×
Save Britain's Recreation Grounds
Kaddy B.
started this petition to
Steve Reed, Minister for Housing, Communities and Local Government.
The government is consulting on a new National Planning
Policy Framework (NPPF). The NPPF controls how councils make local plans, and how
they make decisions.
The government is suggesting changes which mean that no
recreation ground in the country will be safe from development. The NPPF says: “Existing open space, sports and recreational buildings and
land, including playing fields and formal play spaces, should not be built on
unless:
We have a well-used community recreation ground of 0.67 hectares with a playground and a Multi Use Games Area. Under threat of development for 30 years, it does need refurbishment. Our local council has suggested replacing the whole recreation ground with a much smaller “play garden” for under 5s. With new equipment and safety surface, they will claim it is better quality, but there will be a huge reduction in quantity of equipment and land. The council wants to compensate by improving access to an adjoining piece of land even though the local police say is not safe for unaccompanied children.
If the NPPF changes, councils won’t have to show that a recreation ground is surplus to requirements.
They won’t have to replace recreation grounds with “alternative sports and recreation provision which clearly outweighs the loss of recreation space.”
All they will need to do is provide a bit of "better-quality" equipment, and better access.Why is access more important than anything else?
The Government says their changes are “to allow some additional flexibility in how replacement space can be provided, while maintaining the position that there should be no net reduction in provision" because "it recognises that an improvement in the quality of recreational land can sometimes offset a reduction in overall quantity.” They say they welcome views on the effect of this change. The NPPF requires plans to “provide clarity and a high degree of certainty about the requirements that relevant development proposals are expected to meet.”
We hold that the proposed changes are vague and misleading:
We are asking the government not to implement the suggested changes, but to maintain the current level of protection for recreation grounds.SourcesNPPF proposed reforms (HC7, p89): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/697b6bc6aacd0dc9777b4fd2/December_2025_NPPF_Consultation.pdfSave Bertie Park website: https://savebertie.com/
- a) an assessment has been undertaken which has clearly shown the open space, buildings or land to be surplus to requirements; or
- b) the loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and quality in a suitable location; or
- c) the development is for alternative sports and recreational provision, the benefits of which clearly outweigh the loss of the current or former use. (NPPF 104)”
- The loss resulting from the proposed development would be replaced by equivalent or better provision in terms of quantity and/or quality, in a location which offers comparable or improved accessibility for the community it serves.
We have a well-used community recreation ground of 0.67 hectares with a playground and a Multi Use Games Area. Under threat of development for 30 years, it does need refurbishment. Our local council has suggested replacing the whole recreation ground with a much smaller “play garden” for under 5s. With new equipment and safety surface, they will claim it is better quality, but there will be a huge reduction in quantity of equipment and land. The council wants to compensate by improving access to an adjoining piece of land even though the local police say is not safe for unaccompanied children.
If the NPPF changes, councils won’t have to show that a recreation ground is surplus to requirements.
They won’t have to replace recreation grounds with “alternative sports and recreation provision which clearly outweighs the loss of recreation space.”
All they will need to do is provide a bit of "better-quality" equipment, and better access.Why is access more important than anything else?
The Government says their changes are “to allow some additional flexibility in how replacement space can be provided, while maintaining the position that there should be no net reduction in provision" because "it recognises that an improvement in the quality of recreational land can sometimes offset a reduction in overall quantity.” They say they welcome views on the effect of this change. The NPPF requires plans to “provide clarity and a high degree of certainty about the requirements that relevant development proposals are expected to meet.”
We hold that the proposed changes are vague and misleading:
- There is nothing to prevent a net reduction in provision
- There is no requirement for an improvement in quality to offset a reduction in overall quantity.
- There is no guidance on offsetting.
- And/or “is particularly harmful in legal writing because a bad-faith reader of a contract can pick whichever suits them.”
We are asking the government not to implement the suggested changes, but to maintain the current level of protection for recreation grounds.SourcesNPPF proposed reforms (HC7, p89): https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/697b6bc6aacd0dc9777b4fd2/December_2025_NPPF_Consultation.pdfSave Bertie Park website: https://savebertie.com/
Posted
(Updated )
Report this as inappropriate
There was an error when submitting your files and/or report.