Communities and Local Government CommitteeWritten evidence from Business in Sport and Leisure

Summary

Business In Sport and Leisure (BISL) is the strategic body representing the private sector in the sport and leisure industry.

BISL has welcomes the proposal for a new National Planning Policy Framework and fully understands the government’s commitment to consolidate the former raft of policy statements, circulars and guidance in to one accessible document.

However BISL remains concerned that the “sustainable” caveat remains so subjective in definition that it will be continue to be used by anti-development parties to stifle any new development.

BISL is also concerned at the lack of reference to sport, tourism and other specific types of “leisure”, the “lumping together” of all such uses whether they are urban, fringe or rural uses, and the emphasis on meeting needs led by current use and demand, rather than any aspiration to grow sporting participation or the contribution of sport, leisure and tourism business to the economy in accordance with other ministerial statements and government policy.

BISL further believes that there are some inherent conflicts within the NPPF ain particular it encourages sustainable communities at paragraphs 124–132, but there are some inevitable conflicts and tensions with the sequential policies in paragraphs 76–80 that require all retail and leisure uses (including sport and tourism) to be located in town centres.

This is simply not possible in all cases and runs counter to achieving a sustainable, balanced and mix use community in a new residential suburb or an edge of town business area. Both would benefit from the integration of tourism and leisure (pubs, restaurants, hotels, health & fitness, sports fields) facilities to achieve the desired “work, live and play” of paragraph 125.

BISL doubts whether such a relatively slim document could ever be sufficiently evidenced based is questionable and whether the planning system can ever anticipate all future business needs and innovations.

The planning system needs to provide a framework for sustainable economic growth but needs to be flexible and responsive to economic change and innovation. The NPPF goes a long way to achieving that, subject to the changes we suggest, but it’s implementation to address the government’s objectives may require a shift in interpretation and culture among decision-makers which cannot be achieved by the written word alone

Introduction

1. Business In Sport and Leisure (BISL) is the strategic body representing the private sector in the sport and leisure industry with a uniquely broad range of members from sport and recreation to gaming and hospitality BISL can take and express a strategic view across the sector.

2. BISL has worked successfully with Government, on a range of policy issues in licensing, sport, property and planning and has responded on a regular basis to DCLG consultations on planning White Papers, Planning Policy Guidance and other planning and valuation matters. BISL’s 25 year history has established a reputation for expertise, balance and professionalism as we seek to grow and protect the sport and leisure Industry.

3. BISL develops policy through a range working groups including property and land-use planning, sport and other specialist leisure fields including gaming, hospitality, sports retailing and the visitor economy.

Overview of the National Planning Policy Framework

4. BISL has welcomed the proposal for a new National Planning Policy Framework and fully understands the government’s commitment to consolidate the former raft of policy statements, circulars and guidance in to one user friendly accessible document.

5. BISL was already encouraged by much of what was contained in the Plan for Growth with the emphasis on a presumption in favour of sustainable growth and development that created jobs and a role for the commercial sector in a simplified planning system which was subsequently reflected in the practioners first draft NPFF and in the present consultation document. However, we remain concerned that the “sustainable” caveat remains so subjective in definition that it will be continue to be used by anti-development parties to continue to stifle any new development.

6. BISL is further encouraged by the overall holistic approach to planning in terms of the economic, social and environmental roles. In particular we support the emphasis throughout the document on positive planning—helping applicants to bring together an acceptable scheme rather than seeking ways to prevent it. We also support the various references to the need to be practical and flexible in the application of policies. This is a particular issue when it comes to the ever expanding use of the sequential test to less and less appropriate types of development, and the increasingly draconian application of transport policies which seek to prevent any development where there is a possibility users might use their cars.

7. Our main concerns relate to the lack of reference to sport, tourism and other specific types of “leisure”, the “lumping together” of all such uses under the leisure banner whether they are urban, fringe or rural uses, and the emphasis on meeting needs led by current use and demand, rather than any aspiration to grow sporting participation or the contribution of sport, leisure and tourism business to the economy in accordance with other ministerial statements and government policy.

8. BISL has some very specific comments on the detail of the text where both policy and process impact on the commercial leisure industry but overall supports strongly the proposal for a planning system that “delivers the homes. Business and industrial units, infrastructure and thriving places that the country needs”. We address each of the select committee’s questions below:

Does the NPFF give sufficient guidance to planning authorities, the Planning Inspectorate and others, including investors and developers, while at the same time giving local communities sufficient power over planning decisions?

9. BISL has seen the emergence of some excellent guidance from DCLG in recent years with the recent unpublished work on the review of PPG17 and the published Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism and particularly the efforts to ensure an understanding and implementation of the guidance throughout the country. This has ensured that operators in the sector have had a level playing field throughout the country in which to undertake development that is essential to future economic growth.

10. Whilst BISL is encouraged by the high level holistic policy guidance in the NPFF it would have wished to see a much more explicit reference to sport, physical activity, leisure and tourism embedded in the roles of planning for prosperity and people from the start of the document. In this connection we suggest that the second and fourth bullets in paragraph 23 are amended to read:

the provision of retail, leisure, tourism and other commercial development; and

the provision of health, sport, security, community infrastructure and other local facilities: and (amendments in italics).

11. It is already clear that even with the current explicit guidance within documents such as PPG17 many local authorities fail to recognise the economic, health and socially important contribution of the sport, recreation and leisure industry and fail to undertake the type of needs assessments referred to in paragraph 128. Whilst BISL would be the last to seek a disproportionate level of national guidance it believes that the sectors contribution to the nation’s health, wealth and well being merits greater emphasis.

12. Moreover, BISL is concerned that paragraph 128 only requires planning authorities to undertake an assessment of needs which will inevitably be based on the existing or projected resident population’s current levels of participation. Given that government policy seeks to markedly increase sports participation rates that are among the lowest in Europe, to address weight and obesity levels that are among the highest, we believe that this paragraph should place much greater emphasis on enabling sporting facilities that will provide for a significant increase in participation rates.

Is the definition of “sustainable development” contained in the document appropriate; and is the presumption in favour of sustainable development a balanced and workable approach?

13. The definition of sustainable development is welcomed by BISL which provided a similar view to the DCMS, based on the definition used by The World Commission on Environment and Development in 1987 when discussing the drafting of the then proposed Heritage Reform Bill.

14. Although BISL can see that the proposals within the NPPF are intended to provide a balance that positively encourages the opportunity for development that contributes to economic growth, jobs, homes and social wellbeing we remain concerned that many authorities will continue to reduce the interpretation of sustainability down to whether a proposed development is located in the town centre and whether people are likely to visit the development site by car, irrespective of attempts to provide or improve public transport provision. It is not always a simple case that it is less sustainable to provide sport, leisure or tourism facilities at the edge of a settlement than the town centre. There are many more complexities involved; such facilities will be closer to where residents live reducing the need for travel, they help to provide balanced communities rather than mono-use suburbia, and often they cannot be provided in town centres due to space requirements and the high cost of land.

15. BISL would therefore like to see some greater clarification in the NPPF that sustainability is more than just transport, the provision of jobs, social facilities and environmental improvements may outweigh any car use considerations while those considerations may be less adverse than first appear. We would certainly be very concerned to see any changes that weaken the presumption in favour of such “real” sustainable development.

Are the core planning principles clearly and appropriately expressed?

16. As we have said there is a concern in the second and eighth bullet points of paragraph 19 that decision-makers must consider sustainability in the round and not reduce it to just town centric/anti-car considerations. Not all business development can physically be accommodated within, is appropriate within, viable within, or necessarily most sustainable within town centres. We do not think that this point is clear enough in the core planning principles.

17. BISL also has a concern in the third bullet, that in taking account of the needs of the business community, plan-makers need to take account not only of the needs of existing local businesses, but of national business growth trends and innovations that may lead to future demand for business space, including that for sport, leisure and tourism, that may not be acknowledged or even supported by existing local businesses.

18. We believe that “quality of life” should be added to the core planning principle in the ninth bullet, and that “sport” should be added to the tenth.

Is the relationship between the NPFF and other national statements of planning related policy sufficiently clear?

19. We believe that there are some inherent conflicts within the NPPF and between it and other statements. The NPPF encourages sustainable communities at paragraphs 124–132, but there are some inevitable conflicts and tensions with the sequential policies in paragraphs 76–80. The latter require all retail and leisure uses (including sport and tourism) to be located in town centres. But this is simply not possible in all cases and runs counter to achieving a sustainable, balanced and mix use community in a new residential suburb or an edge of town business area. Both would benefit from the integration of tourism and leisure (pubs, restaurants, hotels, health & fitness, sports fields) facilities to achieve the “work, live and play” of paragraph 125.

20. The Good Practice Guide on Planning for Tourism advises plan makers and decision makers that they must consider the type of tourist accommodation being offered with regard to location. In this regard, accommodation for walkers is cited as being appropriate in rural areas. However, the NPPF provides no such exemption. All leisure uses (including sport and tourism) are required to suffer a sequential test that is meaningless in terms of the market being addressed and an unnecessary financial burden on the developer.

Does the NPFF and the proposed Duty to Cooperate provide sufficient basis for larger than local strategic planning?

21. BISL welcomes the emphasis placed by government on the duty to cooperate but is concerned that there are no teeth to this requirement without any national guidelines on an aspirational level of sport, leisure and tourism provision at a sub-regional/more than local level.

Are the policies in the NPFF sufficiently evidenced based?

22. BISL has certainly welcomed the extensive consultation on the planning system; however, whether such a relatively slim document could ever be sufficiently evidenced based is questionable. In fact it is questionable whether the planning system can ever anticipate all future business needs and innovations any more than King Canute could turn the tide. The planning system needs to provide a framework for sustainable economic growth but needs to be flexible and responsive to economic change and innovation. The NPPF goes a long way to achieving that, subject to the changes we suggest, but its implementation to address the government’s objectives may require a shift in interpretation and culture among decision-makers which cannot be achieved by the written word alone.

September 2011