Open space or play space: counting both on one site

Open space and play space are counted differently, and a scheme that satisfies the open space standard can still be short of play space by several hundred square metres. Open space requirements are usually derived from a quantity standard expressed in hectares per 1,000 population, applied to the total population the scheme will generate. Play space requirements are derived from child yield, which is a subset of that population calculated separately from the dwelling mix, and then converted into an area per child. Different denominators, different typologies, and in most local plans two separate policies.

Getting this wrong at design stage is expensive. A layout fixed around an open space figure, then asked for a doorstep play area for under-fives within walking distance of every family dwelling, loses plots.

How each requirement is calculated

The open space calculation runs from total occupancy. You take the dwelling mix, apply the authority's occupancy assumptions per dwelling size, reach a total population, and multiply by the standard in the local plan. A standard of 2.4 hectares per 1,000 population applied to a scheme generating 300 people gives 0.72 hectares, before you split that figure across the typologies the policy lists.

The play space calculation runs from child yield. The dwelling mix is run through a population yield model that produces the number of children in defined age bands, and the requirement is an area per child. In London, Policy S4 of the London Plan requires at least 10 square metres of playable space per child, with the Greater London Authority's play and informal recreation guidance supplying the yield calculator. Outside London the standards vary by authority, but the structure of the calculation is the same.

The two calculations share one input, the dwelling schedule, which is why they should be run at the same time from the same version of it. A mix that changes at reserved matters stage changes both numbers.

Child yield and the play space formula

Child yield is where the arithmetic gets contested, because small changes in the assumptions move the requirement a long way.

Yield depends on dwelling size, tenure and type. Affordable rented family housing generates far more children per unit than private one and two bedroom flats, so a scheme with a high affordable family component carries a disproportionate play requirement relative to its unit count. That is a real planning outcome rather than an anomaly, and it is worth modelling before the tenure split is fixed, because the land take follows.

The age bands then drive location. The London approach, which many authorities outside London have borrowed, separates provision for under-fives, which needs to be close to the dwelling and overlooked, from provision for 5 to 11 year olds, which can be further away, and provision for 12 and over, which can be at the edge of the site or off it. The guidance sets indicative walking distances, with doorstep playable space for the youngest band within around 100 metres, the middle band within around 400 metres and the oldest band within around 800 metres.

Those distances are the reason a single large play area in one corner does not work on a dispersed layout. You need several small spaces, which costs more in maintenance and in land than one big one.

Informal playable space counts. Wide verges with mounding, a kickabout lawn, logs and boulders, planting that can be played in: this costs less than equipment, lasts longer and is what the Play Space Assessment should be arguing for. Equipped play is only part of the answer and should not be the default.

Open space typologies and their standards

Most authorities still use the typology framework that came out of the old national open space guidance, because their evidence base was built on it. Expect a policy that splits the overall standard across parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural green space, amenity green space, outdoor sports provision, provision for children and young people, allotments and green corridors, each with its own quantity standard and its own accessibility standard.

Read the policy carefully for three things.

First, whether the standard is a minimum per scheme or a target for the area. Where the authority is already in surplus for a typology, the policy may not require on-site provision of that type at all.

Second, which typologies the authority will accept on a site of your size. Outdoor sports provision is rarely deliverable on a scheme of 50 dwellings, and the policy usually acknowledges that with a contribution route.

Third, whether the standard counts land or usable space. Attenuation basins, buffer strips, highway verges and land under tree canopy are frequently excluded or discounted, and a layout that counts a swale as amenity green space will be corrected. An Open Space Assessment that shows the authority exactly which areas are claimed under which typology, with the excluded areas identified, removes an argument that otherwise runs through the whole determination.

On-site provision against a commuted contribution

Where on-site provision falls short, a financial contribution covers the gap, and three things determine whether the authority can lawfully take it.

The obligation has to meet the tests in regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010: necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. For open space and play, that normally means the contribution is tied to a named project or a named deficiency within a stated catchment of the site, rather than paid into a general fund.

The contribution also has to avoid double charging. Where the authority's community infrastructure levy charging schedule already funds open space provision, it cannot take a section 106 contribution for the same item, and the regulation 123 list that used to govern this was replaced by the infrastructure funding statement regime. Ask the authority directly which route it is using for open space, and get the answer in writing at pre-application.

Viability sits underneath all of this. Where the full package of obligations makes a scheme unviable, the argument is run through a viability assessment prepared to the relevant professional standard, and the same evidential discipline applies as in any case for reduced provision on viability grounds. Authorities are sceptical, and rightly so, where the inputs are not transparent.

Where the two requirements overlap

This is the part most often fudged, in both directions.

Play space usually sits inside open space. A doorstep playable area within an amenity green space can count towards both requirements provided the policy allows it and the area is accessible in practice, which means publicly accessible rather than within a private curtilage or behind a gate. What you cannot do is count the same square metre at full value against two standards where the policy treats them as additive, and some policies do.

The reverse error is forgetting that playable space has to be usable. A strip of amenity grass three metres wide beside a road meets a quantity standard and provides nothing. Authorities have become better at testing this, and a provision schedule that claims a verge as playable space invites a request for a revised layout.

Biodiversity net gain interacts with both. Habitat created to deliver the gain uplift carries a thirty-year management requirement and is condition-protected, which constrains how intensively it can be used for recreation. Trampled wildflower meadow does not score as planted. Where the site is tight, resolve the overlap between the biodiversity gain plan, the open space schedule and the play strategy before the layout is fixed, usually by designating distinct areas rather than trying to make one area do three jobs. A Green Infrastructure Plan is a useful place to show how the three fit together.

Maintenance, adoption and transfer

Who maintains the space for the next 60 years determines whether the authority accepts the provision at all.

Three routes are standard. The authority adopts the land with a commuted sum covering a defined maintenance period, which is clean for residents and expensive for the developer. A management company maintains it under an estate charge, which costs the developer less upfront and increasingly unpopular with authorities and residents. Or the land transfers to a trust or parish council, which works where there is an existing body willing to take it on.

Each has drafting consequences in the section 106 agreement: the trigger for transfer, the standard the land must be in at transfer, the length and amount of the commuted sum, public access rights, and what happens if a management company fails. Equipped play has a replacement cycle, so a maintenance sum calculated on mowing alone will be challenged.

Presenting both in one schedule

Put everything in a single table in the planning submission and keep it consistent with the drawings. One schedule, with a row for each typology and each play age band, and columns for the policy standard, the requirement generated by the scheme, the on-site provision claimed, the shortfall and the proposed contribution.

Then add three notes beneath it: the occupancy and child yield assumptions used, with their source; which areas are claimed under more than one heading and the policy basis for doing so; and which areas have been excluded from the calculation and why. That single page answers most of what the officer's report needs to say, and it makes the section 106 heads of terms almost self-drafting.

This is general guidance rather than legal advice, so check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it.

If you are scoping the evidence base for a residential scheme, browse the 66 report types by category to see which provision documents the application will need.

PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval.