The HBF submitted written comments in relation to King's Lyn and West Norfolk District Council's SPG 'A Strategy for Playing Pitches and Other Outdoor Facilities'.
On page 16 of the summary it is stated that it is increasingly common to seek developer contributions to secure assistance towards off-site improvements, as well as on-site provision, so long as the beneficiary is related to the development in question. The HBF would add that this linkage to the development is highly important. It will expect any future draft local plan policy on this matter to fully conform with the limitations set out in Circular 1/97. It will also expect any requirement to be at an appropriate threshold, and only be applicable if an identified deficit would arise as a result of a particular development. Developers should not be expected to rectify existing wider shortfalls of facilities and services.
In respect of the explanation for Recommendation 1 it is unclear in respect of new housing whether as a result of targeted promotion of participation the report is suggesting that greater amounts of playing pitch provision will be necessary. If so, it is considered unreasonable for developers to fund this greater level of provision.
In terms of Recommendation 3, the need to retain all sports pitches even if they do not have a current use is questioned, particularly given recommendation 4 (see comments below). If schools or other educational sites possess land that is surplus to requirements they should be allowed to develop it if the end result would be a net improvement in local sports facilities. Indeed, many Authorities are finding that they have a greater need for large concentrations of playing pitches in single locations rather than for smaller facilities spread over a wider area that are less flexible and more difficult to manage.
Recommendation 4 does seem to allow the development of non-school and educational playing pitch facilities to go ahead given the circumstances set out above.
Maintenance payments should only be sought in relation to the exceptional circumstances set out in Circular 1/97, and then only for a limited period of time.
Recommendation 5 that the developers of all new housing should be required to contribute to an on and off-site playing pitch provision and enhancement in accordance with an agreed formula is clearly unreasonable and contrary to Circular 1/97. Such a policy would be strongly resisted were it to appear in a future draft Local Plan.
Recommendations 8 and 9 seek to retain all football pitches and cricket pitches. In the case of the latter, it is stated that there is a need for appropriate provision to facilitate the development of girls and womens cricket. This would seem to indicate that where such a need does not presently exist, the Council is trying to create one. Pitches should not be protected regardless of actual need. Nor should they be protected if their development could result in new or improved sports facilities elsewhere.
Recommendation 13 states that the Council should consider the development of an outdoor youth provision strategy, in association with the development of the Local Plan/New Housing Allocations. Again, any future requirement should be directly related to a substantive need generated by the number of additional youths likely to emanate as a result of the new residential development.
The key point that the Council needs to recognise is that if it wishes to seek greater levels of public open space, sports facilities, youth facilities, maintenance payments e.t.c. from developers the available pot of money is only so big. In the case of many brownfield development sites the pot can often be very small (or indeed totally empty). Consequently, if developers are being asked by the Council to fund increased levels of leisure facilities in connection with their developments, then they will not expect to have to contribute so much towards affordable housing, educational provision, road infrastructure improvements e.t.c.
The Council should seek rather than demand specific levels of provision. Its requirements should be flexible and fairly related in scale to the development and fully accord with Circular 1/97. If the requirements are too onerous, the Council is likely to fail to meet and deliver its Structure Plan housing requirement.
For further information please contact HBF Eastern Regional Planner: Paul Cronk on 0207 608 5114 or at paul.cronk@hbf.co.uk