PFM 16 - Cardiff Council

City and County of Cardiff Council

Proposal for Playing Fields (Community Involvement in Disposal Decisions) Measure

Response to Consultation

There is a balance to be struck between protecting playing fields  (and other public open space) from development and retaining sufficient flexibility to allow development to take place where and when appropriate to help community improvement, wellbeing and prosperity.

The proposed measure will impose a new duty on Local Authorities to prepare and consult on “Impact Statements” when proposing to dispose of playing fields. This process is intended to ensure that proper consideration is given to the disposal and it’s impact on  health, well being, social inclusion in the local community before it proceeds.

The existing relevant legal provision is Section 123 of the Local Government Act 1972 which provides that before completing a sale or lease of public open space land, the Council must advertise it’s intention to do so in the local press and then properly consider any objection received and publish it’s decision in a decision statement.. If it fails to do that there is remedy available through Judicial Review. In some circumstances, such a disposal in Wales must be referred to the Welsh Assembly Government and Sports Council Wales who have significant powers to direct planning decisions. This is the democratic protection afforded by Central Government to public open space land.

However, it can be argued that there are additional measures which ensure the involvement of local communities:

1 Presumably many proposed disposals of pitches would be for development purposes. In such cases Planning Approval would be required which itself carries a consultation requirement including relevant statutory bodies, local elected Members and residents. There is also specific Supplementary Planning Guidance which assists in protecting and developing public open spaces and pitches. To ensure Best Value would be received from a disposal, often  planning permission is sought ( and therefore consultation carried out) before the proposed disposal is advertised.

2 Currently across Wales, Local Authorities are being urged by WAG to address issues of falling school rolls and at the same time address the very poor condition of School buildings. In many case, this may require a change of use of playing fields. There are  statutory processes focused on schools closures and openings which also require statutory consultations.

This Council has also adopted a Parks and Green Spaces Strategy which sets out the Council approach to protecting, maintaining and  improving it’s public open spaces which include pitches. It therefore has a very well thought through Policy position on these matters which itself has been the subject of extensive consultation. The Council can of course be challenged if it does not follow it’s own policies.

The forthcoming TAN 16 will set out a process for the LDP procedure of open space assessments which allows a strategic review of available open space, it’s use and future requirements. There will be a clear and systematic process which is transparent and accountable and will engage all who wish to have their views considered. Public consultation is a key element of the LDP process. The proposed measure adds  a further unnecessary tier which allows a Minister to become involved. There is clear duplication of process and unnecessary bureaucracy associated with the proposed measure.

One result of the WAG directed Schools Re-organisation Plans is the selling of playing fields at schools which will close to help fund the replacement arrangements. This programme is already underfunded across Local Government. Should playing field sales be prevented , WAG would be pressed to provide the funding which would otherwise have arisen.

In Cardiff we have a number of examples of disposals of small areas of open space which have facilitated improvements. For example to improve a footpath line or improve car parking at a playing field site. There are often developments which require a small piece of public open space for access or servicing arrangements temporarily or permanently. There is also the question of the quality of pitches and open space where changes have been made by “ removing” pitches and replacing them with better provision in association with commercial development – the developments at Leckwith Road and Lawrenny Avenue for example. We would not support a measure which would prevent such flexibility.

There are currently 2 development proposals in the City which would affect playing fields should they proceed one of which is in connection with schools improvement programme. In both cases the detailed proposals increase the amount of public open space and playing fields provision which would almost certainly  not be the case if the proposed developments do not proceed should they be opposed due to the newly proposed measure.

Turning to a more detailed consideration of the proposed measure, there are a number of concerns about the practicalities of it’s application and implementation.

The proposed measure provides no further detail as to how the assessment should be undertaken. No reference is made to existing national guidance or standards such as TAN16 or Countryside Council for Wales “Accessible Nature Greenspace” initiative. There is no methodology set out which is likely to cause confusion and uncertainty and thereby conflict with consultees.

For example:

How should LA’s assess the impact on health and well being? What is the causative evidence which can be used?

Should assessments be based on existing standards as set out in TAN 16?

Should LA’s take account of the existing and potential role of other types of open space (central to CCW’s ANG inititative)?

How is the “local community” defined? In some cases, pitches serve the whole City ( Pontcanna or Trelai Park in Cardiff) rather than the immediate locality.

Will playing fields need to be in current active use or for how long will they need to be out of use before they cease to be pitches?

If they do not have lines setting them out, ie a “delineated area”, are they still deemed to be pitches ( see para 2(d))?

A detailed methodology should be prepared prior to further consultations on the proposed measure. At present it represents a significant extra requirement without sufficiently evidencing the proposed content and guidance on how evidence should be collected and assessed. Additionally , the proposed measure does not reference how the assessment will fit into the existing consideration of such proposals having regard to national and local policy. In this respect it is unclear what additional benefit the proposed measure will actually deliver.

In terms of benefits of the proposed measure, the proposal would ensure rigour in the preparation of material supporting a consultation exercise and ensure that appropriate pro-active consultation is carried out at an early stage in the consideration of any proposed disposal.

Should the measure proceed, then just as Local Authorities would be required to be rigorous in their thinking and preparations, similar rigour should apply to respondents. Responses will need to be assessed by some objective measures and be specific to the proposals ie. anchored in the community and not just passing reference to wider more global issues such as “climate change” important though they be. This applies particularly to statutory consultees who may be pre-disposed to oppose proposals on wider policy grounds than on individual  merits.

To the proposed statutory consultees should be added local sports leagues, National Governing Bodies of sport and Disability Sport Wales.

The policy issue for the Council is whether it wishes to give up its powers in regard to open space to third parties without any readily apparent benefit. As the proposed measure currently stands , it has significant shortcomings in terms of it’s potential for fettering the discretion of Councils and being open to challenge. The Council would not support a measure which would see the further erosion of Local Government powers and responsibilities.

Turning to the specific questions posed:

1. Do you agree with the principle of the proposed measure? Give reasons and the likely impact the proposals will have.

The principle of the proposed measure is already in place via the various policies, procedures, Supplementary Planning Guidance/Section 106 Agreements and requirements in place and to be enhanced shortly through the LDP process and revised TAN 16.

2. Do you agree with the definitions of playing field and playing pitch?

Standard definitions are necessary and are already in existence in the draft TAN 16. Consistency is required to avoid confusion. Specific issues have been raised in the narrative above.

The definition of “Playing Field” needs to be focused to avoid drawing peripheral swathes of land into unnecessary consultation processes.

3. Do you agree with the proposed contents of the impact statements?

The requirements under the preparation of the LDP provide for an assessment and existing requirements for consultation may duplicate the proposed Impact Statements.  There are problems around defining impacts on concepts such as wellbeing or the impacts in terms of social benefits or social inclusion. How can these be objectively benchmarked and any proposed changes measured?

4. Are the provisions regarding consultation appropriate?

They add little to the existing processes governing any proposed disposal of public open space other than some rigour in the preparation of consultation materials and the Impact Statement  

Very often in consultations on such matters a parochial view can be taken by consultees who may not see the bigger picture. Any responses to the proposed measures and consultations should therefore require the same level of rigour from respondees as from the Council in preparing the Impact Statement and it’s proposals.

5. Are the consultees appropriate?

A number of the proposed consultees would appear unlikely to have specific local knowledge or interest in individual pitches or playing fields – Barnado’s, Age Concern and the Women’s Institute for example. Generic replies are likely to be received from such bodies which set out a general policy viewpoint from the organisation rather than dealing with the specific merits or issues of a specific development proposal.

Specific further consultees are mentioned in the narrative above.

6. Where the authority has decided to proceed with a disposal after consultation, are the requirements placed on the authority satisfactory?

They appear to be a significant additional demand  upon time and resources in comparison to current requirements. In this context they are unsatisfactory although the number of occasions when they may be necessary is likely to be small.

7. Outline your views on the powers of Welsh Ministers to issue directions.

Any measure which would dilute the roles and responsibilities of Local Government is not supported. Any proposed disposal will relate to very specific local circumstances, needs and issues. This is best dealt with at a local level.

8. Will the proposals result in your organisation incurring financial cost?

9. Yes but this cannot be accurately quantified at this stage but could be significant. Costs would arise directly in the preparation of underlying benchmark data from which the impact of any proposals could be measured. Secondly, additional direct costs would arise from the enhanced consultation processes required by the measure and the post consultation processes and publications.

Indirect costs arise from the input from officers as they prepare the information, impact assessment and carry out the consultations instead of the other work they would usually be carrying out.

Finally and perhaps the most significant is the potential opportunity cost ( or lost opportunity cost) if proposed developments do not proceed and the anticipated capital receipts are not received.