Draft Charging Schedule - Jan 2017
Search representations
Results for Sport England search
New searchSupport
Draft Charging Schedule - Jan 2017
Draft Charging Schedule - Jan 2017
Representation ID: 70408
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Sport England
Sport England do not object to the CIL Draft Charging Schedule but would like to make the following comments:
It is considered that the following three guidelines should apply:
1. CIL should specifically exclude any mitigation measures required to make a development proposal satisfactory in planning terms
2. CIL 123 lists should only include defined projects and not use generic statements such as 'Indoor Sports Provision' and 'Outdoor Sports Provision'.
3. CIL 123 lists should be kept to a list of major key priority projects and not seek to deliver all infrastructure.
Sport England therefore recommends:
1. The CIL list includes specific projects for sport facilities (indoor and/or outdoor) and not generic statements.
2. The statement clarifies that:
a. Mitigation for loss under NPPF Para 74 falls OUTSIDE of CIL
b. Clarification that S106 agreements will be used to secure new sports facilities needed to meet new demand arising from development for sports facilities (indoor and outdoor) where not already sought through the CIL (e.g. CIL may be used to fund a new leisure centre to meet growth in demand for swimming pool BUT S106's would be used to fund
Sport England do not object to the CIL Draft Charging Schedule but would like to make the following general comments to inform Warwick DC's CIL 123 List:
It is considered that the following three guidelines should apply:
1. CIL should specifically exclude any mitigation measures required to make a development proposal satisfactory in planning terms, e.g. if housing is proposed on playing field the mitigation for that loss under NPPF Para 74 should be dealt with OUTSIDE of CIL.
2. CIL 123 lists should only include defined projects and not use generic statements such as 'Indoor Sports Provision' and 'Outdoor Sports Provision'. Our understanding of the legal position is that where a generic statement is used for a facility type then all provision is caught within CIL and therefore none can be delivered via S106 (to avoid double dipping). Whilst there is some clarity re. what S106 will cover (providing clarity in those instances only) the fact that no projects have been listed under the CIL column for CIL funding will mean all outdoor sports projects not listed in the S106 column will by default be expected to be funded by CIL therefore the LA will be prevented from seeking S106 funding for anything other than clear mitigation on those sites listed. Sport England therefore suggests the CIL column is revised in terms of both Indoor and Outdoor Sports Provision to include ONLY SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT CAN REASONABLY BE FUNDED THROUGH CIL.
3. CIL 123 lists should be kept to a list of major key priority projects and not seek to deliver all infrastructure. These projects should be the big ticket items where S106 pooling restrictions prevent S106 agreements being a practical tool and where CIL receipts are sufficient to deliver within a reasonable timescale. The project list should exclude smaller projects/improvement schemes that are simpler/quicker/more enforceable for developers/LAs to deliver on or off site via S106 agreements where delivery can become a planning requirement.
Sport England therefore recommends:
1. The CIL list includes specific projects for sport facilities (indoor and/or outdoor) and not generic statements.
2. The statement clarifies that:
a. Mitigation for loss under NPPF Para 74 falls OUTSIDE of CIL
b. Clarification that S106 agreements will be used to secure new sports facilities needed to meet new demand arising from development for sports facilities (indoor and outdoor) where not already sought through the CIL (e.g. CIL may be used to fund a new leisure centre to meet growth in demand for swimming pool BUT S106's would be used to fund