Sandwell Local Plan - Reg 19 Publication

Sport England notes that part 6 of the policy, and associated Appendix A identifies 6 locations for the potential provision of biodiversity units to developers unable to provide a minimum 10% net gain on their own sites. Sport England wishes to comment on three of the identified sites where they contain existing playing field land as follows:

Menzies open space : Part of the site as shown on the plan in Appendix A forms part of the playing field land used as school playing field at Phoenix Collegiate Academy. This includes existing grass pitches for football that have recently been improved by the school as part of a package of mitigation for loss of playing field at former Phoenix North Campus to be developed for housing. It is therefore imperative that the playing field land is suitably protected, and should therefore be excluded from the area of land identified for BNG offsetting. The plan should be amended accordingly and text added to make it clear that existing playing field land will be excluded from the areas to be used for BNG off-setting.

Tividale Park : Significant parts of the site form existing playing field land, with several areas laid out to provide playing pitches for football, and a non-turf cricket pitch. The park also includes existing changing rooms. Whilst there is reference to areas of scrub and woodland offering potential for improvement, for which we have no objection, the policy is not sufficiently clear to protect the playing field land, which should be excluded from the area of land identified for BNG offsetting. The plan should be amended accordingly and text added to make it clear that existing playing field land will be excluded from the areas to be used for BNG off-setting.

Tibbington Open space (The Cracker) : An area of land in the northern part of the open space is disused playing field that has previously been laid out to provide football pitches. There is no evidence presented to demonstrate that the playing field is surplus to requirements and so this area should be protected for playing field use and excluded from the area of land identified for BNG offsetting. The plan should be amended accordingly and text added to make it clear that existing playing field land will be excluded from the areas to be used for BNG off-setting.

Given the above, Sport England wishes to object to identification of the playing field land within the proposed recipient sites for BNG offsetting. Our objection would be addressed by amending the maps to exclude the playing field land and adding some qualifying text as explained.

Sport England supports the amendments made to both the wording of the policy and the supporting text in para 6.42-6.43 that explains that policy SHW4 sets out the Council's strategic approach to open space, whereas SHW5 relates specifically to playing fields and sports facilities. We also support the amendment made to part 7 of the policy, including footnote 153 that makes it clear that policy SHW4 relates to informal open space and recreation only and not to playing fields and other formal sports facilities that are covered by policy SHW5. The amendments have addressed Sport England's concerns raised at Reg 18 stage that as previously drafted there was some uncertainty as to whether policy SHW4 and the supporting appendix were relevant to playing fields, and as a result some conflict between the criteria tests to maintain consistency with national policy in the framework and Sport England's playing fields policy. As such, Sport England has no objection to the amended wording of policy SHW4.

Sport England supports this strategic policy which sets out the Council's approach to securing infrastructure needed for all new developments, and we note the contents of paragraph 12.17 of the associated justification that expressly references sport and recreational facilities as being included within the definition of infrastructure. This relates well to policy SHW5 which specifically addresses meeting the needs for playing pitches and sports facilities.

Sport England supports part 5 of the policy that states new and redeveloped education facilities should include provision for wider community use of sports and other facilities where this would be in accordance with evidence of need, secured through a suitably worded community use agreement as this aligns with Sport England's approach to making most effective use of local community facilities to deliver sport and physical activity.

Sport England supports part 7 of the policy that identifies that the loss of part or the whole of an education facility will only be permitted where alternative provision is available to meet the needs of the community since this also helps protect the supply of community available sports facilities at education sites in the Borough.

Sport England supports those parts of this policy, particularly parts 7 and 8 that that reference the importance of creating permeable and accessible places for active travel, and to creating high quality, active, safe and accessible places to contribute to healthier communities as these relate well to Sport England's Strategy Big issue Active Environments, and to our 10 principles in Sport England's Active Design Guidance.

https://www.sportengland.org/guidance-and-support/facilities-and-planning/design-and-cost-guidance/active-design

We also support parts 1 and 2 of the policy relating to the development of a Sandwell-wide Design Code. Sport England are producing some guidance to assist Local Authorities preparing design codes to ensure they incorporate suitable requirements to deliver Active Environments, ie creating places and spaces that allow everyone to be physically active in their day to day lives. We would advocate that the Council takes this emerging guidance into account when the Design Code supplementary plan is produced. Sport England would wish to engage with the Council to support the production of the guide in due course

Sport England supports the approach in this policy to achieving good place making, and welcomes the reference in para 15.20 to Sport England's Active Design guidance, within which we draw out how Sport England's 10 Active Design principles align with those within the National Design Guide. We are pleased to see that a hyperlink to our guidance has been added at footnote 262.

Sport England commented at Reg 18 consultation stage as follows:

"Sport England supports part 3 of the policy that expressly references improving the value and recreational role of the green belt in Sandwell Valley through improving safe accessibility for all users and by providing facilities for active and passive recreation. The latter contains a proviso with a footnote reference to para 149 of the NPPF which deals with preserving the openness of the green belt when considering the construction of new buildings.

Para 150 of the NPPF references certain other forms of development that are also not inappropriate in the Green Belt, which includes e) material changes in the use of land (such as changes of use for outdoor sport or recreation). Policy SD6 as currently drafted does not cover this since the footnote only relates to para 149, and the material change of use of land is not addressed elsewhere in the policy.

Sport England would wish to see the policy amended to address this point so that the policy is consistent with para 150 of the NPPF."

In response, Sandwell Council's Reg 18 Consultation Representations Sept 2024 responds that the footnote reference to para 149 of the NPPF has since been updated to para 154 and so the reg 19 policy wording has been updated accordingly.

Whilst this is noted, this does not address Sport England's substantive point which is that the wording of policy SDS7 is silent on other forms of development which are also not considered to be inappropriate development (providing they preserve its openness and do not conflict with the purposes of including land within it in accordance with para 155 of the Framework. This is important given the role of Sandwell's green belt in providing opportunities for sport and physical activity to serve the Borough's residents needs.

It is Sport England's view that as drafted, the omission to include reference to material changes of use of land is inconsistent with national policy and is therefore unsound.

Sport England notes and supports the amendment made to part 3 of the policy to provide a specific cross reference to the health and wellbeing policies in the proposed plan (Policies SHW1-SHW6), which appropriately addresses Sport England's representation at Reg 18 stage.

Sport England supports part 1 of the policy which accords with paragraph 103 of the NPPF and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy.

Sport England supports part 2 of the policy which relates to provision of new built sports facilities to meet identified needs that are well-designed and in accessible locations.

Sport England supports part 3 of the policy that relates to securing developer contributions to address the needs of new housing developments, through proportionate planning obligations or CIL. We support the amendment made to make it clear that the policy will be applied to smaller co-located sites which taken together form part of a major development.

Sport England supports part 5 of the policy that promotes the wider community use of school playing fields and other school sports facilities such as sports halls to help meet identified needs. We support the amendment made that where appropriate this will be secured via a suitably worded community use agreement.

Sport England supports reference in para 6.60 to using Sport England's calculator tools as a basis for determining appropriate level of contributions since this draws from data collected for the PPOSS.

Whilst there is reference in the Reg 18 consultation statement to making ithe policy clearer to refer to the scale of qualifying development, Sport England have been unable to locate this wording in either the policy or reasoned justification. The only possible reference is the wording "major housing development" in the policy, though we are uncertain if this should be taken to mean the Glossary definition from the Framework which cross refers to the T&CP Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 (as amended) of 10 dwellings or more or some other amount? This should be addressed as a modification to the policy.

Notwithstanding that the justification draws from the headline findings of the 2022 PPOSS in paras 6.61-6.66, it is recommended that a further paragraph is added to the justification to explain that the Council will review and replace the PPOSS so as to keep this evidence up to date through the Plan period in accordance with para 102 of the Framework.

Notwithstanding Sport England's support for the wording of the policy, and the wording of paragraphs 6.58-6.66, we are raising a strong objection to the contents of paragraphs 6.67-6.68 in respect of the proposed allocation of existing playing field land at Lion Farm. We have provided a separate statement to address why we consider that the proposed allocation and the suggested mitigation sites referenced in paragraph 6.68 fail to meet with proposed policy SHW5 of the proposed Sandwell Plan Publication Version, para 103 of the Framework, and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and guidance. Due to this conflict with national policy we consider the Lion Farm allocation to be unsound, and that the allocation and the associated text in paras 6.67-6.68 should be removed from the plan.

Sport England supports part 1 of the policy which accords with paragraph 103 of the NPPF and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy.

Sport England supports part 2 of the policy which relates to provision of new built sports facilities to meet identified needs that are well-designed and in accessible locations.

Sport England supports part 3 of the policy that relates to securing developer contributions to address the needs of new housing developments, through proportionate planning obligations or CIL. We support the amendment made to make it clear that the policy will be applied to smaller co-located sites which taken together form part of a major development.

Sport England supports part 5 of the policy that promotes the wider community use of school playing fields and other school sports facilities such as sports halls to help meet identified needs. We support the amendment made that where appropriate this will be secured via a suitably worded community use agreement.

Sport England supports reference in para 6.60 to using Sport England's calculator tools as a basis for determining appropriate level of contributions since this draws from data collected for the PPOSS.

Whilst there is reference in the Reg 18 consultation statement to making ithe policy clearer to refer to the scale of qualifying development, Sport England have been unable to locate this wording in either the policy or reasoned justification. The only possible reference is the wording "major housing development" in the policy, though we are uncertain if this should be taken to mean the Glossary definition from the Framework which cross refers to the T&CP Planning (Development Management Procedure) Order 2015 (as amended) of 10 dwellings or more or some other amount? This should be addressed as a modification to the policy.

Notwithstanding that the justification draws from the headline findings of the 2022 PPOSS in paras 6.61-6.66, it is recommended that a further paragraph is added to the justification to explain that the Council will review and replace the PPOSS so as to keep this evidence up to date through the Plan period in accordance with para 102 of the Framework.

Notwithstanding Sport England's support for the wording of the policy, and the wording of paragraphs 6.58-6.66, we are raising a strong objection to the contents of paragraphs 6.67-6.68 in respect of the proposed allocation of existing playing field land at Lion Farm. We have provided a separate statement to address why we consider that the proposed allocation and the suggested mitigation sites referenced in paragraph 6.68 fail to meet with proposed policy SHW5 of the proposed Sandwell Plan Publication Version, para 103 of the Framework, and Sport England's Playing Fields Policy and guidance. Due to this conflict with national policy we consider the Lion Farm allocation to be unsound, and that the allocation and the associated text in paras 6.67-6.68 should be removed from the plan.