Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

Support

Representation ID: 332

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Sport England (East Office)

Sport England welcomes the Council's recognition of the essential role that community facilities play in ensuring that a balanced and quality environment is created and the need to enhance the infrastructure to meet the needs of further growth. In this context, the specific proposal in paragraph 2.26 to seek the provision of, or improvements to, built sports facilities, playing fields and other outdoor sports facilities in major development is especially supported.

Object

Representation ID: 333

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Sport England (East Office)

. However, objection is made to the lack of detail in the SPD about how new developments will actually make provision for community facilities in practice. The approach proposed in paragraph 2.2 of the SPD where the scale and scope of a planning obligation will be determined by negotiation in relation to the specific circumstances of the development is of concern as this does not offer clarity, consistency and transparency with respect to how planning obligations for community facilities such as sports facilities will be identified, calculated and secured in practice. While Circular 05/2005 does not require standard charges/formulae to be used by local authorities, they do offer the benefit of speeding up negotiations and ensure predicatability and transparency as set out in the Circular. Most local authorities have now taken this approach with respect to planning obligations relating to sports facilities as the majority of developments would not be expect to make on-site provision and therefore an off-site contribution using a standard charge/formulae is preferable.

Object

Representation ID: 334

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Sport England (East Office)

The preferred option that was proposed in paragraphs 6.8-6.16 (and Appendix 3) of the Council's Planning Obligations and Vehicle Parking Standards DPD Pre-Submission Public Participation document (2006) was broadly supported as it provided detail and clarity on how a developer contributions scheme for open space, sport and recreation would operate in practice. The approach proposed in the current SPD consultation document is considered to be a step back from this as this provides no certainty to developers or the community about the scope and extent of developer contributions that will be expected with respect to community facilities. While acknowledging that viability of individual proposals should be accounted for this can still be built in to a planning obligations scheme through guidance on when exceptions will be acceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 335

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Sport England (East Office)

To address Sport England's concerns with respect to planning obligations for sports facilities (indoor and outdoor), it is requested that the following matters are considered and incorporated into a revised SPD:
* Identification of what the standards are for sports facilities as this provides the basis for justifying and calculating developer contributions for sports facilities.
* What development types in broad terms will be expected to make provision for sports facilities e.g. residential developments, employment developments, tourist developments etc
* What specific development types will be excluded from making provision for sport e.g. nursing homes, replacement dwellings, dwelling extensions etc;
* What are the thresholds for on-site and off-site sports facility provision. Cut off points are important to ensure a balance between major developments making on-site provision where viable and justified and the need to avoid lots of small scale sports facilities being provided as part of developments which are not responsive to local needs when an off-site contribution towards a strategic facility would have been more appropriate;
* Guidance on the occupancy sizes of dwellings to ensure that there is a link between the expected population of a dwelling and the scale of the contribution/provision.
* Details on the methodology for calculating developer contributions and what costs are included in the contributions.
* Details of how the Council will use pooled developer contributions to demonstrate transparency e.g. a prioritised list of community sports facility projects which help implement local strategies.

Comment

Representation ID: 336

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Sport England (East Office)

Without guidance being provided on the above matters, these matters will have to be considered on a case by case basis for every individual planning application which will be time consuming, not provide clarity/certainty to developers and the community, and the Council will be vulnerable to challenges of inconsistency and a lack of transparency. It is considered that the matters outlined above would apply to a wide range of infrastructure types, not just sport and therefore it is important that these concerns are fully considered before the SPD is adopted. Sport England has published detailed guidance on the issues that need to be considered when preparing a SPD relating to planning obligations for sport which provides detailed advice on the issues raised above.