Yes

Representation ID: 107189

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Sandwell Metropolitan Borough Council

The issues covered in DPD 44 are welcomed and supported.

Other

Representation ID: 107346

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Stratford-on-Avon District Social Inclusion Partnership

We support this element of the place including Draft Policy Direction-44. We would add that pitches, courts etc. need to be delivered in accordance with the required standards for such facilities, to ensure long term accessibility.

No

Representation ID: 107376

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Sport England

Sport England supports the principal of Policy 44 though consider the wording of the policy should be more aligned to National Planning Policy Framework paragraph 104.
For example, the first exception for when a site can be developed is that there is no need or demand for the existing community, sport and leisure uses and land formerly used as such and adequate alternative provision is available to meet the needs of the area.
Sport England consider that the policy/the policy justification should state that to demonstrate compliance with this exception, an assessment should be undertaken which clearly shows the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements. As part of this consideration should be given to current and future demand for the sports provision and the capacity of existing alternative provision to meet demand in the area. Consideration of the need of the site should also not be focused on the existing or previous pitch sport use, with the assessment covering all potential sports and leisure usage of the site. Sport England also consider that the word community should be removed from the policy as there are a number of planning appeals which state NPPF paragraph 104 applies to both community accessible and private sites (even when they are not accessible to the community). Sport England can provide the relevant appeals to the Council should this be of assistance.



In relation to the second exception of equivalent or better replacement facilities are secured on or off site that are equally accessible to the community. The wording of this policy appears to facilitate enabling development i.e. development of part of a playing field site and improvement to the remaining site which is not supported by Sport England. The reasoning for this is that it would not have been demonstrated that the playing field land proposed to be lost is surplus to requirement (to meet current and future demand). Sport England consider that policy wording should be altered to state the provision to be lost would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality that is equally accessible to the community.

Sport England also consider the scope of the policy should extend to built sport facilities and venues, in line with NPPF paragraph 104.

No

Representation ID: 107867

Received: 05/03/2025

Respondent: Catesby Estates Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Further evidence is required to justify the content and inclusion of this policy, in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, with the Playing Pitch Strategy still yet to be completed. The policy direction’s commitment that the need for sports and leisure facilities will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the type of scheme and the site is supported, over what would be an unnecessary requirement for all major residential schemes to deliver such facilities, when the need many not exist to justify this.

Other

Representation ID: 107986

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Rainier Developments Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Further evidence is required to justify the content and inclusion of this policy, in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, with the Playing Pitch Strategy still yet to be completed. The policy direction’s commitment that the need for sports and leisure facilities will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the type of scheme and the site is supported, over what would be an unnecessary requirement for all major residential schemes to deliver such facilities, when the need many not exist to justify this.

Other

Representation ID: 108097

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Seven Homes

Agent: Pegasus Group

As with Policy Direction 43, further evidence is required to justify the content and inclusion of this policy, in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, with the Playing Pitch Strategy still yet to be completed. The policy direction’s commitment that the need for sports and leisure facilities will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the type of scheme and the site is supported, over what would be an unnecessary requirement for all major residential schemes to deliver such facilities, when the need many not exist to justify this.

No

Representation ID: 108240

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Persimmon Homes (South Midlands)

Agent: Pegasus Group

As with Policy Direction 43, further evidence is required to justify the content and inclusion of this policy, in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, with the Playing Pitch Strategy still yet to be completed. The policy direction’s commitment that the need for sports and leisure facilities will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the type of scheme and the site is supported, over what would be an unnecessary requirement for all major residential schemes to deliver such facilities, when the need many not exist to justify this.

No

Representation ID: 108290

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Spitfire Homes

Agent: Harris Lamb

No. The Policy advises that where strategic residential development is proposed the need for sport and leisure facilities will be assessed on a case by case basis depending upon the type of development, location of the site and the capacity of existing facilities. Whilst we have no objection to open space provision being considered on a case by case basis, this policy approach provides no certainty to a developer how much open space or contributions to outdoor sports and leisure facilities will be expected on any site. The Policy should provide clear guidance on the potential amount of open space and outdoor sports and leisure provision that will be expected with new developments.

No

Representation ID: 108601

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Corbally Group (Harbury) Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

As with Policy Direction 43, further evidence is required to justify the content and inclusion of this policy, in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, with the Playing Pitch Strategy still yet to be completed. The policy direction’s commitment that the need for sports and leisure facilities will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the type of scheme and the site is supported, over what would be an unnecessary requirement for all major residential schemes to deliver such facilities, when the need many not exist to justify this.

Other

Representation ID: 108646

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Kiely Bros Holdings Ltd

Agent: Pegasus Group

Policy Direction 44 – Outdoor Sports and Leisure
10.17.
As with Policy Direction 43, further evidence is required to justify the content and inclusion of this policy, in accordance with Paragraph 103 of the NPPF, with the Playing Pitch Strategy still yet to be completed. The policy direction’s commitment that the need for sports and leisure facilities will be considered on a case-by-case basis having regard to the type of scheme and the site is supported, over what would be an unnecessary requirement for all major residential schemes to deliver such facilities, when the need many not exist to justify this.

Yes

Representation ID: 108959

Received: 07/03/2025

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council

WCC is supportive of this policy.