older
topics
home
page

Open spaces, playing fields and PPG17

index
maps
newer
topics

Kirkstall is fortunate to have some splendid open spaces. Unfortunately, many of them suffer from environmental pressures, or face constant threat of encroachment by property developers. Ceaseless vigilance is required to protect the jewels that remain.

Hawksworth Woods and Oil Mill Beck

Recreational land is particularly at risk from developers, whether these areas are informal play spaces used by local children, or larger pitches used by adult teams. The profits from inappropriate development are sometimes obscene: a 500-fold increase in land value could follow the grant of planning consent. Small wonder that councillors, council officers and developers sometimes find public recreational land completely irresistable, and argue that "another little nibble won't hurt".

Previous history

Leeds has been nibbling away at its recreational land since the 1970s and this has left large areas of the city seriously deficient in public open space. The situation across the inner city is absolutely dire. Provision elsewhere is patchy and precise comparisons are difficult, but among major local authorities, Leeds is believed to have the worst playing pitch provision in the UK. Leeds is also uniquely bad for children's play. We hold a further unenviable distinction: childhood obesity in Leeds is above the regional average. Could this be because so many of our children have nowhere safe to play?

The council is embarrassed by these problems and has been reluctant to release accurate figures for either childhood obesity or recreational open space. This is an extremely short-sighted policy, since this data is plainly relevant to the political decisions that the council has to take. It is known from Professor Rudolf's research work on childhood obesity in Leeds that there are substantial local variations in different areas of the city. The council and the health authority hold between them complete height and weight details of every year six child in Leeds schools. They have not so far analysed and published this data on a geographical basis, although this would be a simple and informative thing to do. It would help to identify best practice and focus resources on those in greatest need.

The 1992 land use survey for the Unitary Development Plan (UDP) counted urban motorway verges as "public open space", possibly because the inner city figures looked so bad. Verges were not included in the outer suburbs. Professional sports stadia were classified as "playing fields" although they were not available for local kids to use. A transcription error mis-allocated of some rural golf courses as playing pitches, leading to mistaken claims that Leeds had nearly the best playing field provision in England, when in reality it has among the worst.

The UDP Planning Inspectors recognised the deficiencies in Leeds playing field statistics and in chapter 5 of their Inspectors Report on the Public Inquiry they urged the council to publish a detailed local analysis of greenspace and playing pitch provision. These are topics 31 and 35-37 in the council's response to the Inspectors Report. Although the council accepted the majority of the Inspectors' recommendations, this was one issue where the council declined to act. Officers argued that accurate figures would confuse the public, and the UDP Panel accepted this view.

New survey

In April 2008 the council appointed PMP Consultants Ltd to conduct a PPG17 survey for the whole of Leeds. Such surveys are a legal requirement for the preparation of the Local Development Framework, which will gradually replace Leeds Unitary Development Plan.

PMP are no strangers to Leeds, having previously advised the council on cultural facilities and concert halls, and more recently advised on the Leeds arena and the casino development. PMP are a well-known company with a national reputation, and some of their earlier advice has been good, although the council hasn't always acted on it. On the other hand, it is difficult to be totally comfortable with an organisation that talks about "being fair to developers". Local communities should be on their guard!

The appointment of PMP consultants was not described in council committee reports, and is scarcely mentioned on either the council's internal or external websites. Councillors first learned of the decision via an LCC press release or by reading the subsequent article in the Yorkshire Evening Post (page 12 on 6 May 2008). PPG17 surveys and assessments can be highly contentious. Visit the Round Hill Society's website to read about another PPG17 assessment by PMP consultants that fills these Brighton residents with alarm. You could also follow the long-running saga of the Godalming College pitches to see that these assessments do not always go the residents' way.

The council subsequently released more details of PMP's appointment under the Freedom of Information Act. Click here to download the council's Invitation to Tender, and here to download the winning Proposal from PMP. The contract price was £37,852.50 which seems barely adequate for the considerable task in hand. Insufficient time has been allowed for public consultation work, and this conflicts with the council's public consultation policies previously agreed in the "Compact for Leeds". This issue needs further attention.

PMP consultants went into administration on 13 July 2010. Andrew Beckingham and Tony Nygate of BDO (accountants) were appointed joint administrators. It is not clear how much work they had completed for Leeds City Council, but so far nothing has been published. Graham Farrant, PMP’s chief executive, left the company in June 2010 to become the Chief Executive of Thurrock Council, and started work on 2 August 2010.

PPG17

PPG17 is the national government planning guidance on sports facilities and playing fields, which was last revised in 2002. It is supposed to protect playing fields from inappropriate development (and it does, if it is properly applied) but there are always loopholes in planning legislation, which developers and councils may try to exploit. PPG17 is quite short (about 12 significant pages) and can be downloaded for free from the DCLG website. It repays careful reading, since Local Planning Authorities and Planning Inspectors must take it into account. You should also download the hugely longwinded "Companion Guide to PPG17" (over 80 pages) since this describes the PPG17 assessment process, which Leeds City Council and PMP are about to undertake.

The survey work includes 7000 postal questionnaires distributed to a random sample of Leeds residents, and electronic surveys of council officers and elected members. Sports clubs are also being canvassed for their views. At present the consultation does not appear to include the council's Local Area Committees and Scrutiny Boards, or any Local Community Groups, although we hope that this will change.

Leeds PPG17 assessment is a very necessary process which has the potential to go badly wrong. The most obvious risk is a statistical error called "ascertainment bias". Communities with poor recreational provision tend to have low recreational expectations and very few local sports clubs. Consequently there is hardly anybody to speak up for them during a public consultation exercise. Their voice may not be heard, and their needs may not be met. Area committees and community groups should engage with PMP at the earliest possible opportunity. This PPG17 survey should contribute towards community objectives and be consistent with political decisions to "narrow the gap". We must ensure that "being fair to developers" does not take precedence over the proper democratic processes.

Survey details

The survey targets a variety of different groups: householders, local organisations, BME (black and minority ethnic) organisations, sports clubs, bowls clubs, Leeds City Council officers, primary school children, secondary school children, and people approached at random in Leeds city centre. Local councillors will eventually be included, but the forms are not ready yet. Most of the surveys use printed paper, but the Leeds City Council officers and school children complete their forms electronically. Local organisations have been divided into "stakeholders" and "user groups" but it is unclear what the difference is between them, or why this has been done. It is not clear why bowls clubs have been placed in a separate category from the other sports clubs, but tennis clubs (for instance) are not.

Localisation is generally poor, making it unnecessarily difficult to identify the areas of greatest need. The survey forms differ considerably between the various consultees. Both the nature and the order of the questions vary as indicated in the table below, and frequent changes to the wording will make it difficult to compare like with like. Some questions are quite detailed, so the table only shows the overall type of questions that are being asked. To see the full questions, please download the original survey forms below. Householders are told that their replies are confidential and they are not asked for their address on the questionnaire. They would, however, reveal this information if they applied to enter the £250 prize draw. Leeds City Council officers' responses are not confidential. Their names are not recorded, and they have no opportunity to enter the draw, but are asked to give their postcode.

type of questionhouseholdersports clubLCC officersecondary pupil

Do you live in Leeds?

 

 

1

 

Name of club / organisation / school?

 

1

 

1

Overall quantity of local open space?

1

 

2

 

Quantity of parks in the local area?

 

 

 

10

Expected traveling time?

2

 

 

 

How often do you play sport?

 

 

 

4

Two favourite activities?

 

 

 

5

Favourite venues to meet friends?

 

 

 

6

How often do you use each type of facility?

3

 

4

 

Barriers to using existing facilities?

4

15 & 16

5 & 14

7

More detail on barriers to use?

 

17

6 & 15

 

What time of day do you use Leeds facilities?

 

 

7

 

Existing allotment tenant?

5

 

 

 

Potential allotment tenant?

6

 

 

 

Overall quality of local open space?

7

 

3

 

Quality of parks in the local area?

 

 

 

11

Which type of facility do you use most often?

8

 

9

22

Where is your favourite site?

9

11 & 12

8

23

Mode of travel to your favourite site?

10

13

11

24

Two best features of favourite site?

 

 

 

25

Two worst features of favourite site?

 

 

 

26

Actual duration of travel to your favourite site?

11

 

12

 

Aspirations for your favourite site?

12

 

10

 

Do your feel safe at your favourite site?

13

 

 

8

Safety improvements at your favourite site?

14

 

 

9

Quality problems at your favourite site?

15

 

13

 

Overall quantity of outdoor sports provision?

16

 

 

12

Quality of outdoor sports provision?

 

 

 

13

Expected traveling time to outdoor sports venues?

17

14

 

 

Desirable features for indoor sports provision?

18

 

 

 

Quantity of indoor sports provision?

19

 

 

16

Quality of indoor sports provision?

 

 

 

17

Expected travelling time to indoor sports venues?

20

14

 

 

Quantity of informal grassed areas?

 

 

 

14

Quality of informal grassed areas?

 

 

 

15

Quantity of MUGAs, skateparks etc?

 

 

 

18

Quality of MUGAs, skateparks etc?

 

 

 

19

Top priority for improvements?

 

20

 

20

Top priority for new provision?

 

18 & 20

 

21

Overall quality of sports provision?

 

19

 

 

Quantity of city centre open space & recreation?

21

 

 

 

Quality of city centre open space & recreation?

22

 

 

 

Deficiencies in city centre provision?

23

 

 

 

How much exercise do you take?

24

 

 

 

Free text comments on provision in Leeds?

25

22

16

27

Gender of respondent?

26

 

17

3

Age of respondent?

27

 

18

2

How long have you lived in Leeds?

28

 

19

 

Employment status of respondent?

29

 

 

 

Ethnicity of respondent?

30

 

20

 

Are there children in your household?

31

 

 

 

Will you take part in a focus group?

32

 

 

 

What is your postcode?

 

 

21

 

The questionnaires raise some significant issues. Contrary to the national code of practice on consultations, the public will not know the identities of householder respondents and will not be able to inspect their replies. They could probably read the officers' responses and the club responses under the Freedom of Information Act. This is market research rather than genuine public consultation because there is no informed public debate. The consultation periods are very much shorter than the 12-week national guideline or the local standards established in the "Compact for Leeds". It would be relatively easy for land owners or property developers or special interest groups to bias the results from the anonymous surveys by submitting multiple responses, and this could be difficult to detect.

We do not know why local government officers have been included when other professional groups (school teachers for instance) have been left out. The omission of teachers is surprising, because the schools are easy to contact and their pupils are being approached. College and university students have not been canvassed, unless they also happen to fall into one of the other groups. It isn't just the councillors who are presently excluded, but the entire local community network: most community associations, local forums and area committees have not been consulted to date. Response rates are likely to differ substantially between the various groups and between different areas of the city, and it is uncertain how the responses will be "weighted" to allow for this. Some respondents will be invited to join "focus groups" but it is not yet clear how this selection will be made, or what these groups will discus. There is considerable potential for hidden bias in these procedures.

Questionnaire downloads & links

typerecipientpagesquestionsstart dateend date

PDF 173 KB

LCC officers

4

21

7 May 2008

14 May 2008

PDF 519 KB

householders

7

32

7 May 2008

21 May 2008

MS Word 153 KB

user groups

6

5

14 May 2008

28 May 2008

MS Word 201 KB

stakeholders

6

7

14 May 2008

28 May 2008

PDF 496 KB

sports clubs

4

22

 

28 May 2008

PDF 458 KB

bowls clubs

4

31

 

28 May 2008

PDF 993 KB

BME groups

5

14

 

 

PDF 713 KB

street interviews

5

26

 

 

HTML

primary schools

7

20

 

 

HTML

secondary schools

9

27

 

 

Comments can be emailed to: leedsopenspace@pmpconsult.com or posted to:

Leeds Open Space, Sport and Recreation - Assessment of Local Needs
Response Service No: NWW8693A
PMP
FREEPOST
Century House
11 St Peters Square
MANCHESTER
M2 3DN

 

Last updated 03 January 2011 at 18:24. Back to the top

older topics home page navigation bar index maps newer topics

Promoted by John Illingworth, 37 Kirkwood Way, Leeds LS16 7EU