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

 

Having attracted a high level of interest and in the face of strong competition, England Golf (EG) has awarded the contract to deliver this vital work to KKP. This decision is based primarily on the strength of the Company’s track record delivering comparable projects for a variety of national governing bodies of sport (NGBs) and our specific experience delivering golf-related needs assessments.

The process will incorporate development of the first ever national strategy for needs assessments for golf facilities in England. The intention is to strengthen the NGB’s position as the national lead agency for golf supply/demand insight optimising its capacity to address provision gaps and protect golf facilities. This is key to achieving its ambition to get ahead of its demanding facilities planning workload and proactively improve the quality, scale and robustness of its input to local plans, ANOG-based outdoor sports assessments and golf planning per se.

KKP will analyse EG’s present data and intelligence on the sector and the golf facility mix in England and evaluate how to best utilise and extend this. The process will culminate in development of a data platform which makes EG the go to agency for golf-related supply/demand information setting out how it will, for example:

– Strengthen the robustness of its input to all planning applications which affect golf provision.
– Lead on the integration of ‘traditional’ golf provision with new and alternative formats including indoor golf, short courses and driving ranges etc., enabling improvement to the mix of facilities nationally.
– Better identify non-membership and ‘nomadic’ pay and play based participation so that all types and formats of play are fully factored into the assessment of demand.
– Advocate/apply mitigation options to strengthen pathways into longer-term participation.
– Establish a clear framework for handling planning enquiries, determine ‘best practice’ and consider how golf needs assessments can be aligned to the NPPF, ANOG and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy.
– Inform consultation with Sport England and LAs to identify golf provision that may currently be at risk.

Key to this is ensuring that local councils and other spatial planning authorities better understand golf provision in their area and the sporting and environmental benefits that it and its facilities bring to the community.

In taking on this assignment, KKP brings to the table its experience delivering similar, complex national facility strategies for other NGBs including, in recent years, the RFL, England Hockey, England Athletics and Badminton England. This is in addition to its current work (commissioned by London Sport and Sport England) to review and provide guidance about how to better protect and tackle issues associated with loss of access to, and the closure of, playing fields in the capital.

It also builds on the Company’s direct experience of assessing supply/demand for golf (utilised in delivery of more than 40 local authority facilities strategies) the wide range of golf-specific needs assessments delivered and its other work assessing, planning for, developing/improving the performance of, and supporting the protection and development of golf facilities. EG’s current approach will also be benchmarked with other NGBs to determine whether lessons can be learnt and improvements made.

Gavin Anderson at EG commented “we are delighted, with the support of Sport England, to be working with KKP on this strategy. It put forward the strongest case for developing a standardised methodology to establish a robust supply and demand framework and had the best track record delivering other similar projects for a variety of sports…it was also the best positioned agency when it came to tackling the more pressing need of developing the support frameworks required to ensure a more consistent and nationally recognised approach.’

Steve Wright, principal consultant and director is leading KKP’s project team. He commented: ‘KKP is proud to be entrusted with this vital work at a crucial time for the sport. We shall work closely with EG to ensure that it is best placed to both protect and develop golf facilities (of all forms) and to build its role and profile as the key source of authoritative supply/demand intelligence for key facilities planning processes’.

Steven Wright is available for interview. Please contact KKP via (0)161 764 7040 or email steve.wright@kkp.co.uk

Notes for editors

KKP is a leading UK-based multi-disciplinary national and international sports consultancy practice. It offers specialist advice and impartial, objective and creative support to a wide range of clients. This commission builds on our extensive track record in this field – which includes national and local indoor and outdoor built sports facilities, playing pitch and open spaces planning.

KKP’s golf needs assessment local authority client portfolio includes Blackburn-with-Darwen, Horsham, Leicester, Coventry, Solihull, Rushcliffe, Wakefield, Kirklees, St Helens, Sunderland, Blaby, South Ayrshire and the London Borough of Redbridge. We also deliver assessments for other planning consultancies and private sector clients – these include Arcadis, Wain Homes and Anwyl Homes.

More detail about KKP’s work, clients and projects is available at www.kkp.co.uk

 

Coventry is the most central and ninth largest city in England with a population of 361,000.  Its growth particularly among younger adults, in part parallels the expansion and success of the city’s two universities and the increasing numbers of better-paid jobs in certain sectors of the local economy.

It is a ‘Marmot City’, which means that partners and the Council are taking a whole systems approach to tackling health inequalities and to creating and developing healthy, sustainable places and communities. This strategy will set out the role that physical activity and sport can play in helping to address this.

Coventry has performed well relative to national trends and comparable towns and cities. However, while the situation in the City has improved notably when comparing its Indices of Multiple Deprivation position in 2015 and 2019 it still ranks between the 64th and 81st most deprived local authority area (out of 317) in England and 28 (14%) of the City’s 195 neighbourhoods are amongst the most deprived 10% in England. Levels of inactivity, obesity and ill health are challenging, and it ranks particularly high for income deprivation affecting children and older people (IDACI and IDOPI).

The current Coventry Sports Strategy and its Physical Activity Framework “Coventry on the Move” both run to 2024. The City Council is keen to develop a new overarching strategy which encompasses both elements and has commissioned KKP to support this process.

The Council is (and will be) via its multi-partner Strategy Development Group (SDG) working closely with a range of agencies to create and deliver the strategy. These include, among others, the City’s Public Health Service, CV Life (which operates all its main sporting facilities and cultural venues), Think Active (the active partnership for Coventry, Solihull and Warwickshire), the Positive Youth Foundation, the West Midlands Combined Authority and Sport England.

To initiate and inform the process, the SDG has collated and analysed national and local data. KKP will critique and build on this so that helps create a foundation for a robust strategy – one which will inform and drive physical activity and sport delivery, planning, accessibility and opportunity in the City over the next 5-10 years. Aligning to Sport England’s ‘Uniting the Movement’, the City Strategy will:

• Set a strategic framework vision, aims and objectives which align with CCC corporate plans, local public health and physical activity policies and objectives.
• Incorporate an action plan designed to ensure that impact is optimised – making a real difference tackling the City’s commitment to health inequalities in defined groups and in specific geographic areas.
• Specify required actions, particularly in relation to key target groups, and recommended KPIs – in a five-year action plan, schedule and ‘road map’ and associated monitoring framework.

In addition to drawing on KKP’s substantial experience in this area of work, the process will optimise the value and knowledge acquired via the Company’s delivery of a range of strategic facilities and services planning assignments with/for Coventry.

Cllr Kamran Caan, Cabinet Member for Public Health and Sport at Coventry City Council, said:

“We are delighted, with the support of Sport England, to be working with KKP on this strategy to build on the progress we’ve made over recent years. We are fully aware of the depth, breadth and quality of its work and welcome its support for our SDG, its review of what we do, where, why and how – and its delivery of the strategy consultation process in the City.

“This strategy isn’t just about sports facilities; it’s about making physical activity accessible for everyone in Coventry. By focusing on our communities and being smarter about where resources go, we can tackle health inequalities and make sure our city is moving forward together.”

Andrew Fawkes, principal consultant at KKP is leading KKP’s project team. He commented:

“It is great to be able to follow up our strategic facilities planning input in the City with this assignment. We shall be working closely with the SDG, Council and key agency staff and stakeholders to look at where and how its whole systems approach can be strengthened and analyse where and how resource can be best applied to deliver the physical activity and related health and social outcomes the City is looking for”.

Notes for editors

KKP is a specialist consultancy practice in the sport, physical activity, wellbeing and leisure field. Company sport/physical activity strategy clients include Westminster, Nottingham, Glasgow, Liverpool, Preston, Bury and Coventry itself. Over the last four years, we have produced comparable strategies for Birmingham, LB Bromley, Bridgend, Blackpool, St Helens, Wyre and the States of Jersey.

Our team brings specific expertise referencing/absorbing wider strategic contexts, analysing and supporting whole system and place-based approaches to strategy and action plan development. This encompasses steering/working group support, consultation (individual/focus groups/workshops) plus, proactively and reactively, identifying, defining and refining strategic themes and goals.

Andrew Fawkes is available for interview. Please contact KKP via (0)161 764 7040 or email andrew.fawkes@kkp.co.uk

Full details about KKP’s work, clients and projects are available at www.kkp.co.uk

 

 

In September 2024, the University of Southampton announced the opening of its new £40million Jubilee Sport and Recreation Centre extension. Amongst references to the scale of its new (200+) station fitness suite, studios, squash courts and climbing walls, it made the core point that this extension has been designed with inclusivity at its core. It also points out that the venue features the latest adaptive sport equipment to cater for students, staff and people from the local community – of all abilities.

The Complete University Guide Survey suggested that the higher education sector spent over £350m developing sports facilities between 2016-2018 and confirmed that, over the last decade, institutions including Durham, Warwick, Birmingham, York, Nottingham, Loughborough and Portsmouth had made high profile and substantial investment in new sports venues.

The call to action in the BUCS The Value of University Sport and Physical Activity encourages the sector to increase engagement in sport and physical activity for all students and staff, suggesting that individual HEIs make it an essential part of their strategy. The claims made in respect of the benefits of so doing are that a university’s sport and physical activity (SPA) offer:

• Influences its market position and ‘brand pull’ and how students’ choose the HEIs to which they apply – and the one they subsequently attend.
• Improves transition – to university from school, and ultimate retention as a result of the accelerated friendships and sense of belonging that SPA enables.
• Delivers greater life satisfaction – predicated on the assumption that physically active students are happier and exhibit reduced anxiety and depressive symptoms.
• Enhances academic attainment – the rationale being that graduates who are sports participants gain proportionately more first and upper second-class degrees.
• Employability – the assertion being that students who participate in university sport earn more than non-participants and those taking up sports volunteering roles earning a ‘further premium’.

The BUCS publication notes that at a time when UK universities are under more financial pressure than ever, providing opportunity for sport and physical activity has a relatively low net cost and a high return. It points out that this, can impact a significant proportion of students (plus staff and the local community) and provides the “glue” which helps hold a university together.

The latter statement is one with which it is easy to agree. For a net outlay which is often well below 1% of a university’s overall budget, the positive impact of high-quality sport and physical activity facilities, clubs, services and programmes is unmatched by virtually any other aspect of non-academic student provision.

However, in our experience, it is as important to make the case for student retention than it is to highlight sport and physical activity as a tool for student recruitment, which is perhaps only significant for three of four key institutions.

KKP has supported a number of UK universities to across a range of projects including SPA and facility strategies, feasibilities on new facility developments, staffing reviews, performance measurement and service reviews. Several recent assignments (e.g. Leeds and Bristol) have incorporated detailed benchmarking with comparable HEIs.

Typically, this covers aspects such as overall service quality, size and scale of indoor and outdoor sport and fitness provision, approach to memberships, sports club reach and quality, recreational offer, provision for overseas students and services for disabled students and links with student welfare. We have also, latterly, considered the difference made by the level at which sports directorates are directly represented in the university hierarchy.

The general consensus is that, notwithstanding the trend for improvement in the quality of facilities and service provision, there is still some way to go. University senior managers, SPA directors, student union staff and representatives and others consulted consider the key areas in which the higher education SPA offer still often requires further attention or investment Include:

• Balancing the needs of traditional student sport with those of a more diverse student population, which arguably has an increasingly wider range of health needs.
• Delivery of an improved recreational offer geared to all students, but especially those that do not feel comfortable engaging in the traditional sports club environment.
• Improving how SPA services and university sports clubs attract and retain members and compete with increasing competition.
• The quality of direct communication that SPA directorates can have with the full student and staff body. This is often limited by wider university IT infrastructure challenges which limits the capacity for optimal interaction and presentation of the physical activity offer.
• The linking of SPA management information functions with those of the wider university to enable services to accurately assess the profile of who is participating, in which facility or activity and when. Without this link, performance management can be hindered.
• Doing more to cater effectively for overseas students who account for an increasingly significant proportion of HEI tuition fee income but are still often under-considered when it comes to the wider SPA offer.
• Improved linkages and service provision for students with physical disabilities and mental health challenges. Although this is widely considered to have improved in recent years, demand levels have also risen significantly, and services have not always been sufficiently resourced to cope with this.
• The need for directors of SPA to advocate directly for their service in key university decision-making fora.

Giving university SPA directorates the wherewithal (facilities, staff, systems and operational freedom) to deliver and, at the same time making them more accountable for service breadth and outcomes, is arguably essential to the UK having a vibrant and effective HEI sports system and to ensuring that the full contribution that SPA makes to the quality of the student experience is realised.

David McHendry is managing director at KKP (contact: david.mchendry@kkp.co.uk)

Note: KKP’s university client portfolio includes Bristol, Leeds, Edge Hill, UCLan, Birmingham, Warwick, Manchester, Loughborough, Aberdeen, Royal Holloway, Aston, UC Cork, Robert Gordon, Chester, Sussex, Ulster, Aberystwyth, MMU, Sheffield Hallam, Bournemouth, Glasgow Caledonian and Lincoln.

KKP is online at www.kkp.co.uk

 

 

 

NEWS RELEASE 

ISSUE DATE: 28 November 2024

London Sport commissions KKP to deliver its Playing Field Protection Project

London Sport is working with Sport England to review and tackle issues associated with loss of access to, and the closure of, playing fields in the capital. These facilities are vital to enable various communities to engage in sport and physical activity in London, but some are being lost even where there is clear evidence of demand.

The key issues about which London Sport, Sport England and other stakeholders are concerned include the:

• Strength and capacity of the planning system and Sport England to protect playing fields –loss is still occurring despite valid objections.
• Increasing number of sites categorised as “at risk of closure” and the reduced levels of community access to existing playing field sites.
• Uneven spread of playing field provision in London – which exacerbates the inequalities faced by certain groups in accessing playing field provision.
• Lack of an up-to-date evidence base to help justify playing field protection.

As a consequence, a project has been instigated to improve sector understanding of the challenges and emerging trends impacting playing field access and protection in London – and to lay the necessary evidence foundation to outline potential for future advocacy efforts.

Having attracted strong interest and in the face of strong competition, London Sport has awarded the contract to deliver this vital work to Knight, Kavanagh & Page (KKP). This decision is based on the strength of the Company’s sports consultancy credentials, its track record in playing pitch needs assessments and strategies, its delivery of national facility strategies for a range of sports and its experience delivering mitigation strategies and related planning system expertise.

The primary outcome of the work will be to provide London Sport and partners with the case for, and ideas about how to develop, an appropriate platform from which to effectively protect/support key agencies to protect playing fields across London. This is likely to encompass:

Evidence and data to support advocacy – so that all agencies involved are optimally positioned to ‘make the case’. Underpinning this will be review of existing London playing pitch strategies (PPS), development of an updated audit/database of, plus GIS mapping tools covering, existing playing fields. This is to be accompanied by advice in respect of the development of frameworks/protocols to drive all-agency consistency of data collection, storage and analysis. It should also enable the running of key scenarios to test the impact of site loss/reduction (and conversely the positive value of site improvement).

Advocacy – geared to persuading all parties of the value and importance of local and central government taking a (more) strategic approach to the protection of playing fields by, for example:

• Raising awareness among agencies with an interest in or influence over playing field retention and development – about how playing fields contribute to and enhance people’s lives – and the need to continue to invest in existing playing pitch stock.
• Applying the full range of promotional mechanisms to ensure that the way in which existing playing fields are utilised optimises participation levels.
• Providing guidance about what key agencies can do to resist playing field loss and/or drive restoration.
• Developing improved policy guidance to strengthen the position to protect London’s playing fields.
• Sharing good practice with regard to examples of where and how threatened sites have been ‘saved’.

Advocacy processes – to indicate both political and other components of the case for playing field protection and development needs to be made and be geared to securing the support of high profile, committed, political advocates. This may necessitate:

• Creation of an effective platform/agency/system to optimise collective influence and maximise potential to influence playing field protection (and development) factors.
• Finding the simplest, least complex ways possible in which key London agencies can work effectively together to determine playing field-based need and agree universal core protection processes.
• Improving cross-agency communication and collaboration to ensure that any threats of playing field loss is detected and acted upon as early as possible.
• Ensuring consistency in the way in which playing pitch needs assessments/strategies are produced, data/information is stored, accessed and shared.

In taking on this assignment, KKP brings to the table extensive linked experience.

Chris Donkin – Strategic Lead, Active Environments from London Sport commented ‘we are delighted, with the support of Sport England, to be working with KKP on this project. It put forward a strong case to be our preferred consultant for this assignment and has the best track record delivering comparable and compatible projects.’

Steve Wright, KKP principal consultant and director who will lead the project team commented: ‘KKP is delighted to have been entrusted with this vital work for London at what is a critical time for playing fields in the capital. We shall work closely with London Sport and all the stakeholders in the City to produce a report and recommendations that best address the problems faced’.

Steven Wright is available for interview. Please contact KKP via (0)161 764 7040 or email steve.wright@kkp.co.uk

KKP is online at www.kkp.co.uk