Object

Allocations DPD Discussion and Consultation Document

Representation ID: 18991

Received: 28/04/2010

Respondent: Sport England (East Region)

Representation Summary:

Sport England strongly objects as this would include Rayleigh Sports & Social Club's site which is where Rayleigh Town Football Club and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club are based. These are two of the principal community sports clubs in the Rayleigh area. Potential redevelopment of the site would result in the loss of the entire playing field (which are large enough to accommodate the equivalent of at least three football pitches and cricket pitch). No reference is made to the loss of these facilities in the document or to replacement provision being an essential pre-requisite of any development.

Full text:

Sport England strongly objects to option NLR3 as this would include Rayleigh Sports & Social Club's site which is where Rayleigh Town Football Club and Rayleigh Fairview Cricket Club are based and play their matches. These are two of the principal community sports clubs in the Rayleigh area. Potential redevelopment of the site would result in the loss of the entire playing field (which are large enough to accommodate the equivalent of at least three football pitches and a cricket pitch). No reference is made to the loss of these facilities in the document or to replacement provision being an essential pre-requisite of any development. The loss of the Rayleigh Sports & Social Club's site to development is therefore objected to for the following reasons:

* The development would result in the loss of one of Rayleigh's main community outdoor sports facilities. The Football Association and the England & Wales Cricket Board have advised that the clubs would be very concerned about losing the facilities and both the FA and the ECB strongly object;
* No replacement provision is proposed for the playing fields and other sports facilities. Consequently, there would not appear to be any compensatory provision proposed.;
* There is no up-to-date evidence base available that, in Sport England's view, would justify the playing fields being released for development on the basis of them being surplus to community needs i.e. an up-to-date playing pitch strategy. In any case, even if there was a confirmed surplus of playing fields in the district, there would still be a need to relocate the club's facilities to another site.

If this option was pursued as a site allocation in the DPD, it would not be considered to meet any of the tests of soundness in terms of being justified, effective or according with national policy e.g. lack of evidence base to justify disposal, lack of certainty of delivery in view of need to relocate existing facilities in advance of any development and not accord with Government planning policy guidance in PPG17 (especially paragraph 15). In addition, it should be noted that Sport England would be a statutory consultee on any future planning application affecting the site. If this site was allocated for development in the DPD without satisfactory replacement playing field provision being made, Sport England would have to object to a future planning application as a statutory consultee. Due to the weight that should be applied to objections made by statutory consultees and the need to refer planning applications to the Secretary of State (through the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009) that Sport England objects to, there would be potential for significant uncertainty and delays in the delivery of any development on this site.

It is therefore requested that Rayleigh Sports and Social Club site be removed from option NL3 if it is pursued unless the development was to make provision for at least like for like replacement facility provision which is supported by the users of the playing field.