Open space, sport and recreation
Question OS 1
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards open space, sport and recreation, as set out in OS 1 'Open space, sport and recreation' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
72 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Strong support for protecting open space, sport and recreation | Widespread agreement that open spaces, sports facilities, parks, public rights of way (PROW) and recreational routes must be protected and enhanced. Many stress that existing provision is already limited and essential for health, wellbeing and biodiversity. |
| Need for updated evidence base and refreshed standards | Multiple respondents note that existing studies (e.g., 2016 Open Space Study) and Local Plan policy DM 35 are outdated. Updated evidence is required to reflect current and future needs. |
| Developer contributions and on-site provision | Emphasis on prioritising on-site open space in new developments, with off-site or financial contributions only when unavoidable. Some cite need for inflation indexing and flexibility for viability. |
| Protection of specific open space types | Highlights include protection for public rights of way (PROW), blue spaces (rivers, canals), ancient woodland, and inclusion of allotments/ orchards as community assets. |
| Quality, accessibility, climate resilience, health outcomes | Comments stress importance of high-quality, safe, accessible, biodiverse and climate-resilient open spaces, supporting physical activity, active travel and wellbeing. |
| Flexibility for exceptional circumstances | Infrastructure providers (e.g., National Health Service) note occasional need to use open space for essential projects, asking for explicit policy flexibility. |
| Green Belt release arguments | Developers argue that strategic release of Green Belt land can deliver enhanced open space, green infrastructure and recreation networks as part of major schemes. |
| Local evidence gaps and site-specific issues | Comments reference local studies, missing links (cycleways), community assets and blue-green infrastructure opportunities, suggesting areas requiring site-level policy consideration. |
| Practicality, maintenance and management | Concerns about long-term maintenance, anti-social behaviour and dog fouling, with calls for sustainable management structures. |
| Partial objections / alternative views | Some respondents feel suggested policy approach OS 1 does not go far enough, calling for stronger protections and support for local councils, or better integration with footpaths and Green Belt. |
Question OS 2
Are the current thresholds for developer contributions for open space and playing pitches suitable, or do you have any comments or suggestions for what they should be?
32 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Thresholds for developer contributions | Many respondents feel current thresholds (e.g., contributions only for 10+ units) are either too permissive or outdated. Several argue that even small developments cumulatively increase pressure on open space and should therefore contribute proportionately. Others support current thresholds but emphasise the need for flexibility to maintain viability and housing delivery. |
| Viability and flexibility | Comments highlight concerns that stringent contribution requirements may undermine development viability. Several respondents call for independent viability assessments, flexible application of thresholds, and mechanisms that allow relaxation of contributions when viability is genuinely threatened. There is also emphasis on preventing developers from manipulating viability narratives. |
| Scale and quality of contributions | Many respondents express dissatisfaction with the adequacy and ambition of current developer contributions, calling for more generous, highquality provision of open space, play areas, and sporting facilities. Comments also note imbalance in provision (e.g., too much football, not enough basketball/ netball), and the need for proportional levies where deficits exist. |
| Evidencebased and locally responsive provision | Respondents emphasise grounding contributions in local evidence, such as Playing Pitch Strategy data, Sport England tools, and specific local needs (e.g., Frodsham youth football pressures). They advocate for flexible thresholds tailored to settlement size, cumulative demand, and specific shortages. |
| Protection, loss and management of community facilities | Comments stress stronger protections against the loss of community facilities. Respondents call for independent viability tests, enforced community engagement, marketing facilities for potential community management, and requiring likeforlike replacement in the same settlement to avoid gradual erosion of amenities. Some support strategic sites delivering integrated community facilities as part of masterplans. |
| Governance and allocation of developer contributions | Several respondents argue contributions should be controlled locally – by Town or Parish Councils – and ringfenced for the intended purpose. They argue that decisions over spending must reflect local knowledge and priorities rather than being centralised. |
Question OS 3
Is the current evidence sufficient or does it require updating (Open Space Study and Playing Pitch Strategy)?
26 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Playing pitch strategy – currency and review cycle | These submissions state that the Playing Pitch Strategy (PPS), updated February 2025, is currently appropriate and provides a sound evidence base. However, the PPS should be reviewed annually to maintain accuracy given changing participation trends and pitch conditions. |
| Need for forward-looking, futureproofed projections | Comments highlight the need for the evidence to better anticipate future changes – population growth, leisure trends, informal recreation, and environmental resilience – using projections to 2030–2035. |
| Demand pressures: housing growth, students, tourism and transport constraints | Some respondents note that existing evidence fails to address realworld pressures including cumulative housing growth, increased student use, tourism impacts, transport/ accessibility constraints, and inequitable distribution of facilities. |
| Nature, biodiversity and green infrastructure integration | Comments emphasise the need to integrate ecological data into the evidence base, including neighbourhood plan information, Cheshire Wildlife Trust datasets, and mapping of green corridors linked to the Local Nature Recovery Strategy. |
| Access, public rights of way, youth and inclusivity considerations | Submissions highlight the importance of public rights of way (PROW) maintenance, youth needs, safe walking routes, inclusive recreation, and improved rural access through dualpurpose infrastructure. |
| Climate change and environmental resilience impacts | Respondents emphasise the need to embed climate resilience – flooding, drought, shade, and usability impacts – into future assessments. |
Question OS 4
Should the policy approach be more flexible in the order provision of open space in new developments? If yes, do you have any suggestions how this could be achieved?
22 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| Support for flexibility in open space provision | Respondents believe flexibility allows more efficient delivery of open space, especially where small sites cannot realistically provide meaningful onsite areas. Flexibility enables financial contributions to be pooled to upgrade existing facilities and ensures provision reflects local shortages. Parish/town council involvement is emphasised to keep spending local. |
| Support for a clear hierarchy with onsite provision prioritised (conditional flexibility) | Flexibility is acceptable only when constraints genuinely prevent onsite provision. Onsite should remain the default because it ensures immediate access. Offsite alternatives must be within safe walking distance, ringfenced, and tied to specific local projects. |
| Opposition to flexibility (maintain current approach) | These respondents oppose additional flexibility, arguing it risks erosion of green infrastructure. They consider the existing hierarchy appropriate to safeguard accessibility, quality, and community value. |
| Strategic or conditional support (linked to wider networks and viability) | Flexibility is supported only when connected to wider strategic networks such as green corridors or shared community facilities. Policies must include mechanisms to relax requirements if viability is threatened. |
| Role of parish/town councils in decisionmaking | Respondents emphasise that contributions must stay local and that parish/town councils should lead or be engaged early to ensure priorities reflect community needs. |
Cultural and community facilities
Question OS 5
Do you agree with the suggested policy approach towards cultural and community facilities, as set out in OS 2 'Cultural and community facilities' above? If not please suggest how it could be amended?
37 comments
| Theme | Summary |
| General agreement / support | Broad support for suggested policy approach OS 2 and protection of cultural and community facilities. |
| Opposition / partial disagreement | Some respondents felt that the suggested policy approach is too weak; loss of facilities shouldn’t be allowed; wording criticised; some say Town/Parish Councils should lead. |
| Developer responsibilities | Developers must provide safe play areas, cultural facilities and contributions; enforcement issues highlighted. |
| Protection and loss tests | Calls to strengthen loss tests, require marketing evidence and borough asset audits; resist residential conversion. |
| National Health Service (NHS) estate flexibility | One respondent said that the NHS needs exemption from retention tests to modernise estate; proposes policy wording changes. |
| Cultural wellbeing and multi-use hubs | Promote multifunctional hubs, wellbeing links, agent-of-change, proactive provision, natural assets as cultural. |
| Natural assets | One respondent suggested natural spaces like Hob Hey Wood should be classed as community assets. |
| Crematoria | Another respondent suggested that crematoria should be considered as community facilities and cultural or local services that serve the local community. |
| New settlements and transport hubs | New settlements must provide community buildings and transport-linked hubs. |
Please note: this summary contains content generated by Artificial Intelligence (AI). AI generated content has been reviewed by the author for accuracy and edited/revised where necessary. The author takes individual responsibility for this content.