Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play

Transcription

1 Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 2015 Fields in Trust

2 CONTENTS Executive Summary of the Study INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY Overview of Methodology OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES PLAN MAKING Overall Findings Data and Results Quantity Findings Data and Results Accessibility Findings Data and Results Quality Findings Data and Results Other Plan Making Issues DECISION TAKING Overall Findings Notable Planning Cases CONCLUSIONS Key Survey Findings APPENDICES Appendix 1 Appendix 2 Survey Monkey Questionnaire Questionnaire responses mapped for England and Wales 1

3 FIELDS IN TRUST REVIEW OF STANDARDS FOR OUTDOOR PLAY, SPORT AND RECREATION REACHES NEW MILESTONE Fields in Trust s review of recommendations on standards for outdoor play, sport and recreation within Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (formerly known as the Six Acre Standard) reaches a new milestone today with the publication of Phase 2 of the project undertaken by. The Phase 2 survey reports back on an online survey of the use of open space standards by local planning authorities in England and Wales, supplemented by further desktop research looking at relevant appeal decisions. The report confirms the ongoing relevance of benchmark standards within Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play alongside local assessments. Fields in Trust will be using the findings to inform a wider review and update to its recommendations which will be published later this year. Headline Findings The majority of local planning authorities (81%) express quantity standards for open space as hectares per 1,000 population. This not only enables comparison across authorities in England and Wales to be easily made, but is clearly the most widely used and understood metric for open space standards. The median level of provision for Designated Playing Space was 0.25 hectares per 1,000 population. This corresponds to the Fields in Trust benchmark standard for Designated Playing Space. The median accessibility standard was 100m for Local Areas for Play, 400m for Local Equipped Areas for Play, and 1,000m for Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play. Accessibility standards were also often expressed in terms of walking time, rather than distance. The median level of playing pitch provision was 1.21 hectares per 1,000 population which is comparable with the Fields in Trust recommended benchmark standard. The median accessibility standard from respondents was 1,200m from dwellings, which matches the Fields in Trust benchmark. 25% of respondents were able to provide data about their current standards for the provision for other outdoor sports, expressed as hectares per 1,000 population. Other 2

4 outdoor sports (excluding pitches) included provision of bowling greens, tennis courts, athletic tracks and Gaelic football. 13% of respondents were able to provide data about their current provision for other outdoor provision, expressed as hectares per 1,000 population. Other outdoor provision comprised provision of natural and semi-natural green space, MUGA s, and wheeled sport (BMX track or Skate Park). 22% of the total number of respondents were able to provide data about parks and amenity green space as an overall standard, expressed as hectares per 1,000 population. For parks and amenity green space, where provided as an overall standard, the median level of provision sought was 1.0 hectare per 1,000 population. 42% of respondents were able to provide data about other standards for open space applied within their local authority area. 59% of English and Welsh authorities identified that they had specific requirements regarding the quality of new open space provision. Of those respondents who specified their quality requirements, 18% apply a local assessment of quality (the most commonly used quality assessment by respondents). 10% apply the Green Flag standard to assess the quality of parks. 8% of respondents apply the Fields in Trust standards. 2% of authorities apply the Sport England standards in assessing the quality of sports pitches. In relation to local standards for open space being met in planning decision-taking, and based on a scoring system with 1 being seldom and 10 being always, 64% indicated a score between 7 and 10. A review of appeal decisions relating to the disposal and reuse of open space, the replacement of open space or new provision demonstrated that open space standards (including Fields in Trust benchmark standards) were relevant, but that decisions were specific to the particular circumstances and material considerations of each case. 3

5 1.0 INTRODUCTION Fields in Trust is undertaking a review of recommendations on standards for outdoor play, sport and recreation within Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (formerly known as the Six Acre Standard) published in This Phase 2 survey aims to assess the use and relevance of the current Fields in Trust benchmark recommendations against local standards and policies relating to outdoor play space and open space This report undertaken on behalf of Fields in Trust by (DLA) forms Phase 2 of this review. This Phase 2 survey follows on from a Phase 1 desk top pilot study of 30 local planning authorities undertaken by Pegasus Group (July 2014) The Phase 2 research comprises an online survey of local planning authorities, supplemented by further desktop research drawing on the Phase 1 study and other sources. The methodology adopted is outlined further in Chapter 2. Chapter 3 sets out an overview of the survey coverage and the response rate. Subsequent chapters then address the key findings. 1 of Recommendations on Standards for Outdoor Play, Sport and Recreation The Six Acre Standard Phase 1 Research: Pilot Study, Pegasus Group, July

6 2.0 METHODOLOGY 2.1 Overview of Methodology The methods employed to carry out the Phase 2 study consisted of two key strands of work, comprising the following: The collection of data on the use of the Fields in Trust benchmark standards; and A Literature. The Collection of Data This stage of the research was focussed around the use of a Survey Monkey online Questionnaire. The survey investigated how the Fields in Trust benchmark standards for open space are interpreted in local standards and policies in each local planning authority. In directing the survey to the correct person, a list was compiled of Directors of Planning (or other relevant staff member) for each of the relevant local authorities A questionnaire was reviewed and agreed with the Fields in Trust steering group. A copy is provided at Appendix The online questionnaire was launched on the 22 September 2014 with an initial deadline of 13 October This was extended to 31 October 2014 in order to maximise the response rate In order to augment direct responses to the questionnaire, further responses were obtained via contacts provided by the Fields in Trust steering group and staff members. Also, existing data from the Phase 1 desktop pilot sample of 30 Local Authorities was inputted into the questionnaire by the authors To improve the response rate to the online survey, Fields in Trust commissioned DLA to undertake a further desktop study which provided 15 further responses to the questionnaire based on an agreed set of additional local planning authorities. The desk-based research was undertaken using documents available online and in the public domain. The most recent documents/standards/audits were identified and reviewed in assessing open space provision. 5

7 Literature DLA has researched and identified relevant appeal decisions and has reviewed a shortlist of 19 relevant cases relating to the disposal and reuse of open space, the replacement of open space or new provision. The appeal cases were identified through the use of appeal databases, and desktop research of relevant cases Information was passed to DLA regarding a review of opinions of national stakeholders. While this provided contextual information, this has not directly informed the Phase 2 Findings. 6

8 3.0 OVERVIEW OF RESPONSES Response Rate The Phase 2 methodology employed resulted in a total response rate from 119 local planning authorities in England and Wales. Out of a potential total of 361 local planning authorities in England and Wales this represents a total response rate of 33%. It should be noted that there were a number of responses excluded or rationalised: There were a number of repeat responses from a single authority to the online questionnaire that have been amalgamated and counted as a single response; There were some authorities that formed part of the Phase 1 Pilot Study whom also responded to the questionnaire. Again, responses were amalgamated and counted as a single response to ensure no double-counting. Questionnaire response from Scotland were excluded from the overall findings due to the low response rate from Scottish local planning authorities For English authorities, the response rate to the survey was 32.0% of the total number of English authorities (107 of the 336). The highest response rate was made by the Welsh authorities, with a total of 12 of the 25 authorities responding to the survey (48.0%). As an aside, of the 34 Scottish authorities a total of 7 responded (21.0%). Spread of Responses The spread of responses was reviewed during the study, and the identification of additional authorities sought to ensure that a mix of types of local authority, a geographical spread, and a range of urban and rural contexts were appropriately represented. Appendix 2 maps the authorities that are included within the Phase 2 Study The spread of responses across England is broken down by authority type in table 3.1, and by English Region in table 3.2 below. 7

9 Local Authority Type Total Authority Type Number Response Count London Borough / City of London 33 8 (24%) Metropolitan Borough (53%) District (29%) Unitary (30%) National Park 10 4 (40%) (32%) Table 3.1, Local Planning Authorities by Type England Local Authority English Region Total Authority Response Count English Region Number London / City of London 33 8 (24%) South East (33%) South West (26%) East of England (27%) East Midlands 41 9 (22%) West Midlands (50%) North East 13 8 (62%) North West (28%) Yorkshire and the Humber (43%) (35%) Table 3.2, Local Planning Authorities by English Region The spread of responses across Wales is broken down by authority type in table 3.3. Local Authority Type Total Authority Type Number Response Count Unitary (45%) National Park 3 2 (75%) (48%) Table 3.3, Local Planning Authorities by Type Wales 8

10 3.1.6 The spread of responses has been assessed against the resident population of England. Data is presented in table 3.4. It should be noted that the Peak District and South Downs National Parks contains some of the population which has already been covered in other local authorities, where authority boundaries overlap. Population (2011 Census) England 53,012,456 Population within local 19,474,244 planning authorities included in Phase II Study Proportion which Phase II 36.7% responses make up (%) Table 3.4, Local Planning Authorities by Population England The spread of responses has also been assessed against the resident population of respondents to the survey across Wales, as presented in table 3.5. It should be noted that the Brecon Beacons National Park contains some of the population which has already been covered in other local authorities, where authority boundaries overlap. Population (2011 Census) Wales 3,063,456 Population within planning 1,612,564 authorities included in Phase II Study Proportion which Phase II 52.6% responses make up (%) Table 3.5 Local Planning Authorities by Population Wales For England and Wales, the total population coverage from respondents to the Phase 2 survey is 21,086,808 residents out of a total population of 56,075,912. This equates to responses covering 38% of the total population of England and Wales. 9

11 Quality of Responses The format and content of the online questionnaire was agreed with Fields in Trust. The online survey was designed so that respondents could respond to those questions of most relevance to their authority (e.g. where an open space accessibility standard was applied by the LPA). This enabled respondents to skip questions. The quality of responses has thus been affected, in that respondents regularly opted out of responding to questions, and in some cases answered questions in the incorrect category. The level of response to questions varied across the survey; some questions were not relevant to the particular circumstances of a local planning authority. Where relevant the authors have re-categorised answers Question 10 was a particular anomaly which related to average occupancy rate (household size). A problem with the format of question 10 was encountered once the survey had gone live, which meant the survey would not allow responses containing a decimal point. A number of respondents who encountered this problem, contacted the Fields in Trust survey team directly, which enabled the correct response to be noted and inputted manually The responses varied from question to question, in terms of the level of detail provided in the respondents answers. A number of respondents provided details of their specific Local Plan (or SPD) policies relating to open space, or provided links to their website. In later questions respondents simply referred to this previous question rather than giving a detailed response to the specific question A number of respondents interpreted questions in relation to accessibility standards for open space in a different format to that anticipated. Two options were provided, being (i) radius; and (ii) walking distance. In relation to walking distance, a large number of respondents responded in terms of length of time to walk (in minutes), and an equally large number responded in terms of distance to travel (in metres or kilometres). Due to the high proportion of responses to each, the analysis to accessibility standards questions is broken down into three accessibility groupings, comprising: Radius (metres/ kilometres) Walking Distance (metres/ kilometres) Travel Time (minutes walk) 10

12 Overall, a response rate of 33% across the Phase 2 data for England and Wales is considered to be reasonable and a representative sample. This can be benchmarked against the 2008 Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play which achieved a response rate of 38.2% across the United Kingdom 2. 2 Fields in Trust, Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play, Appendix C 11

13 4.0 PLAN MAKING OVERALL FINDINGS 4.1 Overall Findings The overall findings in relation to Plan Making focus on the how standards for open space are identified and applied by local planning authorities in England and Wales from the Phase 2 survey In analysing each of the questions, the response rate is calculated on the basis of the number of respondents who responded to each question. This reduces bias, with a high proportion of respondents regularly opting out of answering survey questions. Plan Context Initial survey questions were aimed at understanding the policy context within which authorities were responding. A total of 81% of respondents identified that they had an approved Core Strategy in place. Of those who responded, 59% noted that their Core Strategy was adopted between 2009 and 2014 (following the Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play published in 2008). Figure 4.1, Core Strategy Date of Adoption 12

14 4.1.4 The majority of local planning authorities open space standards are applied through adopted Local Plan Policy (47%), with 37% being expressed through an adopted Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) (albeit in these cases the SPD would be supported by a relevant Local Plan or Core Strategy policy). Figure 4.2, Mechanism for applying open space standards A total of 57.5% of respondents employed a PPG17 Based Assessment 3 as the evidence base for their local open space standards. 17.6% of local authorities applied the Fields in Trust guidance, 7% of respondents employed the Assessing Needs and Opportunities guidance, and a further 17.6% used an alternative evidence base for their local standards. The alternative evidence base comprised local assessments of open space based on need contained in open space assessments or alternative studies The 2008 Fields in Trust benchmark guidance differentiates between urban and rural contexts in identifying benchmark standards. The differentiation of standards between urban and rural areas is not something which has been applied by many authorities, with only 12% of respondents making such a distinction. Where distinctions were made, these were not necessarily just between urban and rural contexts (for example 3 Department for Communities and Local Government, Planning Policy Guidance 17: Planning for Open space, Sport and Recreation; and Department for Communities and Local Government, Assessing Needs and Opportunities: A Companion Guide to PPG17, which set out the basis for open space assessments until they were superseded by the National Planning Policy Framework in

15 East Staffordshire identify separate standards for main settlements within the District, Leeds differentiate between the City Centre and the rest of the District) In relation to the methods in which local planning authorities expressed their open space standards, the vast majority (81%) of those authorities who responded to this question, expressed their open space standards as a proportion of hectares per 1,000 population. Alternative methods included: square metres per person; square metres per dwelling; and hectares per bed space The data and results presented in Section 4.2 below focus on those authorities who identified use of hectares per 1,000 population as the basis of their quantity standards. This is considered to provide a representative overall picture of standards employed in local policy by the majority of local planning authorities that responded and allows direct comparison between responses and standards Where household size informs open space standards, the median average occupancy rate (household size) for which local planning authorities assess their open space standards is identified to be 2.4 persons per household. An anomalous response of was provided in one response which has been excluded from the data. 14

16 4.2 Data and Results Quantity Findings Playing Pitches Within the online survey, a definition for playing pitches was provided, which identified pitch sports as soccer, rugby union, rugby league, hockey, lacrosse, cricket and American football. This is consistent with the approach within the Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play approach to Playing Pitches and would fall within the PPG17 typology Outdoor Sports Facilities For those 63 local planning authorities who identified that they use hectares per 1,000 population as the basis of their quantity standards for playing pitches, the median level of provision was 1.21 hectares per 1,000 population. This is broadly equivalent to the overall standard set out in Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (2008) which sets a benchmark standard of 1.20 hectares per 1,000 population. The Fields in Trust guidance also differentiates benchmark standards between urban and rural areas for pitch sports hectares for urban authorities; and 1.72 hectares for rural authorities. As identified above, 12% of respondents differentiate their open space standards, and in particular between urban and rural areas The quantity standards for playing pitches varied from 0.25 to 3.73 hectare per 1,000 population. This variation is likely to reflect those authorities which utilise open space assessments to determine local need for playing pitches and reflect their specific local circumstances. For example, the London Boroughs tended to have relatively low quantity standards below the Fields in Trust benchmark. Figure 4.3, Quantity standards for playing pitches Ha / 1,000 Population 15

17 Other Outdoor Sports Other outdoor sports were identified in the online survey as comprising tennis courts, bowling greens, athletics tracks, and other outdoor sports areas with natural or artificial surfaces. Again, this is consistent with the Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play approach to Other Outdoor Sports and would fall within the PPG17 typology Outdoor Sports Facilities For those 29 local planning authorities who identified that they apply a quantity standard for other outdoor sport, there was a degree of duplication with the playing pitch standards or with other provision for children Benchmark standards for all outdoor sports in both urban and rural areas is provided in the 2008 guidance, which sets out benchmarks of 1.60 ha for urban and 1.76 hectares per 1,000 population for rural local authorities. In total, 28% of local planning authorities set local standards including pitches and other outdoor sports within this benchmark range. Figure 4.4, Quantity standards for other outdoor sports Ha / 1,000 Population 16

18 Designated Play Areas The questionnaire defined designated play areas as designated areas for children and young people containing a range of facilities and an environment that has been designed to provide focused opportunities for outdoor play comprising casual or informal playing space within housing areas. These play areas comprise LAPs (Local Areas for Play), LEAPs (Local Equipped Areas for Play), and NEAPs (Neighbourhood Equipped Areas for Play) consistent with Fields in Trust guidance. This would fall to be considered as Provision for Children and Young People within PPG 17 typologies Of the 57 local planning authorities which responded to this specific question, 35% identified that they follow the Fields in Trust benchmark for designated play areas. The median level of provision for designated play was identified as 0.25 hectares per 1,000 population The 2008 guidance sets a benchmark standard of 0.80 hectares per 1,000 population for total children s playing space. This is broken down to comprise 0.25 hectares for designated playing space (including equipped playing space), and 0.55 hectares for informal playing space. The median level of provision is therefore lower than the overall benchmark standard, but is comparable with the benchmark standard for designated playing space. This suggests that the informal playing space element of Fields in Trust guidance is not being employed directly as a standard in new open space provision. Figure 4.5, Quantity standards for designated play areas Ha / 1,000 Population 17

19 Other Outdoor Provision Other outdoor provision was identified within the survey to comprise MUGAs (multi use games areas), skateboard parks and other outdoor provision Two of the respondents identified that they did not have a specific standard for other outdoor provision but instead included it as part of their local standard for children and young people. Of those 14 authorities who identified that they have a quantifiable standard for other outdoor provision, standards varied from 0.02 to 1.7 hectares per 1,000 population. Some authorities also included accessible natural greenspace within this category. Parks and Amenity Green Space The online survey identified that parks and amenity green space includes urban parks, country parks, forest parks, formal gardens, informal recreation spaces, communal green spaces in and around housing, and village greens In response to this question, the majority of respondents identified alternative local open space classifications, comprising an overall figure for parks and amenity green space, a specific standards for parks and gardens and also a standard for amenity green space. These three categories of data have been categorised separately from the responses to provide a more accurate representation of the results Where an overall standard for parks and amenity green space was provided, the median level of provision was 1 hectare per 1,000 population. The median level of provision for local parks and gardens was 0.8 hectares per 1,000 population The median level of provision for amenity greenspace was 0.55 hectares per 1,000 population These standards do not readily translate to the Fields in Trust benchmarks for playing pitches and playing space, but could be seen as contributing toward the informal playing space element of children s playing space. In this regard the amenity greenspace median of 0.55 ha per 1,000 population is in line with this Fields in Trust benchmark. 18

20 Others The online questionnaire did not specify any particular categories which could be included under others. This was intentional to ensure that any obscure local categories of open space were not missed from the analysis. Three distinct categories could be identified from the responses. These categories comprised: an overall others standard (with no specific open space categories identified); allotments, community gardens and urban farms; and natural and semi-natural open space (including green corridors). Data for each of these three categories has been extracted from the responses received in relation to this question The median level of provision for the overall standard for others was 1.59 hectares per 1,000 population. For allotments, community gardens and urban farms, the median level of provision was 0.3 hectares per 1,000 population. For natural and semi-natural open space (including green corridors) the median level of provision was 1.78 hectares per 1,000 population. 19

21 4.3 Data and Results Accessibility Findings Local planning authorities surveyed were asked whether they applied specific accessibility standards for different types of open spaces in relation to radius and walking distance. A high proportion of respondents misinterpreted the wording of the question, responding to walking distance with a travel time (minutes walk) as opposed to providing a distance in metres/kilometres. For this reason, the data has been further scrutinised and three strands of data as part of the accessibility findings have been extracted, where appropriate, which include the following: Radius Walking distance (metres) Travel time (minutes walk) Access to Playing Pitches When questioned directly in relation to accessibility standards for playing pitches, the median accessibility standard expressed in terms of radius was 1,200 metres. This is equal to the accessibility benchmark standard set out in Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (2008) The median accessibility standard expressed in terms of walking distance was 500 metres, however only 3 local planning authorities identified that their accessibility standard was represented in this way. It is anticipated that the much reduced distance is a reflection of local circumstances and assessments The median accessibility standard when expressed in terms of travel time was 15 minutes. This is comparable with the benchmark standard of 10 to 15 minutes for local playing pitch facilities as set out in the 2008 guidance. The 2008 guidance also specifies a benchmark accessibility standard of 20 minutes by motor transport to synthetic pitches. No reference to drive time standards were identified by any of the respondents A small proportion of respondents specified in their response which type of playing pitch their travel time related to, including 2 respondents who identified a 10 minutes walk for grass pitches, and 1 respondent who identified a 20 minutes walk for synthetic pitches. 20

22 Figure 4.6, Accessibility standards (radius and walking distance) for playing pitches Figure 4.7, Accessibility standards (minutes walk) for playing pitches Other Outdoor Sports Of those local authorities who responded, the median accessibility standard for other outdoor sports was 900 metres (in radius). A great level of variation was provided by respondents, from 250 metres for kick-about areas, to 6,400 metres for athletics tracks. In the response to this question, none of the authorities expressed accessibility in terms of a walking distance as part of an accessibility standard In relation to accessibility standards set out as travel time, the median standard was 15 minutes walk. Of those who identified travel times for specific outdoor sports, tennis courts were predominantly to be provided within a 15 minutes walk. 21

23 4.3.8 Guidance on the accessibility of other outdoor sports is provided for within the Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (2008) document, which sets a 30 minutes drive time for a 6-lane athletics track, and 20 minutes travel time for tennis courts and bowls Two further respondents identified accessibility standards by way of drive time. An overall drive time of 15 minutes was provided by one of the respondents, with another stating a drive time of 10 minutes for tennis courts, bowling greens, athletics tracks and golf courses. This is not considered to provide a robust basis for comparison. Designated Play Areas The local planning authorities which responded to this question provided their responses under 4 categories: overall accessibility; and accessibility for LAPs; LEAPs; and NEAPs. This data has been extracted as such, to provide a comprehensive assessment of accessibility standards for designated play areas, based on radius distance, and travel time (minutes walk) Based on radius distance, 57% of respondents identified the accessibility of LAPs, LEAPs and NEAPS, for which the median accessibility standard was 100 metres for LAPs, 400 metres for LEAPs, and 1,000 metres for NEAPs. The median overall accessibility standard was 480 metres for those local authorities who provided an accessibility standard in this format. This is equivalent to the standards set out in the Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (2008) document Based on travel time, 13 local planning authorities provided an overall accessibility standard for designated play areas, for which the median standard was 10 minutes. The travel time for LAPs was identified as 1 minutes walk. However, as only one respondent identified a travel time for LAPs, this is not considered to be provide a robust reflection of actual accessibility standards for LAPs. The median travel time for LEAPs was a 5 minutes walk. For NEAPs, a median travel time of 15 minutes walk was identified. 22

24 Figure 4.8, Accessibility standards (radius) for designated play areas Figure 4.9, Accessibility standards (travel time) for designated play areas Other Outdoor Provision On the basis of radius, local planning authorities who identified a standard for other outdoor provision provided a range of distances from 400 metres to 1,000 metres. Of the 15 authorities who responded, one respondent noted that their standards for MUGA s is included as part of their standard for equipped play. 23

25 In relation to travel time, a median accessibility standard of 15 minutes walk from home to other outdoor provision was identified, out of a total of 7 authorities. This low response rate indicates that there are likely to be very few authorities who provide an accessibility standard in terms of travel time for other outdoor provision. Parks and Amenity Green Space In response to this question, the majority of respondents identified accessibility standards for parks and amenity green space under three categories, comprising standards for parks and amenity green space, a standard for parks and gardens, and/or a standard for amenity green space. These three categories of data have been extracted from the responses to provide a more accurate representation of the results This data is further scrutinised to identify accessibility standards by radius and by travel time (minutes walk), due to the nature of the responses received In terms of radius distance, 20 of the local authorities identified an overall accessibility standard for parks and amenity green space, where the median accessibility standard was 480 metres For those authorities who identified an accessibility standard for parks and gardens, the median accessibility standard was 710 metres. A broad range of standards were provided by respondents, varying from 300 metres for local/pocket parks, to 4,300 metres for major urban and country parks Where a specific accessibility standard for amenity greenspace was identified, the median accessibility was 480 metres. The accessibility standards again varied greatly for this open space typology from 120 metres to 800 metres In relation to travel time, of those 12 authorities who provided an overall travel time for parks and amenity greenspace, the median accessibility standard was 10 minutes Specifically in relation to parks and gardens, the median travel time was identified to be a 15 minutes walk from home Where authorities have identified a specific accessibility standard for amenity green space, the median travel time was 10 minutes A range of accessibility standards are therefore applied, but it is clear that the majority of standards seek parks, gardens and amenity greenspace to be within minutes walking distance. 24

26 Others The median overall accessibility standard in terms of radius distance for other open spaces (MUGA, skateboard, others) was 660 metres. The majority of respondents identified radius distances for specific open space categories. This included natural and semi-natural open space and allotments. This data has been extracted to enable a more accurate picture of the responses to be gleaned For natural and semi-natural open space, a total of 17 local planning authorities identified specific accessibility standards. The median radius distance was 720 metres. A number of references were made to Natural England s Accessible Natural Greenspace Standards For allotments, 16 local authorities identified specific accessibility standards, for which the median radius distance was 1,000 metres. Two further respondents provided accessibility standards for cemeteries, varying from 1,200 metres to 5,000 metres One of the respondents to this question identified an accessibility standard of 720 metres radius for civic space. As part of the response to this question, one authority set out a standard of 100 metres radius for access to informal open space Only one authority provided an overall accessibility standard to other types of open space in terms of travel time, which was 15 minutes walking from home For natural and semi-natural open space, 8 local authorities identified specific accessibility standards. The median travel time was 15 minutes For allotments, 6 local planning authorities provided specific accessibility standards. The median travel time was also 15 minutes Two respondents to this question identified standards for informal green space, varying from a 2 minutes to a 15 minutes walk The broad variety of typologies and standards make it difficult to draw clear conclusions on the accessibility standards for these open spaces. 25

27 4.4 Data and Results Quality Findings When questioned directly, a total of 59% of local planning authorities that responded indicated that they applied a quality standard for open spaces. When the data was scrutinised in more detail, it was evident that they comprised of 4 main categories: Local assessment of quality; Green Flag standard; Fields in Trust standard; and Sport England standard Of those authorities who responded to this question, 47% identified that they applied a local assessment of quality. The commentary provided by respondents identified that this largely comprised Local Plan standards or open space assessments / strategies. These standards providing general requirements to maintain the quality of open spaces such as: to be well-maintained, clean and litter free, provision of appropriate ancillary facilities and equipment, provision of footpaths and to be free of the fear of harm or crime. Two of the respondents identified that this comprised a minimum quality standard, provided as an indicative rating out of a total scoring of 100 based on a local assessment process The Green Flag assessment for parks was applied by 27% of local authorities which responded to this question. The Green Flag Awards represent requirements set and met in terms of the quality of existing public park facilities and their management on a site specific basis. The Green Flag Awards are made on an annual basis by Keep Britain Tidy. Each site is assessed against eight key criteria: A welcoming place Healthy, safe and secure Clean and well-maintained Sustainability Conservation and heritage Community involvement Marketing Management The Fields in Trust quality standards differ, in that advice is given in the context of the national Planning context and relates to quality standards that should be applied to existing and new provision in particular. 26

28 4.4.5 The Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (2008) document recommends the use of Technical Performance Quality standards such as those that were published at the time in its own publication The Design and Maintenance of Outdoor Sports Facilities (2004). This applied for both pitches and other outdoor facilities, such as cricket, bowls and croquet Alternatively, reference could be made to technical standards produced by Sport England, the Governing Bodies of Sport or professional or trade organisations such as the Institute of Groundsmanship (IoG) or the Sports and Play Construction Association (SAPCA) It was added that observational studies could prove helpful as a starting point, though they should not be substituted for the best practice provided by technical assessments In respect of children s playing space, the Fields in Trust Assessment, as given in Appendix F of the 2008 guidance, takes account of the following for any site: The infrastructure and general features The play equipment features Other features enhancing the overall play process A further 4% applied Sport England s recently published assessment of quality 4 in relation to sports pitches. Figure 4.10, Local planning authorities which apply a quality standard for open spaces 4 Assessing needs and opportunities guide for indoor and outdoor sports facilities: How to undertake and apply needs assessments for sports facilities (2014), Sport England 27

29 4.5 Data and Results Other Plan Making Issues A number of respondents (12 out of 47) noted that the adoption of local standards or the Fields in Trust standards was subject of discussion at a Local Plan or other DPD examination. Only four respondents indicated that the consideration of open space standards had been relevant to their plan making in exercising the Duty to Cooperate. However, no further information was provided on these matters and these are an area of potential future exploration in the review process out of 54 respondents noted that Neighbourhood Plans under preparation within their area included open space policies and open space issues. This included the designation of Local Green Spaces under paragraph 77 of the National Planning Policy Framework Eleven respondents have a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule in place. Of these six include provision for new and improved open space within their Regulation 123 list (this is a list of infrastructure published by the local planning authority that will be, or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL). This commonly includes contributions to strategic open space. For example the Surrey Heath Regulation 123 list provides for Shared Accessible Natural Greenspace (where this cannot be provided directly by a development), open space not directly related to a development, and play areas and equipped open space not directly related to a development Local communities through local and neighbourhood plans should be able to identify for special protection green areas of particular importance to them. By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances. Identifying land as Local Green Space should therefore be consistent with the local planning of sustainable development and complement investment in sufficient homes, jobs and other essential services. Local Green Spaces should only be designated when a plan is prepared or reviewed, and be capable of enduring beyond the end of the plan period. 77. The Local Green Space designation will not be appropriate for most green areas or open space. The designation should only be used: where the green space is in reasonably close proximity to the community it serves; where the green area is demonstrably special to a local community and holds a particular local significance, for example because of its beauty, historic significance, recreational value (including as a playing field), tranquillity or richness of its wildlife; and where the green area concerned is local in character and is not an extensive tract of land. 78. Local policy for managing development within a Local Green Space should be consistent with policy for Green Belts. 28

30 5.0 DECISION TAKING 5.1 Overall Findings The overall findings in relation to Decision Taking focus on the responses received on how standards for open space are applied in making planning decisions at the local authority level In analysing each of the questions, the response rate is calculated on the basis of the number of respondents who responded to the question. This reduces the level of bias, with a high proportion of respondents regularly choosing to skip survey questions When questioned directly, only 28% of local planning authorities identified that they employ Fields in Trust guidance directly or indirectly in decision taking. The manner in which it is employed might merit further research with those authorities. Figure 5.1, Local planning authorities who employ Fields in Trust guidance in decision taking In relation to local standards for open space being met in planning decision-taking, and based on a scoring system with 1 being seldom and 10 being always, 64% indicated a score between 7 and 10. This indicates a relatively high degree of compliance with open space standards in planning decision making. 29

31 5.1.5 Respondents were asked regarding any notable cases within which the use of open space standards were determinant. Only four respondents answered yes to this question and provided details: The development on playing pitches at a former sports ground in the South West. The response noted that this was subject to an appeal; however no record could be found and it appears that planning permission was granted by the local planning authority. Residential Development of 104 units at a sports ground in Lancashire. An application was refused planning permission due to a lack of on-site provision in an area of open space deficiency. An appeal against the decision was allowed. The decision accepted the Council s evidence base regarding the need for open space, but the Inspector accepted that there was existing off-site provision in the immediate vicinity of the site, that the surrounding countryside offered recreational opportunities and that a combination of some on-site provision (although below the level sought) and contributions to improvements to off-site open space was a suitable response. Other factors including the lack of five year housing land supply were also material in the appeal decision. A historic appeal from 2006 in the West Midlands was dismissed due to the site being identified for an open space use in a previous permission. Subsequently outline planning permission for residential use has been granted in The fourth respondent local planning authority did not provide details There are few clear lessons to be taken from these cases. It is clear that in most cases open space standards are met in developments, and that in specific decisions other material considerations may carry greater weight than a failure to meet open space standards in the decision making process Higher levels of response were made regarding applications involving the loss of open spaces. Some respondents went on to provide details of specific cases a number of which are yet to be determined. Examples in Lincolnshire focus around proposals for residential development on amenity open space within an existing housing development which are being refused on the basis of open space policy. 30

32 5.1.8 Other examples are given where permission is granted for non-open space development subject to off-site improvements. For example, the response from a Yorkshire authority states: This authority receives significant pressure for built development on existing open spaces-particularly local neighbourhood green spaces and semi natural areas. A green space assessment is provided by Planning Policy in consultation with Parks Services for all development proposals that involve the loss of green space. The borough cannot currently demonstrate a five year supply of housing and as such the NPPF presumption in favour of sustainable development often means that where green spaces have no obvious wildlife/recreation function or value are under further pressure, sometimes undermining the provision of a variety and hierarchy of spaces. Compensatory provision is required where development of green space is permittedthis is a combination of like for like or qualitative improvement to existing spaces Many of the examples given by respondents relate to improvements to existing open spaces in terms of new sports facilities, pavilions or all weather playing surfaces The London Borough of Ealing is of note in providing a detailed breakdown of cases involving the loss of open space across the Borough, along with a projection of the future reduced rates of open space per 1,000 population in line with projected future population increase A high level of response was also made regarding applications involving the loss of school playing fields. Typical examples relate to the reduction in area of playing fields to facilitate related educational or sports development, with new all-weather surfaces providing replacement capacity or other off-site enhancements or new provision. Also, examples are offered where the rationalisation of school facilities has led to the change of use of former school sites, typically to residential use. While at a strategic level the decision to change the use of facilities must take account of the wider need for open space, these examples do not typically rely directly on the use of or interpretation of open space standards for new development and instead tend to be determined on the basis of detailed local and site and proposal specific circumstances. 31

33 This is illustrated in a response by a Northamptonshire Council: In 2006 Northamptonshire changed from a three tier system to one of two tiers. This led to the closure of 19 schools during the reorganisation. The Council used their Open Space, Sport and Recreation Assessment of Needs and Audit (2005) to prepare an interim policy on which schools could be released for development and which needed to be retained. We subsequently used our Playing Pitch Strategy 2011 to assess the position of the remaining schools where no decision had been agreed The Playing Pitch Strategy in Northamptonshire flags up the importance of school playing fields in meeting levels of provision for the wider community, especially for certain sports such as hockey. This is an area that might merit future consideration A further example from Yorkshire notes an example where the redevelopment of a former school site took place through a local plan allocation, but where the playing fields were retained. 32

34 5.2 Notable Planning Cases Research was also undertaken to seek to identify notable planning appeal cases which made reference to standards for open space. In particular, cases in which an Inspector or the Secretary of State have identified them as an appropriate standard A total of 19 appeal decisions (along with a long list of other decisions) were reviewed relating to the disposal and reuse of open space, the replacement of open space or new provision. An overview of the appeals is provided in Table 5.1 overleaf. 33

35 TABLE 5.1 DECISIONS REVIEWED 1 Cranfleet Way, Nottingham 2 Severn Close, Wellingborough Case Council Reference Overview Erewash Borough Council Wellingborough Borough Council 3 Oldham, Lancashire Oldham Metropolitan Borough Council 4 East Molesey, Surrey Elmbridge Borough Council 5 Lydney, Gloucestershire Forest of Dean District Council APP/N1025/A/09/ and APP/N1025/A/09/ APP/H2835/A/09/ APP/W4223/A/09/ APP/K3605/A/11/ APP/P1615/A/08/ Appeal allowed for 2 detached dwellings. The main issue related to whether or not the site should be retained to meet a need for play space. The Fields in Trust benchmark standards in relation to accessibility were identified by the Inspector as providing an appropriate basis on which to assess the appeal site (para. 9). Proposed residential development with loss of a designated Environmentally Important Open Space (EIOS) and Important Amenity Area (IAA). Local open space assessment identifies that the current open space provision is below the recommended local standard. The appeal was dismissed with weight being given to the open space designations (along with other factors) over and above a shortfall in five year housing land supply. Extension of school sports hall allowed despite loss of open space. PPG17 referenced in weighing up the benefits being offered to the community as part of a proposal against the loss of open space that would occur. Appeal dismissed for residential development of former cricket pitch. Taken overall the mitigation for the loss of part of the Open Space Facility was seen as inadequate. Fields in Trust benchmarks were referred to in discussion of local benchmarks for open space and facilities. Fields in Trust accessibility criteria referenced with regard to location of alternative playing field provision. 6 Nelson, Lancashire Pendle Borough Council APP/E2340/A/12/ Appeal allowed for residential development. The main issues related to whether there were sufficiently compelling material considerations to warrant a departure from the normal requirement to make appropriate provision for public open space within the confines of the new development in accordance with local policy. The Inspector makes reference to different methodologies for calculating open space requirements; making the comparison between local policy and the yardstick of the NPFA standard. 7 Moreton Road, Buckingham 8 LESSA Sports Ground, Grand Drive Aylesbury Vale District Council London Borough of Merton APP/J0405/A/12/ APP/T5720/A/09/ Proposal includes 80 residential units and open space provision promoted against lack of 5 year housing land supply; One of the main issues included the adequacy of public open space provision. The Proposal was assessed against local open space assessments and the Natural England Accessible Green Space Standard as an assessment. An off-site contribution was accepted in lieu of on-site provision. In justifying the contribution the Inspector preferred evidence from the local rugby club (that adjoined the site) on the demand for rugby pitches over and above the appellant s assessment. The appeal was allowed. Appeal allowed for residential development and new sports pavilions and the retention and re-use of playing fields and sports facilities. The Inspector assesses the proposal against the overall aims of the PPG17 guidance, and identifies that the LPA s open space strategy provides a robust assessment of need in this respect. 34

36 Case Council Reference Overview 9 The Pavilion, East Molesey 10 GKN Sports Ground, Chesterfield 11 Hillock Lane, Woolston, Warrington 12 Brogborough Club, Bedford Elmbridge Borough Council Chesterfield Borough Council Warrington Borough Council Central Bedfordshire Council 13 Lakenham, Norwich Norwich City Council 14 Springfield University Hospital, London London Borough of Wandsworth 15 Knights Hill, London London Borough of Lambeth 16 Shinfield, Winchester Wokingham Borough Council APP/K3605/A/11/ APP/A1015/A/14/ APP/M0655/A/13/ CB/11/04171/OUT APP/G2625/A/13/ APP/H5960/A/11/ APP/N5660/A/11/ APP/X0360/A/11/ Appeal dismissed for residential development on a former cricket pitch. The Inspector noted that although the local open space and recreation study showed that provision of open space facilities as a whole was above the Fields in Trust benchmark standard, there was a perceived shortfall in some areas including for cricket. The cricket pitch was determined by the Inspector to not be surplus to requirements, and proposal mitigation was inadequate (off-site improvements and contributions). Appeal allowed for residential development and an area of designated public open space. The Inspector considered the former playing fields to be surplus to requirements locally based on local assessments of need, and would not be likely to be brought back into use regardless. Proposal includes the erection of a secondary school on existing open space, with the majority of playing fields retained; Proposal would continue to provide a recreational resource for the local community and additional facilities proposed would maintain the value of the site in terms of sports uses. Appeal allowed. Site of a former sports and social club; Proposal recommended and granted planning permission for up to 16 dwellings. Loss of sports facility justified in light of surplus of open space provision in relation to local standards. Site of a former Sports & Leisure Centre proposed for residential re-use; Sport England considered that the site is not an existing facility capable of being brought back into use; Proposal includes provision for open space, addressing some of the existing open space deficiencies consisting of play provision, allotments, preserved woodland/wildflower garden, and an informal 5-a-side pitch. Appeal allowed. Proposed development for replacement mental health facilities, residential development, elderly care home and retail uses refused and subject to appeal; Site currently comprises a popular golf course, which would be replaced with publically accessible open space. The Secretary of State and Inspector considered that this outweighed numerical loss of open space, notwithstanding shortfall in provision across wider area. Appeal allowed. Proposal includes the demolition of existing tennis club buildings and the erection of a new mixed-use building which includes a new tennis club and 58 residential units; On-site replacement of two of four outdoor tennis courts and increased public access was accepted to as compensating for the loss of open space. However, issues of character and appearance of the area let to dismissal of appeal. Disagreement between appellant and Council in relation to method of density calculation and the inclusion of incidental open space within the residential areas; 35

37 Case Council Reference Overview Use of Fields in Trust standards in calculating the size of play areas in accordance with local planning policy as part of a discussion of net density in residential development. 17 Gosport, Hampshire Gosport Borough Council 18 Sharnbrook, Bedfordshire Bedford Borough Council 19 Moulton, Cheshire Cheshire West and Chester Council APP/J1725/A/08/ APP/K0235/A/10/ APP/A0665/A/13/ Appeal allowed for further education college on playing fields site. The existing pitch would be realigned and the overall function of the open space would not be affected in spite of a quantitative loss of open space. Appeal dismissed for use of public open space for additional tennis courts as part of private club. No direct reference to Fields in Trust guidance but Inspector attaches weight to the loss of space adjacent to playground which would diminish the value of that facility, especially when adjoining land was in use for football or cricket matches. Appeal allowed for residential development. Contribution accepted to improve off-site formal play and pitch facilities rather than provide on-site. In this case they adjoined the appeal site. One issue included the ownership of existing pitches by a trust whereby a covenant restricted the use of pitches to children. The Inspector considered that there would be the opportunity to improve provision elsewhere, and that given the issue was for adult use of playing pitches, that the issue of proximity was less important. 36

38 5.2.3 Of particular note, is the Cranfleet Way appeal decision. This involved the development of two detached dwellings, where the main issue related to whether or not the site should be retained to meet a need for play space. In assessing the need for play space at the site, the Inspector referred to the accessibility benchmarks for large equipped play spaces in Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (Fields in Trust, 2008), and identified that this provided an appropriate basis on which to assess the appeal site (para. 9). This opinion is set within the context of an absence of open space standards for proposed spaces in the adopted Local Plan at that time. In his decision, the Inspector also makes reference to the aims of Planning Policy Guidance Note 17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation (PPG17) and being satisfied that these aims had been met in the planning case Whilst this decision precedes the NPPF (2012), it is evident that the Fields in Trust benchmark standards and the aims of PPPG17 provide the most appropriate method of assessment, providing a robust basis in which decision-takers can assess the provision of open space, in relation to accessibility from dwellings The appeal decisions are specific to the particular circumstances of each case and no clear pattern regarding the use of Fields in Trust standards was apparent. However, a number of cases did make reference to Fields in Trust standards and used these as part of the decision-making process From the decisions reviewed the references to Fields in Trust guidance are often tangential. In line with Government policy appeal decisions are referring to locallyderived standards where these are produced. However, it is clear that the Fields in Trust guidance is being used for benchmark purposes, often in terms of accessibility. There are no cases that have been reviewed that have challenged Fields in Trust standards. 37

39 6.0 CONCLUSIONS 6.1 Key Survey Findings A number of key findings can be drawn out from the results to the survey. These can be summarised as follows: A total of 18% of all respondents to the survey in England and Wales apply the Fields in Trust guidance as part of the evidence base for local standards; Only 12% of respondents differentiate between urban and rural areas in the identification and use of their standards; Over 80% (81%) of LPA s express open space standards as hectares per 1,000 population this is clearly the most widely used and understood metric for open space standards; Playing Pitches: o the median level of provision among respondents was 1.21 hectares per 1,000 population. This is equivalent to the Fields in Trust standard of 1.20 hectares per 1,000 population; o The median accessibility standard for playing pitches was 1,200m from dwellings (equal to the Fields in Trust standard); Other Outdoor Sports: o 25% of respondents were able to provide data about their current standards for the provision for other outdoor sports, expressed as hectares per 1,000 population. Other outdoor sports (excluding pitches) included provision of bowling greens, tennis courts, athletic tracks and Gaelic football. Taken with the standards for Playing Pitches for the relevant authorities, the combined total exceeds the benchmark of 1.60 hectares per 1,000 population for All Outdoor Sport in Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (2008). Designated Play: o The median level of provision was 0.25 hectares per 1,000 population which is equal to the Fields in Trust standard for designated equipped playing space (excluding informal playing space); 38

40 o The median accessibility standard for LAPs was 100m, for LEAPs was 400m, and for NEAPs was 1,000m. This is equivalent to the Fields in Trust standard when considering LAPs, LEAPs and NEAPs individually, with 25% of respondents providing an overall median accessibility standard of 480m Overall, the responses made demonstrate that the Fields in Trust standards remain very relevant in the context of current provision in England and Wales. The use of locally based assessments appears to have generated standards of a similar scale. Whether this is the result of the application of the six acre standard over preceding years, or due to a combination of other factors is a point for further consideration, but is beyond the scope of this current brief Neighbourhood planning is an emerging area of plan-making that will be of ongoing relevance and the review of Fields in Trust standards should consider the manner in which this might be reflected, especially in the light of designating Local Green Space under the NPPF A review of some of the background material shows local planning authorities benchmarking themselves against each other in deriving local standards. This typically does not differentiate between types of open space provision, but may offer opportunities for further research The review of decision taking shows that the use of open space standards is generally followed through at the planning application stage. The Fields in Trust standards are employed directly by some authorities (28% of respondents). Decisions regarding open space and playing field sites (especially those related to school or former school sites) remain relevant to many authorities. There are a number of identified cases where the quantity, accessibility or quality of open space has been determinant in a refusal or planning appeal. 39

41 Appendix 1 Survey Monkey Questionnaire

42 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 2014 Introduction Fields in Trust, the operating name of the National Playing Fields Association, is undertaking a review of recommendations contained in Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play produced in 2008 (formerly known as the Six Acre Standard). As part of this review a survey is being conducted of all local planning authorities in England, Scotland and Wales on behalf of Fields in Trust by. This will provide a current picture of how the benchmark standards for open space are interpreted in local standards and policies and applied across local authorities in England, Scotland and Wales and a comparative assessment with locally derived standards. The outputs from the survey will inform recommendations to Fields in Trust on updates to the recommendations contained in Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play to ensure guidance remains up to date to meet the future needs of communities. The online survey will take around 15 minutes to complete on Survey Monkey. The survey is focused on policy matters and should be completed by the Director of Planning or other relevant Local Plans Officer or other staff member with direct responsibility for planning policy. We are also looking to follow up a select number of responses with telephone interviews. This review is the first since 2008 and your participation represents a major opportunity to influence the future direction of Fields in Trust's open space policy. The final outputs will be formalised in a report providing a summary of findings which will be available to view on request. Privacy: All information collected from local authorities will be kept strictly confidential (subject to legal limitations) and will be held in accordance with the requirements of the Data Protection Act. Personal anonymity will be ensured in the publication of survey material unless explicitly agreed. Contact for further information: Thank you for taking time to read the information. If you have any questions on this survey please contact Phil Copsey or Katie Christou at : E mail: fitsurvey@davidlock.com Telephone: Page 1

43 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 2014 About you and your Local Plan 1. What is the name of your authority? 2. Name of respondent: 3. Role of respondent: 4. What local standards in adopted or emerging development plan documents are used for development management purposes? Please provide an web address reference for development plan documents Do you have an approved Core Strategy or Local Plan in place? 6 Yes No 6. If yes, when was your Core Strategy or Local Plan approved? 6 7. Is your Core Strategy / Local Plan applied for DC purposes? Yes No 8. If no Core Strategy or Local Plan is in place, when do you expect your Plan to be adopted? 6 Page 2

44 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 2014 Quantitative Open Space Standards The recommendations contained in Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play (2008) set out minimum standards for play and recreation space. 9. How are open space standards expressed in your Local Plan? Hectares per 1,000 population Square metres per dwelling Other (please specify) 10. In deriving your open space standards what average occupancy rate do you apply per Please enter number of people per dwelling e.g What quantitative standard do you employ for the following types of open space (Q11 Q16)? 11. Playing pitches Pitch sports include soccer, rugby union, rugby league, hockey, lacro and American football. Ha/1,000 Sq.m/dwelling Other 12. Other outdoor sports (courts, greens, etc.) Outdoor sports comprises (with natural or a surfaces) including tennis courts, bowling greens, athletics tracks and other outdoor spo Ha/1,000 Sq.m/dwelling Other 13. Designated play areas Designated areas for children and young people containing a facilities and an environment that has been designed to provide focused opportunities for comprising casual or informal playing space within housing areas. These play areas comp (Local Areas for Play), LEAPs (Local Equipped Areas for Play), and NEAPs (Neighbourhoo Area for Play). Ha/1,000 Sq.m/dwelling Other 14. Other outdoor provision Other outdoor provision comprises MUGAs (multi use games skateboard parks and other outdoor provision. Ha/1,000 Sq.m/dwelling Other Page 3

45 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play Parks and amenity green space including urban parks, country parks, forest parks, fo informal recreation spaces, communal green spaces in and around housing, and village gr Ha/1,000 Sq.m/dwelling Other 16. Others Ha/1,000 Sq.m/dwelling Other 17. For equipped play areas, do you follow Fields in Trust criteria? Yes No Page 4

46 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 2014 Accessibility Standards 18. Do you have specific accessibility standards for these different types of open spaces? Yes No What are your accessibility standards (Q19 Q24)? 19. Playing pitches (please provide answer in metres) Radius Walking Distance 20. Other outdoor sports (courts, greens, etc.) (please provide answer in metres) Radius Walking Distance 21. Designated play areas (please provide answer in metres) Radius Walking Distance 22. Other outdoor provision (MUGA, skateboard, others) (please provide answer in metres) Radius Walking Distance 23. Parks and amenity open space (please provide answer in metres) Radius Walking Distance 24. Others (please provide answer in metres) Radius Walking Distance Page 5

47 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 2014 Quality Standards 25. Do you have any specific policy requirements regarding the quality of new provision? Yes No If yes, please provide details on the quality standards applied and reference. 5 6 Page 6

48 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 2014 Plan Making 26. Through what mechanism are open space standards applied? Adopted Pre Submission Local Plan Policy SPD Please insert title(s) and date(s) of document(s) published What is the evidence base for the local standards? PPG17 Assessment Fields in Trust Guidance Assessing Needs and Opportunities Other (please specify below) Please insert title(s) and date(s) of document(s) published Was the adoption of local standards or the Fields in Trust standards subject of discuss Plan or other DPD examination? Yes No If yes, please provide details: Has open space provision or standards been an issue in undertaking the duty to co op (England only) Yes No Please comment 5 6 Page 7

49 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play Do your standards differentiate between different parts of your authority (e.g. urban an Yes No Please comment Are there any neighbourhood plans within your authority that include open space polic space issues? Yes No If yes, please provide details: Do you have CIL in place? Yes No 33. Does your CIL R123 list provide for new and improved open space? Yes No If yes, please provide details: 5 6 Page 8

50 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 2014 Decision Taking 34. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being 'seldom' and 10 being 'always', in your judgement to w your local standards met in planning decision taking? Seldom Are there any notable cases within your authority where the quantity, accessibility or q space has been determinant in a refusal or planning appeal? Yes No If yes, please provide details including application or appeal references where relevant Have you had recent planning applications for built development on open spaces? Yes No Please provide details including application or appeal references where relevant Are there any cases within your authority involving the loss of school playing fields in the last 5 years? Yes No If yes, please provide details on the quantity of school playing fields lost and relevant reference numbers Do you employ Fields in Trust guidance in decision taking? Yes No Page 9

51 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play Would you be willing to follow this response up with a short telephone interview? Yes No If yes, please provide your phone number Page 10

52 Fields in Trust Planning and Design for Outdoor Sport and Play 2014 Thank you Many thanks for taking the time to complete this questionnaire. If you would like to know more about Fields in Trust and this survey please visit or Page 11

53 Appendix 2 Questionnaire responses mapped for England and Wales

54