Sports Clubs & Club Development - Sport England · Sports Clubs & Club Development ... site subject...

Sports Clubs &Club DevelopmentPlanning Bulletin 18 | August 2006

www.sportengland.org/spatialplanning

Sports Clubs & Club Development | Planning Bulletin 18 01

To many sports clubs, the planning system representsone of the hurdles, which they need to overcome whenseeking to develop, redevelop or finding alternativeaccommodation for their club site. To other sports clubsthe planning system represents a procedural mechanismavailable to them to challenge redevelopment proposalsof their grounds and facilities where there may only be atenant. In some cases these can command a high mediaprofile as the continuing saga of the relocation ofBrighton and Hove Albion demonstrates.

Previous editions of the Planning Bulletin series haveinvestigated: intensive use of sports facilities; sportin the Green Belt and; sport stadia.

This edition of the Planning Bulletin seeks to bringtogether many of the issues raised in the aboveeditions in a club-focused edition, and focuses on:

– Tenure;– Relocation;– Designations;– Intensification;– Multi Sport Clubs; and– Design.

Introduction 01

Tenure 02

Case Study 01 – York City Football Club

Case Study 02 – Thames Ditton Lawn Tennis Club

Relocation 06

Case Study 03 – Boston United Football Club

Designations 09

Case Study 04 – Bromborough Golf Course

Intensification 11

Multi-Use Facilities 12

Case Study 05 – South Weald Cricket Club

Design 15

Information 16

Introduction

Sports Clubs & Club Development | Planning Bulletin 18 0302 Sports Clubs & Club Development | Planning Bulletin 18

Over the years there have been numerousissues surrounding clubs and tenure,almost all of them in relation to the lossof sports facilities. This is because manysports clubs are located in areas of highland value, which make them verysusceptible for redevelopment for housing,retail and business locations. In manycases, developers approach clubs withideas over relocating the club to anothersite, however in cases where the club doesnot own the site, clubs are vulnerable tolandlords seeking to maximise the valueof their asset seeking to remove the clubthrough rent reviews, end of tenancyagreements etc.

Case Study 01York City Football Club

In 1999 ownership of the club’s BoothamCrescent ground, the club’s home since1932, was transferred from the footballclub to a new holding company, with theclub effectively becoming mere tenants atthe ground.

The Bootham Crescent ground was seenas valuable asset, situated within a Cityof booming property prices. Unsurprisingly,the supporters became immediatelyalarmed, and even more so on learningthat a national housebuilder had acquireda 10% stake in the holding company withrumours of secret deals which would meanthe ousting of the football club.

The threatened loss of the BoothamCrescent facilities also threatened the club’sexistence in the football league and itscommunity vision. The club then lost itssecurity of tenure of the ground and aplanning application was submitted in July2002 to redevelop Bootham Crescent with93 houses. At the same time, the club hadaccumulated debts of around £1 millionand was plunged into administration withthe prospect of liquidation.

The club was on the brink of extinction,with players and staff facing unemploymentand the supporters and the communityfacing the loss of their club, the onlyfootball league club in North Yorkshire.

In January 2002 the York City SupportersSociety Limited (known as ‘the Trust’) wasformed. With the aid of a local newspapercampaign, the Trust generated anenormous amount of support, publicity,fundraising and positive action for thebenefit of the football club. The Trust electedboard members who volunteered time andeffort to lead the work, with their mainobjective to ensure the continuation ofprofessional football in York. They alsosought to develop the business side of theclub whilst seeking to secure the club’spresence at Bootham Crescent, andlooking for an alternative site, which wouldsecure the long-term future of the club.

The formation of the Trust has given thesupporters a powerful voice to influencethe future of the football club. It is alsohoped that a club can be built throughthe Trust which embraces its relationshipwith supporters, schools, businesses andthe community.

The latest position on Bootham Crescent(June 2006) is that the original planningapplication remains lodged, but is on hold.The application will only be pursued inconjunction with an application for a newstadium facility. The site selection processis still underway with possible candidatesite subject to feasibility studies. One ofthe issues for the Trust to decide is whetherto include multi functional and non-sportingcommunity facilities within the proposednew stadium in pursuit of its wider objectivefor the City of York.

The York City example demonstrates atrend of separating clubs from their assets,with other clubs both inside and outsidefootball having experienced similartenure difficulties.

There are a number of options availableto clubs to help secure their assets.Options available to clubs to protect landand facilities include vesting the freeholdof a site to the NPFA. This is thought ofas one of the most secure ways ofprotecting land.

Local managers are then appointed tomanage and maintain the facilities whilstthe NPFA acts solely as the custodian orholding trustee. Guidance on long-termrecreational land protection wasdeveloped by the NPFA as part of theNew Opportunities Playing Fields andCommunity Green Spaces Programme,delivered by Sport England. It notes thatseveral stakeholders and processes serveto safeguard playing fields or recreationalland. The approach is based on the needfor quality provision maintained to thehighest possible condition. Recreationalland has the best chance of being usedand valued by owners, users, grantproviders and the public if it is of thehighest quality.

A second option is for the land to be heldby local charitable trustees. Clubs havea number of sources of grant fundingavailable through Sport England, withthe level of funding determined by matchfunding. A condition of private funding maymean that the funding is lost if local controlis relinquished, for example to the NPFA.

A further consideration for clubs to beaware of under tenure is what happens iftheir sporting facility is simply demolished.A court case involving the demolitionof facilities at the Thames Ditton LawnTennis Club in Surrey highlighted thispotential issue. �

Tenure

04 Sports Clubs & Club Development | Planning Bulletin 18

Case Study 02Thames Ditton Lawn Tennis Club

The club’s premises consisted of hard andgrass tennis courts, pavilion, storeroom,garage and unsurfaced car park. Theclub’s lease was due to expire in 1995and the club applied for a new tenancy,which was opposed by the landlord, whoexpressed an intention to demolish thepremises on the termination of tenancy.

The landlord submitted a planningapplication for residential development andappealed against its non-determination byElmbridge Borough Council.

The appeal was subsequently refused bythe Secretary of State on the grounds thatrecreational space would be lost withoutequivalent replacement.

The landowner then announced theirintention to demolish the premises and thecourt placed considerable weight on theargument that planning permission wouldnot be required to demolish the premisesand there was nothing to prevent themgoing ahead with the demolition.

The County Court agreed with this view,however the club took the case to theCourt of Appeal and successfullyoverturned the decision.

This judgment confirmed that planningpermission was required for the breakingup and digging up of the tennis court asthis was deemed ‘engineering operations’and therefore ‘development’ under theTown and Country Planning Act 1990.

It also confirmed that the situation wasdifferent for the demolition of ‘buildings’and the landowners had a valid point asfar as the demolition of the pavilion andstoreroom was concerned. Under thedefinition of development and theDemolition Direction 1995 which describesbuildings whose demolition is notdevelopment, outside conservation areasplanning control applies to the demolitionof dwelling houses and any buildingsadjoining them. Planning permission isnot required for the demolition of, amongstothers, sports buildings.

The planning system has also much tooffer in the protection of clubs: PlanningPolicy Guidance Note 17, the designationof playing fields in development plan andlocal development frameworks, and therole of Sport England as a statutoryconsultee on planning applicationsaffecting playing fields.

Other regulatory processes, such asthe requirement to secure the consentof the Secretary of State for Educationand Skills for the disposal of schoolplaying fields (see Planning Bulletin 16,School Sites and Community SportsProvision) can also influence the decisionmaking process.

It is not just demand from the privatesector, which can undermine clubs. Thecontinual demands of the treasury forpublic bodies to maximise their assetsalso causes problems.

A final case example on vulnerability ofclubs who do not own their own facilityis the case of Rissington Kart Club. Theclub have held national and internationalkart racing meetings at a circuit maintainedat Rissington Airfield in Gloucestershire. The site is a disused military airfield ownedby Defence Estates. The use of the landby the Kart Club has been on going forover 50 years under Crown Immunity.

However, this year the club were toldthat the land would only be availablefor motorsport use in the future on theconsideration that the number of meetingdays would not exceed those set out inthe Town and Country Planning (GeneralPermitted Development) Order 1995,to comply, the Kart Club would have toforego some four meetings a year.

Given their non-profit making status andthe revenue generated by each event,the club expect a severe impact oncashflow and their ability to comply withvarious legislative requirements. Othermotor racing clubs may be faced withthe same issues, which could have anegative impact on the sport as a whole.

�


Relocation is an issue facing many sportsclubs. Some may choose to do so in orderto improve or expand facilities, or removea conflict with neighbouring land users,others, such as York City Football Clubmay be forced to do so by circumstancesoutside their control, as discussed earlier.

Relocation or exchange of open space,sports or recreational facilities isaddressed in paragraph 13 of PPG 17,which states that the new land andfacility should be at least as accessibleto current and potential new users, andat least equivalent in terms of size,usefulness, attractiveness and quality.

The aim should be to achieve qualitativeimprovements to open space, sportsand recreational facilities. Local PlanningAuthorities (LPAs) should use planningobligations or conditions to secure theexchanged land and ensure necessaryenabling works are undertaken andthe replacement facilities are capableof being maintained adequately throughmanagement and maintenance agreements.

Guidance contained in paragraph 15of PPG 17 states that LPAs should givevery careful consideration to planningapplications involving development onplaying fields. It advises that planningpermission should not be allowed unlessone of the four criteria can be compliedwith. Criterion (iii) is that the playing fieldto be lost as a result of the proposeddevelopment would be replaced by aplaying field or fields of equivalent or betterquantity and quality and in a suitablelocation, a reiteration of Sport Englandpolicy on playing fields

In circumstances where a replacementoff-site facility is relied upon to justifydevelopment of open space, sports orrecreational facility, full details of thatreplacement facility must be provided.

Case Study 03Boston United Football Club

A development company went to appealin February 2005 over a proposal todevelop Boston United Football Club’sstadium for houses.

The site was designated in the Local Planas recreational open space and this wassupported by policies within the Planechoed those in set out in PPG 17. Itwas common ground between the partiesthat the development proposed would beinconsistent with these policies unless anacceptable equivalent replacement wasprovided. In this case, no replacementfacility was before the Inspector, althoughpossible sites had been identified.

The appellants considered that a negativelyworded condition would be sufficient tosecure the continued provision of the sportsfacility. A draft condition was suggested.However, the Inspector considered thatthere was no certainty that a replacementground would be provided.

He noted advice in Circular 11/95 (TheUse of Conditions in Planning Permissions)which set out six tests planning conditionsshould meet, including the tests ofprecision and enforceability. Planningconditions must be sufficiently precisefor a prospective developer to knowwhat must be done to ascertain whetheror not he has complied with them.

The Inspector held that a judgmentwould be required on whether a futurereplacement facility was equivalent orbetter. Such a judgment would be acomplex and subjective matter involvinga wide range of issues including thenature, accessibility, quality and scale ofactivities to be provided.

There would be considerable scope fordifferences of opinion on whether thecondition had been complied with. Sucha condition would therefore fail the test ofprecision in Circular 11/95. Consequently,the Inspector concluded that thedevelopment would be likely to lead tothe loss of facilities contrary to policies,which seek to protect them. The appealwas dismissed.

Had this appeal been allowed with ageneric and negatively worded condition,it could have encouraged speculativeplanning applications to redevelop playingfields and sports facilities. Applicants wouldhave a realistic prospect of circumventingthe requirements of PPG 17 during theassessment of their applications.

What the Boston United case highlightsis the need for development proposalsincorporating replacement facilities to becomprehensively thought through and adegree of certainty for delivering alternativeequivalent or better provision mustbe achieved.

Relocation


Planning Bulletin 13 explored the issue ofSport in the Green Belt and looked in depthat recent decisions of the Secretary ofState where sport facilities were proposedin the Green Belt. The football academiesof Derby County and Chelsea FootballClubs were case examples where veryspecial circumstances were required tojustify inappropriate development.

To summarise, unless a proposal for asports building can be demonstratedas being both essential and for outdoorsport, it will generally be consideredinappropriate development in the GreenBelt. Very special circumstances arerequired to justify inappropriatedevelopment. Examples of essentialfacilities given in Planning PolicyGuidance Note 2 Green Belts are smallchanging rooms or unobtrusive spectatoraccommodation or small stables foroutdoor sport and recreation.

Defining what is ‘small’ and ‘essential’in this context is a matter of considerabledebate. Reference is frequently made toappropriate standards set out in SportEngland guidance such as the Pavilionsand Clubhouses Guidance Notes.

As schemes that seek funding from theSport England Lottery Fund must accordwith such guidance, it would seemreasonable for LPAs and PlanningInspectors to give these documents a gooddeal of weight. Planning Policy Statement(PPS) 7 Sustainable Development in RuralAreas advises that in Areas of OutstandingNatural Beauty the conservation of thenatural beauty of the landscape and thecountryside should be given great weightin planning decisions.

Case Study 04Bromborough Golf Course

Bromborough Golf Club is locatedwithin the Green Belt on the Wirral.The development proposed includedthe erection of a ground floor extensionto the clubhouse and also the addition ofa first floor to part of the existing buildingadjacent to the car park. The extension

would accommodate a relocated scorecard room and committee room, with thespace vacated by these rooms beingconverted into a staff rest room, storeand toilet facilities.

At the appeal the LPA argued that therewas already a large range of facilitiesavailable in the golf club house, more thanthose deemed necessary by Sport England.The proposed extension, it was argued,would not provide essential facilities toenable golf to be played at the club. Further,the LPA claimed that the developmentproposed was to enlarge a building,which was already beyond the maximumsize recommended by Sport England.

The Inspector considered that not onlywas it expected that a game of golfshould be supported by the provision ofessential changing facilities, it was alsoreasonable to expect sufficient facilitiesfor a degree of social recreation. Somedays would involve competitions, annualmeetings or prize awards when significantnumbers of people could be expectedand these would require additional facilitiessuch as toilet facilities for general use,separate and distinct from the changingroom facilities.

The Inspector formed the conclusion,having one eye on a possible legalchallenge, that even if his acceptance ofthe proposal as appropriate developmentwas flawed, very special circumstancesjustified the development: the developmentwould not be visually intrusive; there wouldnot be an unacceptable encroachment intothe green belt and; there was no adverseimpact on openness. The appeal wasallowed and planning permission granted.

The Bromborough case demonstratesthe constraints on development and thelevel of justification required – even formodest expansion of club facilities whenlocated within the Green Belt. It is also anexample of a wide meaning given by anInspector to the term essential facility foroutdoor sport, albeit a nervous one!

Designations


Sports clubs may at some stage considerincreasing the use of their facilities.Floodlighting of courts by a tennis clubfor example, not only gives the clubincreased flexibility by allowing eveninguse but also represents a way of betterutilising an existing facility without theneed to construct additional courts. Interms of pitch-based sports, syntheticsurfaces have a greater carrying capacitythan a normal grass pitch and are thereforean attractive proposition to increase usagethroughout the week, particularly withregard to training. Intensive use of sportsfacilities was considered by PlanningBulletin 3 and revisited in Planning Bulletin14 and we reported then that apart fromone paragraph in PPG 17 there is verylittle national guidance on floodlighting.

Over the last few years there have beensignificant advances in the technology ofsynthetic pitches and floodlighting to allowmore intensive use of sports facilities.

In intensifying use at facilities, sportsclubs will need to be aware of issuesconcerning:

– the potential noise and disturbance to nearby adjacent residential occupiers. This can be generated from players and spectators during training and matches and by users arriving and leaving the facility;

– light pollution and spillage, particularlyas it affects adjacent dwellings;

– water run off from hard surfaces;

– impact on the physical appearance of the site, particularly where a grass pitchis replaced by synthetic turf.

The decision maker will have to balancethe negative aspects with the benefitswider use of a sporting facility to the cluband the wider community.

Intensification


One of the ‘Priorities for Action’ underSport England’s Framework for Sport inEngland document is to create new typesof family-orientated multi-sport ‘hubs’,where fitness and sport facilities arecombined to include support and othersocial facilities.

There are significant benefits for sportsclubs to form partnerships with others.Where possible, different sports can bebrought together on one site such as tennis,bowls and football, which may in the past,have had separate pavilions on the samerecreation ground. Not only can facilitiesbe used more effectively and enjoy sharedrunning costs, but the sharing of facilitiesopens up the potential for shared coachingand sports development programmes,allowing people to more easily try othersports that in the past they may not havethought about.

In Planning Bulletin 16 School Sites andCommunity Sports Provision we discussedhow school sport facilities could be usedby the community during the evenings andweekends under the ‘Extended School’concept. This means that the schoolprovides a range of services and activitiesbeyond the school day to help the needsof its pupils, their families and thewider communities.

Sports clubs also have a vital role toplay in their communities. Football clubsfor example can bring a town and evena region together. Many clubs havecommunities and education schemes,some of which are funded through theFootball Foundation, in partnership withlocal education authorities. These includeanti-racism, healthy lifestyles, crimereduction and drug awareness schemescan be delivered using the power andprestige of clubs.Learning in an environmentwhere their heroes play each week alsohas a motivational effect on participants.

March 2006 saw the opening of SalfordSports Village, a state of the art facilityoffering sporting as well as trainingopportunities for everyone. It was fundedto the tune of £4.7m through Sport England/ Big Lottery, the Football Foundation, FIFA,Salford City Council, The FA, New Dealfor Communities, the European RegionalDevelopment Fund and the NeighbourhoodRenewal Fund. It is managed underagreement by Salford Community LeisureLimited and the facility is also the newhome of the Manchester FA.

The key aim of Salford Community LeisureLimited under their management agreementis that local people can use the facilitiesat affordable prices. The facility has severalgrass pitches, two 3rd GenerationSynthetic Pitches, grass practice areasand floodlights. The associated buildingalso contains changing rooms, communityroom, bar, conference and meeting rooms,an ICT suite with courses organisedthrough Eccles College.

At the opposite end of the scale are thenumerous local clubs whose facilitiesmay stand unused for six days a week.Clubhouses could be used during theweek by a créche or an artist studio,which would reduce the running costsand help improve security in traditionallyvulnerable locations. The South Wealdcase demonstrates where a club haveattempted to do this.

Multi-Use Facilities Case Study 05South Weald Cricket Club

South Weald Cricket Club in Essex soughtto provide a day nursery within its existingpavilion. The site was in the Green Belt,in a rural area about a kilometre awayfrom the edge of Brentwood, Essex.

Unfortunately for the nursery and cricketclub, it was held that all journeys werelikely to be made by private car. The accesslane to the site lacked both a footway andlighting. The Inspector considered that ifthe proposed development was located inan urban area the nursery would have achoice of travel modes, including walking.

The Inspector concluded the location wasnot acceptable having regard to localand national planning policies seekingsustainable development and reducingthe reliance on private transport. Thedevelopment would materially increasethe use of a Protected Lane, which woulddetract from the character and appearanceof the lane. The increase in traffic wouldalso lead to an unacceptable increase inhighway safety.

In dismissing the appeal the Inspectoradded the issue of inappropriatedevelopment in the Green Belt. Up to 20cars would be parked at the site, up totwice a day, which would appear intrusiveespecially during the winter months.Although there would be parking associatedwith the cricket club, this was an ancillaryactivity for outdoor sport. The need tofund raise to improve facilities and therole of the cricket club was acknowledgedby the Inspector, but did not outweigh theadverse effects identified from the proposal.


Sport England’s publication (in conjunctionwith CABE) Better Places for Sport seeksto assist those involved in sports projectsto deliver the best outcome for sport,projects, future uses and wider socialgoals. It contains a step by step guideand check list for each stage of theproject, applicable to new buildings,extensions, renovation or open spaces.

The four project stages:

– Preparation– Design– Construction– Use

Obtaining planning permission will be oneof the first in a list of approvals requiredduring the project stage and shouldpreferably be sought at the design stage.In Planning Bulletin 16 we emphasised theneed (in that case for schools) to engageadvice from the different stakeholdersearly in the project. These include:

– users;– neighbours;– volunteers;– local and national sport

governing bodies;– schools;– coaches;– Sport England;– youth leaders;– designers and constructors

of similar projects;– the local authority;– an architect.

The advice of each stakeholder will feedinto forming the outline brief for the projectat the preparation stage. During the designstage it is important to review the designat key parts of the process.

Considerations will include the accessibilityof the design, sustainability and energyefficiency and spatial efficiency,including circulation.

There will not be a ‘one size fits all’ solutionor a right design. However, careful checkingat all stages will help achieve high designquality. Clubs will need to meet theiraccommodation requirements in asustainable and accessible building notforgetting the quality of internal space.

Design

16 Sports Clubs & Club Development | Planning Bulletin 18

Author

Dyfan JonesSteven Abbott Associates

Further Reading

CABE / Sport EnglandBetter Places for SportLondon, HMSO

Department of the EnvironmentCircular 11/95 Use of Conditions inPlanning PermissionsLondon, HMSO 1995

NPFA / Sport EnglandSport England Playing Fields andCommunity Green Spaces Programme:Guidance on Long Term RecreationalLand ProtectionLondon, Sport England 2002

NPFAProtecting your Playing Fields,A ten step guideLondon, NPFA 2006

ODPMDemolition of Sports Facilities:Consultation PaperLondon, HMSO 2000

ODPMPPS 7 Sustainable Developmentin Rural AreasLondon, HMSO 2004

ODPMPPG 17 Planning for Open Space,Sport and RecreationLondon, HMSO 2002

Sport EnglandPavilions and Clubhouses DesignGuidance NotesLondon: Sport England, 1999

Sport EnglandFramework for Sport in EnglandLondon, Sport England 2005

Sport EnglandPlanning Bulletin 3 Intensive-UseSports FacilitiesLondon, Sport England 1998

Sport EnglandPlanning Bulletin 13 Sport inthe Green BeltLondon, Sport England 2003

Sport EnglandPlanning Bulletin 14 IntensiveUse Facilities RevisitedLondon, Sport England 2004

Sport England Planning Bulletin 16 School Sitesand Community Sports ProvisionLondon, Sport England 2005

Copies of the Planning Bulletinsmay be downloaded from the SportEngland website.

Websites

Sport Englandwww.sportengland.org/spatialplanning

York City Supporters’ Trustwww.ycst.org.uk

National Playing Fields Associationwww.npfa.org

The Football Associationwww.thefa.com

Salford City Councilwww.salford.gov.uk

Every effort has been made to ensure theaccuracy of the information contained inthis publication. Sport England, its servantsor agents shall not at any time, in anycircumstances, be held responsible or liableto any party in respect of any loss, damage orcosts of any nature arising directly or indirectlyfrom reliance placed on the material in thispublication or any other guidelines or policiesissued by Sport England.

This information has been prepared as a basicguide only and should not be viewed as asubstitute for obtaining comprehensive expertor professional advice. All rights reserved.No part of this publication may be reproduced,stored in a retrieval system or transmitted inany form or by any means, electronic, mechanical,photocopying, recording or otherwise withoutthe permission of Sport England.

© Sport England 2006

Design by MosleyPrinted by Identity Press

Information

SE-0506-008www.sportengland.org/spatialplanning

EastSport England – EastCrescent House,19 The Crescent,Bedford MK40 2QPT 08458 508 508www.sportengland.org/east

East MidlandsSport England – East MidlandsGrove House,Bridgford Road,West Bridgford,Nottingham NG2 6APT 08458 508 508www.sportengland.org/eastmidlands

LondonSport England – London Region3rd Floor Victoria House,Bloomsbury Square,London WC1B 4SET 08458 508 508www.sportengland.org/london

North EastSport England – North EastAykley Heads,Durham DH1 5UUT 08458 508 508www.sportengland.org/northeast

North WestSport England – North WestAstley House,Quay Street,Manchester M3 4AET 08458 508 508www.sportengland.org/northwest

South EastSport England – South East51a Church Street,Caversham,Reading RG4 8AXT 08458 508 508www.sportengland.org/southeast

South WestSport England – South WestAshlands House,Crewkerne,Somerset TA18 7LQT 08458 508 508www.sportengland.org/southwest

West MidlandsSport England – West Midlands5th Floor, No 3 Broadway,Five Ways,Birmingham B15 1BQT 08458 508 508www.sportengland.org/westmidlands

YorkshireSport England – Yorkshire4th Floor, Minerva House,East Parade,Leeds LS1 5PST 08458 508 508www.sportengland.org/yorkshire

Sports Clubs & Club Development - Sport England · Sports Clubs & Club Development ... site subject...

Documents

Transcript of Sports Clubs & Club Development - Sport England · Sports Clubs & Club Development ... site subject...