Sport England’s initial views on the CIL proposal

Taking into account the Government paper The Community Infrastructure Levy (2008), and the Community Infrastructure Impact Assessment (Nov 2008), Sport England has the following initial views

Strong support for the idea that the CIL should be plan-led and based on costed lists of infrastructure projects. These should be one of the outcomes of local audits, carried out under guidance in PPG 17. This type of link should be made clear as the scheme proceeds;

• There is a need to ensure that sport and recreation facilities of local, sub regional and regional importance are included in the definition of infrastructure adopted;
• A Keenness to see refurbishment as well as new build within the scheme; definition of what costs can be included in new build and refurbishment could be useful included (eg initial fit out costs of sports centres etc, measures to reduce carbon emissions);
• Support for parallel Section 106 and CIL systems; but there is a need to define carefully the boundary between them so that sport is not disadvantaged;
• In particular there is a need to define what sports facility provision situations fall under the definition of ‘site-related’ provisions, and which will fall under CIL;
• Information should be provided on how far CIL income could be used for soft infrastructure such as sports development workers associated with new and refurbished facilities;
• Commuted sum payments for maintenance of playing fields and other sports facilities have not been covered in the discussion of CIL; such provisions should be included and defined in any new Regulations; alternatively they could remain within the scope of Section 106 agreements;
• More is information needed on how proposed loans/guarantees would work, in particular some clarity on the types of sports etc organisations that could be in receipt of them, is required.
• Community level sport may suffer as the charge will make it easier for LA’s to coordinate contributions towards larger infrastructure items that contribute to the wider development of their local area. Speculating this could lead to playing field costs being squeezed out by strategic new roads and rail expenditure for example.
• The Government is investigating the role that CIL may have in creating community funds to underpin the long term maintenance of public realm which mainly relates to green infrastructure. If agreed, there are analogous situations for sport and recreation which could be pursued.
• Nothing has yet been said on how the delivery of local community infrastructure needs generated by development will actually be secured or guaranteed.
• Much of CIL it appears, could be prioritised for strategic infrastructure, with LA’s having to accept strategic road and rail proposals handed down from other authorities/agencies.
• LA’s will be encouraged to undertake the preparation and public examination of their core strategy at the same time as the preparation and examination of their draft CIL charging schedules. This overlap may affect the delivery of supplementary planning documents impacting on sport and recreation.
• It is important to note, that sport and recreation (unlike transport, health etc.) has relatively few resources from elsewhere to provide for community sporting and recreational needs. Therefore CIL will be of greater importance to sport, and local priorities should reflect this.

Associated Document

Planning Policy Statement 12, published on 4 June 2008, gives up-dates guidance on the prepartion of SPDs.

Paragraphs 4.8-4.12 cover effective local infrastructure planning, which should underpin LDF core strategies. PPS 12 states that the infrastrucuture planning process should identify, as far as possible:

• Infrastrucuture needs and cost
• Phasing of development
• Funding Sources; and
• Responsibilites for delivery.

Planning Policy Statement 12 'Creating strong, safe and prosperous communities through local spatial planning' is available for download here.

(This entry dated 16 December 2008)