Implications for sport and recreation

Introduction

The consultation period for this was November 2004 to January 2005.  The consultation contains draft re-wording for Circular 1/97, and the outline of a good practice guide.  The ODPM plan to publish the circular later in 2005.  There is no consultation on the good practice guide, but it will be issued when the final circular is published.

Key elements of relevance for sport and recreation

Policies in LDFs and the necessity test - There is a new emphasis on policies in development plans defining what is necessary in planning terms to make new development acceptable.  It is important that LDFs specifically refer to the situations in which sport and recreation should be provided in conjunction with new development [para 8 and 24].

New typology for the use of obligations - Most obligations for sport and recreation will be justified under the headings of compensation or mitigation.  Compensation will be for loss of or damage (eg to open space or playing space) created by a development.  Obligations for mitigation will be in situations where ‘…a proposed development would give rise to the need for additional or expanded community infrastructure’ [paras 3 and 15- 16].

Past deficiencies - The circular accepts, that by asking for sport and recreation facilities which would not have been needed without the development, local authorities are conferring some wider benefit on the existing community.  Thus the rather artificial and rigid distinction between new demand and past deficiencies is removed.  The Draft Circular says that ’…planning obligations should not be used solely to resolve existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision’.  This should allow increased emphasis to be placed on the refurbishment of existing sport and recreation facilities through planning obligations.

Pooled contributions from different sites - The practice of pooling off site contributions across a number of schemes is acknowledged, reflecting current practice in the area of sport and recreation [para 19].

Pooled contributions across local authority boundaries - It is suggested that in future, pooling can take place across local authorities where there is a cross-authority impact.  Swimming pools, sports halls and other strategic facilities may have such impacts.  It would appear this arrangement should be in policy in the LDF to make the position clear [para 19].

Major facilities in growth areas - Where planning obligations issues arise, these should be addressed in the RSS, for later interpretation at local level in LDFs [para 27].

Formulae and standard charges - These are strongly encouraged; authorities should publish the levels of standard charges and formulae in advance This reflects the current position for many local authorities in terms of sport and recreation. Local authorities should state which matters they will treat in this way in their LDFs [paras 29 and 30].

Recovering administrative and other costs - Where the rates/levels of contributions are specified by the local authority in advance (eg through standard charges) it may be acceptable to seek contributions towards the funding of local authority obligations officers, legal fees, monitoring and the implementation of obligations [para 36].

Maintenance payments - Contributions should be time limited, and not be required in perpetuity. They may be sought where the facility is ‘…predominantly for the users of the associated development or neighbouring residents’.

Where contributions are appropriate they ‘…should reflect the time lag between the provision of the new facility and its inclusion in public sector funding streams’.

[Note: Maintenance contributions in SPGs for sport and recreation currently average some 10 years, plus an establishment period of one or two years. In some cases ‘discounted’ contributions for 20 years have been obtained].

In the Interim (before LDFs are approved) - The Circular encourages authorities to write SPD for planning obligations using the provisions in the Circular in the time period before local development framework policies are approved.    It appears therefore that no authority need be held up in preparing a scheme for sport and recreation obligations by progress or otherwise of their local development framework [para 25].

Click here for the full text of the Draft revised Circular on planning obligations, Consultation document, London, ODPM(2004).