Who prepares an open space assessment

An open space assessment author needs to be able to audit, not just describe. The work is a measured comparison between what the local plan says the area should have, what it actually has, and what the development changes. Most of it is site survey and data handling, which is why the people who do it well are landscape architects, leisure and sports consultants, and planning consultants with an open space audit background, rather than whoever happens to be drafting the planning statement.

On a scheme that loses or replaces existing open space, the stakes are higher than people expect. National policy sets a restrictive test: existing open space, sports and recreational land should not be built on unless it is surplus to requirements, or the loss is replaced by equivalent or better provision in a suitable location, or the development is for alternative provision whose benefits clearly outweigh the loss. Failing all three limbs is a refusal reason that is hard to recover at appeal. The paragraph numbering has moved between Framework editions, so cite the current edition's wording rather than a remembered number.

Typologies and the standards for each

Open space is assessed by typology because a cricket pitch and an allotment are not interchangeable. The typology set most local plans use descends from the categories in national guidance: parks and gardens, natural and semi-natural greenspace, green corridors, outdoor sports facilities, amenity greenspace, provision for children and young people, allotments and community growing spaces, cemeteries and churchyards, and civic spaces.

Each typology carries its own standard in the adopted plan or its evidence base, and the standards are expressed three ways. A quantity standard, usually hectares per 1,000 population. A quality standard, usually a scoring framework applied on site. And an accessibility standard, usually a walking distance or travel time catchment.

Get the plan's own typology list before surveying anything. Authorities adapt the national set, and an audit using the wrong categories cannot be compared with the authority's own evidence base.

Quality and value are separate judgements and conflating them is the commonest analytical error. A poorly maintained park can be low quality and high value, which is exactly the combination that defeats a surplus argument.

Quantity, quality and accessibility measures

Quantity is the easiest to produce and the least persuasive on its own. It is arithmetic: measure the areas, apply the population figure, compare against the standard.

Two refinements matter. Use the population the development will create, from an occupancy assumption tied to the unit mix rather than an average household size for the district. And measure usable area rather than site area, excluding steep banks, highway verges and land with no public access.

Quality needs a field survey with a written pro forma, scored consistently, with photographs and dates. Councils often publish the scoring framework used in their own open space study, and using the same framework makes your figures directly comparable with theirs. That is worth more than a more sophisticated method nobody can cross-check.

Accessibility is where most assessments are weakest. A 400 metre catchment drawn as a circle on a map ignores railways, rivers, dual carriageways and private estates. Walk the routes, or run a network analysis on the pedestrian network, and show the catchment as it is rather than as a radius. Natural England's accessible natural greenspace standards and the national green infrastructure framework set out distance-based expectations for natural space that are worth testing against as well.

Auditing existing provision

The audit is the body of the work and it has a sequence.

1. Obtain the authority's open space study, its typology list and its standards, with dates.
2. Identify every space within the relevant catchments, from mapping and from the authority's own inventory.
3. Visit each one and complete the quality pro forma, with photographs.
4. Record access constraints, opening restrictions, ownership and management arrangements.
5. Measure usable area and plot catchments on the walking network.
6. Compare the result against the standards, typology by typology.

Where the authority's study is more than a few years old, say so and record what has changed on the ground. Spaces close, schools restrict community access, and a study from a previous plan period frequently overstates provision. Equally, new provision from recent developments may not appear in it.

Deficiency arguments and how they are tested

A deficiency argument says the area falls short against a standard, so the development must provide more. A surplus argument says the opposite. Both are tested the same way: by asking whether the figures are reproducible.

Officers and their landscape colleagues check three things. Whether your typology matches theirs. Whether the catchments were drawn on the network or as radii. And whether the population figure is consistent with the affordable housing and education contributions calculated elsewhere in the same application. An applicant using 2.3 persons per dwelling for open space and 2.8 for education contributions will be asked about it.

Where playing fields are involved, Sport England is a statutory consultee on development affecting playing field land, and its assessment runs on its own policy exceptions rather than on the local standard. Engage with it early, because its objection carries weight that a local standard argument does not overcome.

An illustrative example

Illustrative only: a 180 dwelling scheme on a former school site including a disused grass playing field. The audit shows the ward is above the quantity standard for amenity greenspace, below it for equipped play, and within the accessibility catchment of a district park across a dual carriageway with one signalised crossing 600 metres away. The assessment concludes that the amenity greenspace surplus does not answer the play deficiency, that the district park is outside a realistic walking catchment for young children, and that on-site equipped play plus a replacement pitch contribution is the proportionate response. One site, three different answers by typology.

On site provision against contributions

The choice between providing space on site and paying a contribution is a planning judgement with a long tail, and it should be argued on the evidence rather than on what is easiest to build.

On-site provision makes sense where the audit shows an accessibility deficiency, because a contribution to a distant site does not fix a catchment gap. A contribution makes sense where the area has sufficient provision but it is in poor condition, so money spent on quality delivers more than a small new space nobody maintains.

Small spaces are the trap. A 0.1 hectare amenity area surrounded by housing meets a quantity figure and provides very little, and it carries a maintenance liability forever. Where the audit supports it, fewer and larger spaces are the better outcome.

Any contribution has to meet the statutory tests for planning obligations: necessary to make the development acceptable, directly related to it, and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind. Name the receiving site and the works in the heads of terms.

Maintenance and adoption

Decide the management route before submission, because it changes the design.

Adoption by the council usually requires the space to meet its adoptable standards and comes with a commuted sum, typically calculated from a published rate over a set number of years. A management company route avoids the commuted sum and transfers the cost to residents, which authorities increasingly scrutinise. A community trust route is possible on larger schemes and needs an endowment to be credible.

Set out the route, the standards, the sum and the responsible body in the assessment itself. An Open Space Assessment that stops at the audit leaves the officer to invent the delivery mechanism, and what gets invented is usually worse for the applicant than what you would have proposed.

Who should lead the work

Match the lead to the dominant issue. Where the argument is about landscape quality and design of new provision, a landscape architect leads, and competence questions for landscape professionals apply here too. Where it is about sports facility supply and demand, a leisure or sports consultant leads. Where it is about policy interpretation and the three-limb test, a planning consultant leads with survey input from others.

Councils normally expect a suitably qualified author and professional review is strongly advised before submission. A reviewer from the professional directory can sign off the technical judgements on an AI-assisted draft. Where children's play is a separate requirement, the Play Space Assessment runs on its own standards, and a Green Infrastructure Plan ties the open space network to biodiversity and drainage functions on larger schemes.

This is general guidance, not legal advice; check the position with your local planning authority or a qualified professional before relying on it. PlanScope provides AI-assisted draft reports for planning applications. Reports should be reviewed before submission. We do not guarantee planning approval. For specialist technical reports, qualified professional input may be required.