No justification for loss of overgrown bowling green

Friday, 17 February 2012, dcservices.co.uk

An outline scheme for 14 dwellings in Cheshire was turned down because it would lead to a harmful loss of recreational open space.

The former bowling green was in a residential area not far from the town centre. An inspector noted that before permitting development on land with recreational or amenity value, PPG17 and local plan policy required an assessment to be undertaken that demonstrated that there was an excess of playing field or open space provision in the catchment.

The appellant’s assessment concluded that with four redundant bowling greens and some clubs operating below the average participation rate, there was sufficient capacity to absorb future growth. The inspector noted, however, that the survey on which the assessment was based was not up-to-date and there was no assessment of demographic change or trends in participation. In respect of other recreational uses that might be possible on the site, the assessment stated that artificial lighting and surfaces would be needed and there would be noise such that it would be unsuitable in a residential area. The inspector remarked, however, that it was not clear which of the possible uses would be affected in these ways or whether mitigating measures could be put in place. Finally, he saw no evidence of consultation with the local community or anything to demonstrate that the proposal was widely supported by the community as required by PPG17. In any case, he observed, the survey showed that only one club out of ten predicted a decrease in membership while four predicted an increase. In addition, eight clubs said that there was a shortage of bowling greens compared to just one club that said there was not a shortage. As such, he pointed out that the results of the survey contradicted the conclusion of the assessment report that there was a surplus of recreational land.

The inspector concluded that while the site might not be currently well maintained this did not justify the loss of the recreational space as its state could be improved. The proposal would lead to a harmful loss of open space with recreational value and would therefore be contrary to local and national planning policy.

Inspector E Taylor; Written representations

Items with an asterisk * are required


Additional Information