London Southend Airport and Environs Joint Area Action Plan Preferred Options

SOUTHEND BOROUGH COUNCIL AND ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT & ENVIRONS JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN DPD: CONSULTATION ON PREFERRED OPTIONS

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above document. Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government's sporting objectives. Maximising the investment into sport and recreation through the land use planning system is one of our national and regional priorities. You will also be aware that Sport England is a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields.

In response to this consultation, I would like to respond to the following aspects of the document:

Policy E3 - Saxon Business Park

Object

This policy is objected to for the following reasons:

• While it is acknowledged that provision is made in the JAAP for relocating Westcliff Rugby Club to agricultural land to the north east of the existing site (area of change ii(b)), it has not been made clear that a replacement rugby club site would need to be at least equivalent to the existing site in terms of the quantity and quality of facility provision and at least equivalent in terms of tenure/management arrangements. Without such references there is a lack of certainty for the club, the community and developers about whether the replacement facilities would need to be at least equivalent to those that they would replace. Such a reference would be justified to ensure that if a business park development is implemented on this site it would accord with Government planning policy guidance in PPG17 (paragraph 15) on development affecting playing fields and exception E4 of Sport England's established playing fields policy, ('A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England' (1997) which can be downloaded from our website at www.sportengland.org/index/get_resources/planning_for_sport_front_page/planning_for_sport_playingfields.htm). To address this objection, it is requested that the submitted JAAP confirm that the replacement rugby ground would need to be at least equivalent to the existing site in terms of the quantity and quality of facility provision and at least equivalent in terms of tenure/management arrangements. The reference in policy E4 to the final phase of the business park only proceeding once the rugby club has been relocated and is operational is supported as this would be an essential requirement of any ground relocation to ensure continuity of facility provision for the club.
• No reference has been made in the JAAP to whether Kent Elms Tennis Club (which adjoins Westcliff Rugby Club and would fall within area 2 of the proposed Saxon Business Park) would be retained or replaced as part of the business park development. Without any specific reference being made to the tennis club being retained or relocated, there are concerns that the club would be lost without any replacement facility provision being made, particularly in view of all references in the JAAP only referring to the relocation of the rugby club. The loss of the tennis club without prior replacement provision being made would be unacceptable and would not accord with Government guidance in PPG17 (paras 10-13) or relevant development plan policy such as policy CP7 of the adopted Southend Core Strategy. To address this objection, it is requested that the JAAP makes it explicit that the Kent Elms Tennis Club would either be retained as part of any business park development or replaced in a satisfactory location elsewhere within the JAAP such as the area proposed for the relocated rugby club. The same provisions should be made in the JAAP relating to equivalent replacement facilities in terms of quantity, quality and tenure/management arrangements as set out above in relation to the rugby club relocation. If the tennis club is to be retained on its current site, the JAAP should make it clear that the business park should be developed to avoid prejudicing the use of the tennis club e.g. the siting of conflicting uses adjoining the club or restrictions on vehicular access.

The Councils will be aware of Sport England's role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields. To avoid potential objections and significant delays at a later date if the rugby and tennis clubs sites are allocated for development, it is advised that the above issues are satisfactorily addressed in the submitted DPD in order to provide clarity and certainty to all parties. The Councils will also be aware that the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 would apply if the local planning authority was minded at a later date to approve a planning application for the redevelopment of the playing field affected contrary to an objection from Sport England i.e. the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State.

Policy T5 - Park and Ride

Comment

No objection is made to the proposals for a park and ride facility on land west of Nestuda Way on the basis that the area proposed is restricted to the area identified as business use/park and ride on the proposals map. As the area of change referred to in the JAAP included the adjoining playing fields to the north, I would advise that Sport England would object if the area proposed for the park and ride facility was extended in the submission DPD to include all or part of this playing fields.


Policy ENV2 - New Public Open Space - North

Support

Sport England is supportive of a new area of public open space being provided as part of the JAAP to accommodate a relocated Westcliff Rugby Club subject to the issues raised in our objection to policy E3 being satisfactorily addressed.

It will be essential that the relocation of the rugby club is funded by the development of the business park and the northern MRO as it would be unacceptable to expect the rugby club to fund their relocation in view of their relocation only being necessary to facilitate the proposed business park. As part of Sport England's assessment of whether the replacement rugby club site will be at least equivalent to the existing facility, consideration will be given to access to the site by all modes of transport. The proposals to provide a footway/cycleway link between the business park and Hall Road are therefore welcomed in principle as it will be essential that the relocated rugby club is easily accessible for pedestrians and cyclists.

Policy ENV3 - New Public Open Space - South

Object

Sport England has no objection to the principle of a new public open space being created on land to the south of Eastwoodbury Lane as this would be expected to enhance the recreational value of this area to the community. However, as this area accommodates a cricket pitch, it is essential that this pitch be retained or relocated within the open space area. No reference is made in the policy to the cricket pitch and consequently there is a concern that the new public open space would result in the pitch being displaced which is pertinent in view of the proposal for a safeguarded route through the open space which would bisect the site and may make it difficult to maintain a cricket pitch if the route was ever implemented. The loss of the cricket pitch would be unacceptable and would not accord with Government guidance in PPG17 (paragraph 15) or relevant development plan policy such as policy CP7 of the adopted Southend Core Strategy.

To address this objection, it is requested that the JAAP makes it explicit that the cricket pitch would either be retained or relocated within the proposed public open space area. Opportunities to enhance the cricket pitch and its supporting facilities should be considered as part of the proposals for the open space and this should be referred to in the JAAP.

I hope that this response can be given full consideration before the submission version of the JAAP is prepared. Please contact me if you have any queries. Sport England would be happy to provide further advice on the issues raised in our response.

SOUTHEND BOROUGH COUNCIL AND ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT & ENVIRONS JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN DPD: CONSULTATION ON PREFERRED OPTIONS

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above document. Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government's sporting objectives. Maximising the investment into sport and recreation through the land use planning system is one of our national and regional priorities. You will also be aware that Sport England is a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields.

In response to this consultation, I would like to respond to the following aspects of the document:

Policy E3 - Saxon Business Park

Object

This policy is objected to for the following reasons:

• While it is acknowledged that provision is made in the JAAP for relocating Westcliff Rugby Club to agricultural land to the north east of the existing site (area of change ii(b)), it has not been made clear that a replacement rugby club site would need to be at least equivalent to the existing site in terms of the quantity and quality of facility provision and at least equivalent in terms of tenure/management arrangements. Without such references there is a lack of certainty for the club, the community and developers about whether the replacement facilities would need to be at least equivalent to those that they would replace. Such a reference would be justified to ensure that if a business park development is implemented on this site it would accord with Government planning policy guidance in PPG17 (paragraph 15) on development affecting playing fields and exception E4 of Sport England's established playing fields policy, ('A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England' (1997) which can be downloaded from our website at www.sportengland.org/index/get_resources/planning_for_sport_front_page/planning_for_sport_playingfields.htm). To address this objection, it is requested that the submitted JAAP confirm that the replacement rugby ground would need to be at least equivalent to the existing site in terms of the quantity and quality of facility provision and at least equivalent in terms of tenure/management arrangements. The reference in policy E4 to the final phase of the business park only proceeding once the rugby club has been relocated and is operational is supported as this would be an essential requirement of any ground relocation to ensure continuity of facility provision for the club.
• No reference has been made in the JAAP to whether Kent Elms Tennis Club (which adjoins Westcliff Rugby Club and would fall within area 2 of the proposed Saxon Business Park) would be retained or replaced as part of the business park development. Without any specific reference being made to the tennis club being retained or relocated, there are concerns that the club would be lost without any replacement facility provision being made, particularly in view of all references in the JAAP only referring to the relocation of the rugby club. The loss of the tennis club without prior replacement provision being made would be unacceptable and would not accord with Government guidance in PPG17 (paras 10-13) or relevant development plan policy such as policy CP7 of the adopted Southend Core Strategy. To address this objection, it is requested that the JAAP makes it explicit that the Kent Elms Tennis Club would either be retained as part of any business park development or replaced in a satisfactory location elsewhere within the JAAP such as the area proposed for the relocated rugby club. The same provisions should be made in the JAAP relating to equivalent replacement facilities in terms of quantity, quality and tenure/management arrangements as set out above in relation to the rugby club relocation. If the tennis club is to be retained on its current site, the JAAP should make it clear that the business park should be developed to avoid prejudicing the use of the tennis club e.g. the siting of conflicting uses adjoining the club or restrictions on vehicular access.

The Councils will be aware of Sport England's role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields. To avoid potential objections and significant delays at a later date if the rugby and tennis clubs sites are allocated for development, it is advised that the above issues are satisfactorily addressed in the submitted DPD in order to provide clarity and certainty to all parties. The Councils will also be aware that the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 would apply if the local planning authority was minded at a later date to approve a planning application for the redevelopment of the playing field affected contrary to an objection from Sport England i.e. the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State.

Policy T5 - Park and Ride

Comment

No objection is made to the proposals for a park and ride facility on land west of Nestuda Way on the basis that the area proposed is restricted to the area identified as business use/park and ride on the proposals map. As the area of change referred to in the JAAP included the adjoining playing fields to the north, I would advise that Sport England would object if the area proposed for the park and ride facility was extended in the submission DPD to include all or part of this playing fields.


Policy ENV2 - New Public Open Space - North

Support

Sport England is supportive of a new area of public open space being provided as part of the JAAP to accommodate a relocated Westcliff Rugby Club subject to the issues raised in our objection to policy E3 being satisfactorily addressed.

It will be essential that the relocation of the rugby club is funded by the development of the business park and the northern MRO as it would be unacceptable to expect the rugby club to fund their relocation in view of their relocation only being necessary to facilitate the proposed business park. As part of Sport England's assessment of whether the replacement rugby club site will be at least equivalent to the existing facility, consideration will be given to access to the site by all modes of transport. The proposals to provide a footway/cycleway link between the business park and Hall Road are therefore welcomed in principle as it will be essential that the relocated rugby club is easily accessible for pedestrians and cyclists.

Policy ENV3 - New Public Open Space - South

Object

Sport England has no objection to the principle of a new public open space being created on land to the south of Eastwoodbury Lane as this would be expected to enhance the recreational value of this area to the community. However, as this area accommodates a cricket pitch, it is essential that this pitch be retained or relocated within the open space area. No reference is made in the policy to the cricket pitch and consequently there is a concern that the new public open space would result in the pitch being displaced which is pertinent in view of the proposal for a safeguarded route through the open space which would bisect the site and may make it difficult to maintain a cricket pitch if the route was ever implemented. The loss of the cricket pitch would be unacceptable and would not accord with Government guidance in PPG17 (paragraph 15) or relevant development plan policy such as policy CP7 of the adopted Southend Core Strategy.

To address this objection, it is requested that the JAAP makes it explicit that the cricket pitch would either be retained or relocated within the proposed public open space area. Opportunities to enhance the cricket pitch and its supporting facilities should be considered as part of the proposals for the open space and this should be referred to in the JAAP.

I hope that this response can be given full consideration before the submission version of the JAAP is prepared. Please contact me if you have any queries. Sport England would be happy to provide further advice on the issues raised in our response.

SOUTHEND BOROUGH COUNCIL AND ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT & ENVIRONS JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN DPD: CONSULTATION ON PREFERRED OPTIONS

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above document. Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government's sporting objectives. Maximising the investment into sport and recreation through the land use planning system is one of our national and regional priorities. You will also be aware that Sport England is a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields.

In response to this consultation, I would like to respond to the following aspects of the document:

Policy E3 - Saxon Business Park

Object

This policy is objected to for the following reasons:

• While it is acknowledged that provision is made in the JAAP for relocating Westcliff Rugby Club to agricultural land to the north east of the existing site (area of change ii(b)), it has not been made clear that a replacement rugby club site would need to be at least equivalent to the existing site in terms of the quantity and quality of facility provision and at least equivalent in terms of tenure/management arrangements. Without such references there is a lack of certainty for the club, the community and developers about whether the replacement facilities would need to be at least equivalent to those that they would replace. Such a reference would be justified to ensure that if a business park development is implemented on this site it would accord with Government planning policy guidance in PPG17 (paragraph 15) on development affecting playing fields and exception E4 of Sport England's established playing fields policy, ('A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England' (1997) which can be downloaded from our website at www.sportengland.org/index/get_resources/planning_for_sport_front_page/planning_for_sport_playingfields.htm). To address this objection, it is requested that the submitted JAAP confirm that the replacement rugby ground would need to be at least equivalent to the existing site in terms of the quantity and quality of facility provision and at least equivalent in terms of tenure/management arrangements. The reference in policy E4 to the final phase of the business park only proceeding once the rugby club has been relocated and is operational is supported as this would be an essential requirement of any ground relocation to ensure continuity of facility provision for the club.
• No reference has been made in the JAAP to whether Kent Elms Tennis Club (which adjoins Westcliff Rugby Club and would fall within area 2 of the proposed Saxon Business Park) would be retained or replaced as part of the business park development. Without any specific reference being made to the tennis club being retained or relocated, there are concerns that the club would be lost without any replacement facility provision being made, particularly in view of all references in the JAAP only referring to the relocation of the rugby club. The loss of the tennis club without prior replacement provision being made would be unacceptable and would not accord with Government guidance in PPG17 (paras 10-13) or relevant development plan policy such as policy CP7 of the adopted Southend Core Strategy. To address this objection, it is requested that the JAAP makes it explicit that the Kent Elms Tennis Club would either be retained as part of any business park development or replaced in a satisfactory location elsewhere within the JAAP such as the area proposed for the relocated rugby club. The same provisions should be made in the JAAP relating to equivalent replacement facilities in terms of quantity, quality and tenure/management arrangements as set out above in relation to the rugby club relocation. If the tennis club is to be retained on its current site, the JAAP should make it clear that the business park should be developed to avoid prejudicing the use of the tennis club e.g. the siting of conflicting uses adjoining the club or restrictions on vehicular access.

The Councils will be aware of Sport England's role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields. To avoid potential objections and significant delays at a later date if the rugby and tennis clubs sites are allocated for development, it is advised that the above issues are satisfactorily addressed in the submitted DPD in order to provide clarity and certainty to all parties. The Councils will also be aware that the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 would apply if the local planning authority was minded at a later date to approve a planning application for the redevelopment of the playing field affected contrary to an objection from Sport England i.e. the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State.

Policy T5 - Park and Ride

Comment

No objection is made to the proposals for a park and ride facility on land west of Nestuda Way on the basis that the area proposed is restricted to the area identified as business use/park and ride on the proposals map. As the area of change referred to in the JAAP included the adjoining playing fields to the north, I would advise that Sport England would object if the area proposed for the park and ride facility was extended in the submission DPD to include all or part of this playing fields.


Policy ENV2 - New Public Open Space - North

Support

Sport England is supportive of a new area of public open space being provided as part of the JAAP to accommodate a relocated Westcliff Rugby Club subject to the issues raised in our objection to policy E3 being satisfactorily addressed.

It will be essential that the relocation of the rugby club is funded by the development of the business park and the northern MRO as it would be unacceptable to expect the rugby club to fund their relocation in view of their relocation only being necessary to facilitate the proposed business park. As part of Sport England's assessment of whether the replacement rugby club site will be at least equivalent to the existing facility, consideration will be given to access to the site by all modes of transport. The proposals to provide a footway/cycleway link between the business park and Hall Road are therefore welcomed in principle as it will be essential that the relocated rugby club is easily accessible for pedestrians and cyclists.

Policy ENV3 - New Public Open Space - South

Object

Sport England has no objection to the principle of a new public open space being created on land to the south of Eastwoodbury Lane as this would be expected to enhance the recreational value of this area to the community. However, as this area accommodates a cricket pitch, it is essential that this pitch be retained or relocated within the open space area. No reference is made in the policy to the cricket pitch and consequently there is a concern that the new public open space would result in the pitch being displaced which is pertinent in view of the proposal for a safeguarded route through the open space which would bisect the site and may make it difficult to maintain a cricket pitch if the route was ever implemented. The loss of the cricket pitch would be unacceptable and would not accord with Government guidance in PPG17 (paragraph 15) or relevant development plan policy such as policy CP7 of the adopted Southend Core Strategy.

To address this objection, it is requested that the JAAP makes it explicit that the cricket pitch would either be retained or relocated within the proposed public open space area. Opportunities to enhance the cricket pitch and its supporting facilities should be considered as part of the proposals for the open space and this should be referred to in the JAAP.

I hope that this response can be given full consideration before the submission version of the JAAP is prepared. Please contact me if you have any queries. Sport England would be happy to provide further advice on the issues raised in our response.

SOUTHEND BOROUGH COUNCIL AND ROCHFORD DISTRICT COUNCIL LONDON SOUTHEND AIRPORT & ENVIRONS JOINT AREA ACTION PLAN DPD: CONSULTATION ON PREFERRED OPTIONS

Thank you for consulting Sport England on the above document. Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government's sporting objectives. Maximising the investment into sport and recreation through the land use planning system is one of our national and regional priorities. You will also be aware that Sport England is a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields.

In response to this consultation, I would like to respond to the following aspects of the document:

Policy E3 - Saxon Business Park

Object

This policy is objected to for the following reasons:

• While it is acknowledged that provision is made in the JAAP for relocating Westcliff Rugby Club to agricultural land to the north east of the existing site (area of change ii(b)), it has not been made clear that a replacement rugby club site would need to be at least equivalent to the existing site in terms of the quantity and quality of facility provision and at least equivalent in terms of tenure/management arrangements. Without such references there is a lack of certainty for the club, the community and developers about whether the replacement facilities would need to be at least equivalent to those that they would replace. Such a reference would be justified to ensure that if a business park development is implemented on this site it would accord with Government planning policy guidance in PPG17 (paragraph 15) on development affecting playing fields and exception E4 of Sport England's established playing fields policy, ('A Sporting Future for the Playing Fields of England' (1997) which can be downloaded from our website at www.sportengland.org/index/get_resources/planning_for_sport_front_page/planning_for_sport_playingfields.htm). To address this objection, it is requested that the submitted JAAP confirm that the replacement rugby ground would need to be at least equivalent to the existing site in terms of the quantity and quality of facility provision and at least equivalent in terms of tenure/management arrangements. The reference in policy E4 to the final phase of the business park only proceeding once the rugby club has been relocated and is operational is supported as this would be an essential requirement of any ground relocation to ensure continuity of facility provision for the club.
• No reference has been made in the JAAP to whether Kent Elms Tennis Club (which adjoins Westcliff Rugby Club and would fall within area 2 of the proposed Saxon Business Park) would be retained or replaced as part of the business park development. Without any specific reference being made to the tennis club being retained or relocated, there are concerns that the club would be lost without any replacement facility provision being made, particularly in view of all references in the JAAP only referring to the relocation of the rugby club. The loss of the tennis club without prior replacement provision being made would be unacceptable and would not accord with Government guidance in PPG17 (paras 10-13) or relevant development plan policy such as policy CP7 of the adopted Southend Core Strategy. To address this objection, it is requested that the JAAP makes it explicit that the Kent Elms Tennis Club would either be retained as part of any business park development or replaced in a satisfactory location elsewhere within the JAAP such as the area proposed for the relocated rugby club. The same provisions should be made in the JAAP relating to equivalent replacement facilities in terms of quantity, quality and tenure/management arrangements as set out above in relation to the rugby club relocation. If the tennis club is to be retained on its current site, the JAAP should make it clear that the business park should be developed to avoid prejudicing the use of the tennis club e.g. the siting of conflicting uses adjoining the club or restrictions on vehicular access.

The Councils will be aware of Sport England's role as a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields. To avoid potential objections and significant delays at a later date if the rugby and tennis clubs sites are allocated for development, it is advised that the above issues are satisfactorily addressed in the submitted DPD in order to provide clarity and certainty to all parties. The Councils will also be aware that the provisions of the Town and Country Planning (Consultation) (England) Direction 2009 would apply if the local planning authority was minded at a later date to approve a planning application for the redevelopment of the playing field affected contrary to an objection from Sport England i.e. the application would need to be referred to the Secretary of State.

Policy T5 - Park and Ride

Comment

No objection is made to the proposals for a park and ride facility on land west of Nestuda Way on the basis that the area proposed is restricted to the area identified as business use/park and ride on the proposals map. As the area of change referred to in the JAAP included the adjoining playing fields to the north, I would advise that Sport England would object if the area proposed for the park and ride facility was extended in the submission DPD to include all or part of this playing fields.


Policy ENV2 - New Public Open Space - North

Support

Sport England is supportive of a new area of public open space being provided as part of the JAAP to accommodate a relocated Westcliff Rugby Club subject to the issues raised in our objection to policy E3 being satisfactorily addressed.

It will be essential that the relocation of the rugby club is funded by the development of the business park and the northern MRO as it would be unacceptable to expect the rugby club to fund their relocation in view of their relocation only being necessary to facilitate the proposed business park. As part of Sport England's assessment of whether the replacement rugby club site will be at least equivalent to the existing facility, consideration will be given to access to the site by all modes of transport. The proposals to provide a footway/cycleway link between the business park and Hall Road are therefore welcomed in principle as it will be essential that the relocated rugby club is easily accessible for pedestrians and cyclists.

Policy ENV3 - New Public Open Space - South

Object

Sport England has no objection to the principle of a new public open space being created on land to the south of Eastwoodbury Lane as this would be expected to enhance the recreational value of this area to the community. However, as this area accommodates a cricket pitch, it is essential that this pitch be retained or relocated within the open space area. No reference is made in the policy to the cricket pitch and consequently there is a concern that the new public open space would result in the pitch being displaced which is pertinent in view of the proposal for a safeguarded route through the open space which would bisect the site and may make it difficult to maintain a cricket pitch if the route was ever implemented. The loss of the cricket pitch would be unacceptable and would not accord with Government guidance in PPG17 (paragraph 15) or relevant development plan policy such as policy CP7 of the adopted Southend Core Strategy.

To address this objection, it is requested that the JAAP makes it explicit that the cricket pitch would either be retained or relocated within the proposed public open space area. Opportunities to enhance the cricket pitch and its supporting facilities should be considered as part of the proposals for the open space and this should be referred to in the JAAP.

I hope that this response can be given full consideration before the submission version of the JAAP is prepared. Please contact me if you have any queries. Sport England would be happy to provide further advice on the issues raised in our response.