brentwood.gov.uk

The policy is supported in principle as it is proposed that new development will make open space (including outdoor sports) provision on-site or through developer contributions to meet the additional needs generated. However, I have the following concerns:

* A restrictive approach is taken to the use of commuted sums in broad terms. While this may be appropriate for other open space types, in relation to outdoor sport, with the exception of the proposed Dunton Garden Village proposal, it is considered that it will be unlikely to be practical or appropriate for any of the other housing allocations in the plan to make on-site provision for outdoor sport in view of the large land take required to make playing fields and other outdoor sports facilities fir for purpose and sustainable and the need for supporting ancillary infrastructure. A less restrictive approach towards the use of commuted sums for outdoor sports open space is therefore required.
* Where open space provision in the form of outdoor sports is considered necessary, it would appear that developments will be expected to meet conventional quantity standards derived from the current evidence base. While this may be helpful for the limited occasions where on-site provision is made, this is not appropriate for securing developer contributions. In particular, there are no current specific priority facility projects identified for meeting current or future needs e.g. new/enhanced leisure centre projects, new playing field/outdoor sports projects etc. This approach would not be consistent with Sport England's current guidance on assessing needs and strategy preparation which is focused around identifying sport specific needs and developing specific proposals to respond to such needs. Our current guidance does not endorse a standards led approach to provision and the NPPF (unlike PPG17 which it replaced) does not specifically advocate the use of standards for providing sports facilities. There are also concerns about the compatibility of the standards approach with the CIL Regulations due to a more forensic approach being taken in practice to the interpretation of Regulation 122 in relation to the tests of the use of planning obligations to secure sports facilities and the pooling limits that are now in place for developer contributions towards sport where planning obligations are still used. Whether sport is secured through CIL (through sports facility projects being identified on the Regulation 123 list) or through developer contributions secured by planning obligations, an up-to-date evidence base with a strategy that includes specific projects is now considered necessary for ensuring that new developments meet the additional needs that they generate for sport. Authorities that continue to rely on standards and securing developer contributions towards generic infrastructure types (such as outdoor sport) are now struggling to secure provision in practice due to the constraints imposed by the CIL regulations.
To address these concerns it is first requested that the policy confirms that commuted sums will be acceptable for securing developer contributions towards outdoor sports facilities.
Second, to address the above concerns about the use of standards, it is requested that the emerging evidence base for sport is used to identify strategic priority projects (in the strategy and action plan documents that evolve from the Sport and leisure Study) which should then be used for informing what projects will be included in an IDP. Following feasibility work, priority projects included in the IDP should be assessed to determine which will be funded by a future CIL (through inclusion on a CIL Regulation 123 list) and which will be funded by planning obligations (through an approach set out in a complementary Planning Obligations Strategy that is consistent with the CIL regulations and which accounts for the constraints imposed by the pooling restrictions on developer contributions). It should be noted that the inclusion of generic infrastructure types (e.g. outdoor sport) in CIL Regulation 123 lists or planning obligations strategies is not favoured as this is more likely to preclude developer contributions being secured through planning obligations which is important in the context of the likelihood that CIL will only have a limited ability to fund community sports projects in view of competing infrastructure demands. In practice, it would be preferable for CIL to only include a very small number of identified strategic projects and for planning obligations to be used for securing funding for other identified sports facility projects to maximise the potential for the policy to provide adequately for outdoor sport. The policy and supporting text should provide guidance on how provision for outdoor sport will be secured in practice in the context of this advice and the use of standards should be qualified accordingly.