Local Development Framework Consultation

Section 5: Policy Issues

Para 5.17
Sport England welcomes the intention to secure contributions for community infrastructure through CIL or s106 agreements. However, I would appreciate the following comments being taken into consideration as CIL progresses.

Experience, training and legal advice suggests to Sport England that the following three guidelines should apply:

1. CIL should specifically exclude any mitigation measures required to make a development proposal satisfactory in planning terms, e.g. if housing is proposed on playing field the mitigation for that loss under NPPF Para 74 should be dealt with OUTSIDE of CIL.
2. CIL 123 lists should only include defined projects and not use generic statements such as ‘Indoor Sports Provision' and 'Outdoor Sports Provision'. Our understanding of the legal position is that where a generic statement is used for a facility type then all provision is caught within CIL and therefore none can be delivered via S106 (to avoid double dipping). Whilst there is some clarity re. what S106 will cover (providing clarity in those instances only) the fact that no projects have been listed under the CIL column for CIL funding will mean all outdoor sports projects not listed in the S106 column will by default be expected to be funded by CIL therefore the LA will be prevented from seeking S106 funding for anything other than clear mitigation on those sites listed. Sport England therefore suggests the CIL column is revised in terms of both Indoor and Outdoor Sports Provision to include ONLY SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT CAN REASONABLY BE FUNDED THROUGH CIL.
3. CIL 123 lists should be kept to a list of major key priority projects and not seek to deliver all infrastructure. These projects should be the big ticket items where S106 pooling restrictions prevent S106 agreements being a practical tool and where CIL receipts are sufficient to deliver within a reasonable timescale. The project list should exclude smaller projects/improvement schemes that are simpler/quicker/more enforceable for developers/LAs to deliver on or off site via S106 agreements where delivery can become a planning requirement.

Sport England therefore recommends:

1. The CIL list includes specific projects for sport facilities (indoor and/or outdoor) and not generic statements.
2. The statement clarifies that:
a. Mitigation for loss under NPPF Para 74 falls OUTSIDE of CIL
b. Clarification that S106 agreements will be used to secure new sports facilities needed to meet new demand arising from development for sports facilities (indoor and outdoor) where not already sought through the CIL (e.g. CIL may be used to fund a new leisure centre to meet growth in demand for swimming pool BUT S106’s would be used to fund all outdoor sport).the following issues should be taken into consideration as CIL progresses:

Any contribution must be based on evidence and the appropriate evidence for sport and recreation is a Needs Assessment to comply with the requirements of paragraph 73 of NPPF. Sport England has two guidance documents that’s et out an approach to Assessing Needs and Opportunities for:

• Indoor and Outdoor Sport ‘Assessing Needs and Opportunities Guidance’ http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/assessing-needs-and-opportunities-guidance/
• Playing Pitch Strategy Guidance ‘An Approach to developing and delivering a playing pitch strategy’ http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/playing-pitch-strategy-guidance/

Both guidance documents set out an approach to gather the required evidence and the approach can be tailored to suit the study area. Both guidance documents result in the preparation of site specific action plans that can then be used to direct investment either through developer contributions or funding opportunities.

Question 12

Without evidence from an Indoor and Outdoor Needs Assessment and a Playing Pitch Strategy it is impossible to determine whether allocations for sport and recreation uses are required. Without these assessment of need it is not known what the supply/demand balance is and whether there are deficiencies in the area that could be addressed through new allocations.

Question 18, 19 and 20

No consideration has been given to the function of the open space. Sport England would see playing fields in use as Important Open Space as they provide venues to participate in sport and meet sporting needs in the area. Paragraph 74 of NPPF and Sport England’s Playing Fields Policy make no distinction between privately and publicly owned playing fields and the policy requirements must be adhered to irrespective of ownership. Sport England is a statutory consultee on all planning applications that affect playing fields and our policy should be considered when formulating policy and considering allocations and designations:
http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/development-management/planning-applications/playing-field-land/

Without aerial photographs I cannot tell whether any of the sites identified as potential development sites are existing playing fields or last used as a playing field and remains undeveloped. If there are any playing fields used proposed, existing or disused, then a Playing Pitch Strategy will need to be prepared that clearly demonstrates the site is surplus to requirements and is not needed to meet an identified existing or future need. Sport England will object to any subsequent allocations on playing field without the appropriate evidence in place.

I hope you find these comments useful and please do not hesitate to contact the undersigned if you have any queries.
Fiona Pudge BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI