to paragraph 74 which only allows such development where there is a surplus of provision.
* In relation to criterion b (i), while the sentiments are welcomed, the wording is not sufficiently clear or detailed to ensure that replacement open space provision is equivalent or better in terms of quantity, quality and accessibility as advised in paragraph 74. In its current form the criterion does not account for the quantity of provision and only requires account to be given to quality and accessibility rather than requiring them to be equivalent or better. This lack of clarity is likely to create issues when interpreting the policy as it could be argued that replacement provision which is smaller in size would accord with the policy or replacement provision may be inferior in quality/accessibility as the policy only requires account to be given to these matters.
* In relation to criterion b (ii), while mitigation in the form of financial contributions can be acceptable in some scenarios where it is not necessary, appropriate or desirable to replace open space directly on an equivalent/better basis, they would not be acceptable in many scenarios and this general approach would not accord with paragraph 74 of the NPPF. For example, a common scenario is where a development proposal would result in the loss of a club's sports ground or a school's playing field. In these scenarios it would usually be necessary to replace the facilities directly on an identified alternative site on at least a like for like basis to ensure continuity of facility provision for the user. The policy in its current form would allow mitigation to be made in the form of financial contributions which would not be appropriate for such a scenario as it would not result in equivalent or better provision (in quantity and quality) being made as required by Government policy and could result in the community's needs not being acceptably met.
* Paragraph 74 of the NPPF includes a criterion relating to development for alternative sports or recreational provision, the needs for which clearly outweigh the loss. This criterion or something along its lines has not been included in the policy which is particularly relevant for sports facilities. In Sport England's experience, a large proportion of developments affecting outdoor sports facilities such as playing fields are acceptable because the development involves new sports facilities that would offset the loss of the open space e.g. sports halls and an artificial pitches on playing fields. If the policy was retained in its current form, it may be interpreted that such types of development would be contrary to the policy as it does not specially provide for them.

While the intentions of this policy are welcomed, there are concerns about its detail in relation to according with the Council's evidence base for outdoor sport and meeting Government policy in the NPPF. In particular:

* The policy does not specifically support the principle of new outdoor sports facilities in suitable locations as the policy (criterion (a)) focuses on open space within new residential developments. In practice, developments will come forward for new outdoor sports facilities such as new or enhanced playing fields on the edge of urban areas or in the countryside and it is important that a positive policy approach is taken to help community sports facility needs (as identified in the Council's Playing Pitch Strategy) to be met as proposals for such facilities can sometimes conflict with other planning policies and a clear policy approach is therefore considered necessary. A positive approach to new outdoor sport/open space would also allow the policy to accord with paragraph 70 of the NPPF.
* In relation to outdoor sports facilities, it is unclear what the approach to provision in new development will be as the Council's evidence base (Playing Pitch Strategy) did not recommend standards for this type of open space provision. Furthermore, with the exception of some of the strategic allocations, it will not be justifiable or appropriate for most residential developments to make on-site outdoor sports provision. Clarity is therefore needed on the approach to outdoor sport especially as the policy advises that exceptions to criterion (a) will only be made in exceptional circumstances. For outdoor sport, in practice it will be the exception for developments to make on-site provision so it is considered that this approach is too generic for applying to all open space types. It is considered that financial contributions towards delivery of projects identified by the Council in the playing pitch strategy would be the most appropriate solution unless direct on-site provision is required as set out in master plans for the strategic allocations.
* The reference in the supporting text implies that developments of less than 200 dwellings will generally not be required to make any open space provision. This is of concern given that the majority of new residential developments will be less than 200 dwellings in scale and collectively these developments will create significant additional demand for open space including outdoor sports facilities. Unless such development makes additional provision for meeting the needs that it generates, there is a concerns that pressure will be placed on existing facilities which may not be accessible or have the capacity for meeting these needs. While it would not be appropriate for smaller developments to make on-site provision they should be required to make financial contributions as the evidence base has identified needs for new or enhanced provision to meet future needs which is not linked to the scale of residential developments. A reference to the need for all new residential developments to make provision for open space including outdoor sport is considered to be justified therefore

In the Infrastructure and Mitigation section for each community, the Council's evidence base for sport (Indoor Sports Facilities Strategy and Playing Pitch Strategy) should be referred to where there are facility priorities that have land use implications in the relevant communities. While it is acknowledged that the two strategies were not completed when the local plan was prepared, the submission version should identify priorities for the relevant areas as this forms an important part of the social infrastructure requirements. At present, there would not appear to be any references to the sports facility requirements of the communities although the action plans in the evidence base documents provide details.

The requirement in this allocation for the loss of open space to be justified and re-provision or contributions towards improvements to existing provision is welcomed in principle and positively responds to representations made earlier in the local plan process. This is because the proposal would involve the permanent loss of one of the former Norton School's playing fields which may offer potential to meet community playing pitch needs as identified in the Council's playing pitch strategy. The approach in the policy is considered to broadly accord with Government planning policy on playing fields set out in paragraph 74 of the NPPF.

The requirement in this allocation for the loss of open space to be justified and re-provision or contributions towards improvements to existing provision is welcomed in principle. This is because the proposal would involve the permanent loss of one of the former Norton School's playing fields which may offer potential to meet community playing pitch needs as identified in the Council's playing pitch strategy. The approach in the policy is considered to broadly accord with Government planning policy on playing fields in paragraph 74 of the NPPF.