Introduction

Playing fields are a key resource for sport in England. In addition to accommodating and enabling sporting opportunity they make a significant contribution to informal recreation, amenity and the environment. Over recent years, the loss of playing fields has become an important current issue and no one agency has a definitive understanding in respect of the exact number of pitches that are lost either to development or as a consequence of neglect.

Speeding Up: Build Out

As part of its plans to ‘lift the bureaucratic burden’, the Government has stated its intention to overhaul the planning system and ‘put growth at the heart of the statutory consultee system.’ These proposed changes are part of its ongoing drive to reduce barriers to growth and get Britain building and precede its flagship Planning and Infrastructure Bill which, in turn,  will support its Plan for Change commitment to build 1.5 million homes.

At present, it is a legal requirement for statutory consultees to provide advice on planning decisions to ensure that developments consider essential environmental, transport, heritage and safety elements. However, the government is now:

• Consulting on reducing the number of organisations which are statutory consultees and removing Sport England, the Theatres Trust and The Gardens Trust from this list.
• Reviewing the scope of all statutory consultees, to reduce the type and number of applications on which they must be consulted – and making much better use of standing guidance in place of case-by-case responses.
• Clarifying that local authorities should only consult statutory consultees where ‘necessary to do so’ (not defined)…and decisions should not be delayed beyond the 21-day statutory deadline unless a decision cannot otherwise be reached, or advice may enable an approval rather than a refusal.
• Planning to institute a new performance framework, in which the CEOs of key statutory consultees report on their performance directly to Treasury and Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government

The government consultation, thus, includes testing the water in respect of both limiting the scope of the (currently 25) statutory consultees and removing some present ones (including Sport England) from having a prescribed, specific role in planning decisions per se.

Before this, the National Infrastructure Commission had already set out proposals to speed up the national significant infrastructure projects process – without weakening National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) standards. Even prior to this latest set of government suggestions, concerns were expressed about whether this might lead to a race to the bottom on environmental and safety standards – for the sake of rapid development.

While noting the role of statutory consultees in the planning system in facilitating high quality development, the government suggests that its reforms to the system will ensure that in functions in a sensible, systematic way, and does not create unnecessary blockers. Its claim is that statutory consultees are:

• Failing to engage proactively (whatever that means?).
• Re-opening issues that have already been dealt with in local plans.
• Submitting automatic holding objections which are then withdrawn at a late stage; and
• Submitting advice that seeks ‘gold-plated outcomes, going beyond what is necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms.

It then describes what it calls ‘problems with the operation of the system’ stating that they cause uncertainty, extensive delays, and increased costs…due to the time taken to provide advice and/or complexities causing provision of over extensive or unnecessary advice.

Some statistics

Linked to this, the government notes that, in the past three years over 300 applications were escalated for consideration by the Secretary of State because of consultee disagreements. What it does not say is that district level local authorities granted 7,400 residential applications and 1,500 applications for commercial development just in the three months between October and December 2024 – so one might argue that the escalation of 300 over a three-year period during which it is legitimate to estimate that more than 100,000 applications were granted (a ratio of just 0.003%) might, arguably, be considered to be reasonable.

So, what we have is, on one hand the government suggesting that the planning system needs to be “sensible and balanced” (and not create unintended delay). While on the other stating that ‘new developments must still meet our high expectations to create the homes, facilities and infrastructure that communities need’.

Before exploring this further it is worth noting that:

• According to the UK Housebuilders Directory (2025) there are 2,481 active. housebuilders and residential property developers in the UK.
• In the 2024 calendar year, 242,610 homes received planning permission.
• According to the government’s own figures, 336,200 planning applications (across all aspects of development) were submitted in the year to September 2024.
• In that same three months between October and December 2024 a total of 9,800 decisions were made on applications for residential developments, of which 7,400 (75%) were granted.
• Nationally, over the period from July to September 2024, 90% of major planning applications were decided within 13 weeks or within the agreed time.

The Cons & Pros article by Simon Ricketts (dated 13 March 2025) in the Local Government Lawyer online publication points out that, anecdotally, the statutory consultees for which issues arise most frequently are National Highways, the Environment Agency and Natural England – none of which were highlighted in the government’s announcement.

While noting that the issues within their domain can be technically and/or legally, complex Simon Rickett’s notes that it is not uncommon for local planning authorities (LPAs) or applicants to receive standard holding responses or objections and then have to engage in lengthy chasing process to resolve the issue. The question he (rightly) asks is that “we now have action, but is it in the right direction?”

As CPRE (London) points out, councils (and statutory consultees) are being blamed for the cost of developer appeals. The fact is, that they do not control challenges, they only refuse applications deemed inappropriate. In addition, even if a development site is allocated it does not mean that the application proposes development that is acceptable – or that it is accompanied by sufficient accompanying infrastructure.

It would be legitimate to argue that it would be more appropriate to scrutinise LPAs on their performance in respect of how many homes are allocated and consented annually compared to the number completed. This might more accurately indicate what/where the blockages lie. It could be argued that it is developers who game the system and fail to develop in accordance with local plans that should be sanctioned.

While saying that it recognises the importance of these organisations (i.e., Sport England) and their value to local communities, the government states that the NPPF will continue to apply and that Sport England (and others) will continue to engage with the planning system via development of local and strategic plans and the publication of guidance and advice.

So, what will happen in the proposed government changes are implemented?

Crucially for the sector, the changes, if implemented, would mean that proposed developments and planning decisions which affect playing fields, are not automatically required to respond to Sport England input and meet the conditions it specifically sets – referencing the NPPF.

At present, Sport England has a role as a statutory consultee in local plans – which means that councils must consult it on any proposed development that would affect or lead to the loss of a sports playing field. In this highly specific area of facilities planning its input is both vital and very strong.

Figures released in December 2024 show that it protected 1,007 playing fields between April 2022 and March 2023 and that nearly all (94%) of concluded planning applications involving a playing field each year result in improved or safeguarded facilities.

The report goes on to note that, in this same year:

• 94% (1,007 out of 1,075) of concluded planning applications affecting playing fields resulted in improved or safeguarded sports provision.
• Of the 140 applications where Sport England maintained its objection, 72 (51%) were either withdrawn by the applicants or refused planning permission.
• In 69% of the cases where Sport England originally objected to an application, further negotiations led to development being approved with improved or safeguarded sports provision.

It is worth noting that Sport England’s 21-day response rate to statutory consultations has been consistently above 90% in recent years. Delays tend to occur where the requirements of NPPF paragraphs 103 and 104 are not fully understood and appreciated by either the applicant or the LPA, where there is no current needs assessment in place or where an existing needs assessment is misunderstood or misinterpreted.

Crucially, this includes the need to evaluate the level of sports provision required within an area to justify applicant statements suggesting that provision that will be lost as a result of a development is surplus to requirements or to ratify the relevance and suitability of proposed replacement provision.

It is frequently the limited understanding of this that causes unnecessary delays in the planning process. Sport England will often ask for this information to enable it to make a substantive response. It is, however, entirely reasonable to state that Sport England’s detailed understanding of such issues (and consultation with it in the early stages of planning processes – which is regularly done by agencies which understand these issues) actually saves a substantial amount of time by ensuring that the applicant or developer arrives at the table with appropriate improvement or mitigation plans in place.

In essence, Sport England protects playing field land that has no other guardian angel. The reasons why it must be retained as a statutory consultee include the following:

• Provision in the NPFF in respect of protection for playing fields is appropriate when it is given equal weight to other considerations. However, it is common for LPAs, facing pressure in respect of the emphasis given to housing and economic growth, to allocate insufficient weight to paragraphs 103 & 104 when considering applications for housing which affect existing sport facilities.
• The NPPF is clear that existing open spaces, sports, recreational buildings and land, including playing fields, should not be built on unless an assessment has shown the space to be surplus to requirements or that it will be replaced by equivalent or better provision. Sport England is often at the forefront of (and regularly the key arbiter in respect of) determining how to interpret these terms. Whatever the government asserts, without Sport England’s independent input the strong policy protections that it claims will remain firmly in place will be substantively weakened.
• While NPPF wording is sufficiently strong to afford adequate protection to sports facilities it is Sport England’s presence, judgement and input that ensures that this protection is properly interpreted and implemented.
• It actively seeks and supports pre-application discussions which help to flag up issues to applicants and LPAs prior to application submission. It is often the case that these are NPPF paragraph 103 & 104 requirements which the applicant or LPA may not have appreciated need to be met.
• It regularly seeks/coordinates views from sports affected by an application enabling it to provide a more informed response. Its response is better informed, picks up on the views and requirements of all the sports affected (Including those with limited resource to respond themselves) and ultimately provides greater assistance to an LPA.

Among others, the Sport & Recreation Alliance, the Football Foundation, The London Playing Field Foundation and Women in Sport have expressed their concerns about this proposal. Women in Sport points out that removing Sport England’s expertise from the planning process could have a hugely detrimental impact on English sport and on the Government’s own missions to increase opportunity for all and improve the health of the nation. This said, the absence of a louder collective outcry from sports organisations is a worry.

Over the years, KKP has challenged and been challenged by Sport England planners on a whole range of topics and on regular occasions we disagree. This said, its planning function and role defending and properly mitigating sports provision has been one of, if not its primary contribution to sport in England over the last two decades. Any diminution of its role could be disastrous and removing its status as a statutory consultee would, in respect of the future of sports facility provision in England, be a huge and costly own goal.

This article was written by John Eady, chief executive of Knight, Kavanagh & Page. john.eady@kkp.co.uk