BOROUGH OF POOLE

SERVICE PROVISION SCRUTINY AND AUDIT COMMITTEE 4 NOVEMBER 2004

PLANNING OBLIGATIONS FOR RECREATION FACILITIES: BACKGROUND INFORMATION

1. Introduction

1.1 The attached Member Guide to Recreation Planning Obligations was written in 2000, and addressed Member concerns about the justification for and use of the financial contributions made by developers. Although circumstances have changed since the note was written, the general guidance on purpose and use remains valid.

1.2 Also attached is a breakdown of the contributions collected at September 2004. In the 9 years that the policy has been implemented, total contributions negotiated amounts to £5m, of which £3.39 has been collected, with collection of the remainder triggered at points set out in Section 106 agreements.

1.3 The concept of planning obligations has frequently raised questions about the following issues: i. Policy justification; ii. Use of the funds collected; and iii. The ability to spend the funds.

2. Policy Justification

2.1 Planning obligations have a planning purpose; they enable a developer to overcome an impediment to development and, as a result, enable an otherwise unacceptable development to take place. In the past, this has usually related to the provision of necessary infrastructure (highway access, drainage etc) when existing capacity has been inadequate to cope with the development. In the case of large developments, necessary social and other facilities would also have been provided on-site for new residents. Many of the Borough’s estates, developed during the 60s, 70s and 80s have community facilities, open space and other facilities provided in this way.

2.2 Occasionally, developers have voluntarily offered to provide facilities not strictly necessary for the development. This has rarely happened in Poole, the Council always playing the planning process by the book. On the odd occasion, developers will, at their own instigation, embellish their applications in order to enlist the support of the local community. For example, when Sainsburys submitted their application for the Alder Hills superstore, it was accompanied by proposals for a Health Centre and a Community Hall, their pre-application consultation having told them that such facilities were what the local community wanted. These facilities, although ultimately provided, were not demanded by the Council as “the price” for permission. 2.3 Circular 1/97, referred to in the attached Member Guide, was published in response to what was perceived as abuses of the system nationwide. Our own policy stance has always ensured that the Council complies with the rigorous tests of necessity and reasonableness demanded. Members have been keen to ensure that our processes are as transparent as possible. What was relatively new about our recreation obligations policy was that it required contributions from all residential development, including single dwelling schemes, on the basis that the cumulative impact of windfall development which is now characterising residential development in the Borough would be significant and require additional facilities to cope. Our approach was implemented, following legal advice, in the teeth of opposition from GOSW. It was groundbreaking at the time and we are quoted by Sport England as an example of best practice in their Guide and we have spoken at regional seminars on the issue.

3. Use of Funds

3.1 The funds must be used for the purpose for which they were collected. In order to justify the policy a fairly complicated analysis was undertaken, identifying need under a number of headings, ranging from facilities with Borough-wide catchments to equipped children’s play with very local catchments. This was necessary if need was to be established for very small developments. Expenditure therefore has to be similarly sophisticated.

3.2 It is clearly important to stress that the funding does not represent “a pot” to be drawn on for schemes unrelated to the needs of new development and for which there is no capital budget. Ideally, the Council should relate its expenditure in this area to a programme of projects drawn up by Leisure Services and approved by Council.

4. The Ability to Spend the Funds

4.1 Although the total funding secured for recreational purposes is significant, when it is broken down by type of need and, in the case of facilities with local catchments, by sub-area the sums involved can be relatively small. This means that it can take some time for sufficient funds to accumulate to support worthwhile investment.

4.2 The essential problem is easily summed up; these funds are collected to fund investment required to serve the net increase in population arising from development. In other words, it is a top-up to the capital programme to ensure that capacity is enhanced to accommodate growth.

5. The Council Response

5.1 We have responded to this issue over the years by reviewing the way in which catchments and priorities are established. This has included: i. The concept of large scale amenity provision (Upton Park, Poole Park, the beaches and chines) with Borough-wide catchments; ii. The rationalisation of previously ward based catchments into a more flexible approach, with larger catchment areas; iii. Area Committee involvement in priority setting.

5.2 A Planning Obligations Working Group has also been meeting with a view to further reviewing catchment mapping and simplifying the collection and allocation of money. Whilst a simpler, more strategic, approach is to be welcomed, planning obligations cannot be separated from Local Plan and Open Space Strategy issues otherwise we will fail the need test; we will be seen simply as tax collectors. Nevertheless, there is scope for simplification.

6. Changing Circumstances

6.1 There have been a number of changes in the years since the Recreation Obligations policy was first mooted, and the recent changes to the planning system are also likely to herald a new approach to their negotiation: i. The Council is now a unitary authority. On the face of it this should make no difference. However, as a District Council, recreation loomed large in the capital programme and, despite initial objection, the development industry has accepted what is a very small liability in relation to very high land values. However, work on obligations required in the Regeneration Area has indicated that there is a much broader range of requirements; ii. One of those requirements is the need for a balanced housing market and, in this regard the Government has established an exception to the need/reasonableness tests. Based on local housing needs surveys, local authorities are able to negotiate for a proportion of affordable housing in residential schemes. This inevitably imposes a significant burden on such schemes and usually outweighs by some margin other requirements; iii. The Borough is about to embark on a period during which allocated sites will once again provide a significant proportion of new house-building. In other words, the town centre brown field concentration will require a focus on area-based obligations rather than those secured through the innovative process the Council introduced in 1995; iv. The national framework for negotiating obligations is likely to change. As part of the planning reform process, the Government had been promoting a change in the system and had consulted on the merits of a tariff approach rather than a process of negotiating obligations through Section 106 agreements. Subsequently, it looked as though a system of giving the developer a choice of either approach was favoured. However, one of Kate Barker’s recommendations, following her study of housing supply for the Treasury, is that part of the uplift in value which accrues as a result of the grant of planning permission should in effect be taxed. This money, or whatever proportion the Chancellor deems fit, will then be returned to local authorities. However, there might be no guarantee that the authorities which raise the most money will be a high priority for receiving it. Barker also recommends that the negotiation of obligations should return to the position whereby site related benefits only are secured. This begs the question of what a site related benefit is; this Council could legitimately argue that it has only ever negotiated to meet such requirements. The changes are unlikely to be made before next spring.

6.2 With regard to the proposed changes, it is instructive to note research undertaken by the British Property Federation as a contribution to the debate on planning reform. This suggested that our general approach to securing obligations is not significantly different to other LPAs and that most negotiations focus on on-site/ short term measures. Key points included:

i. Area specific obligations (eg masterplan area) are perceived as unfair on developers with land in such an area. This implies a preference for the certainty of some kind of tax. ii. The spending of S106 money is not celebrated; developers would appreciate recognition and it would also 'close the loop' for members and the public to see results from protracted negotiations. This would be much easier for large scale area based obligations rather than the tariff approach we have adopted in respect of recreation; iii. LPAs are not good at measuring, and requiring, contributions for cumulative impact (not true in the case of Poole); and iv. LEAs are becoming more proactive in securing education 106 funding.

7. Conclusion

7.1 With so much uncertainty surrounding the future of Planning Policy in this area, it is not proposed to amend the policy now. When the changes are established it is our intention to amalgamate all our supplementary planning guidance on obligations into one statutory Development Plan Document under the new system. However, this does not affect the process which the Council uses to identify scheme priorities.

David Ralph

Head of Strategic Planning BREAKDOWN OF COSTS

B3137: YOUTH / B3138: B3136: MAJOR ADULT EQUIPPED B3131: TOTAL WW4001 BUILT OUTDOOR CHILDREN'S B3139: AMENITY (excluding 98042 OUTSTANDING TOTAL FACILITIES PLAY PLAY CASUAL PLAY OPEN SPACE admin fee) ADMIN FEE AMOUNT DUE AMOUNT PAID WARD £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ £ 010 - Hamworthy 23,746.25 35,491.46 33,504.29 60,758.34 100,218.57 253,718.91 1,638.18 38,300.51 217,056.58 020 - Harbour 89,732.32 43,655.19 307,720.63 249,463.46 619,922.69 1,460,494.29 6,883.93 932,714.39 534,663.83 030 - Parkstone 31,010.48 12,775.70 79,694.80 157,963.37 253,739.21 535,183.51 5,244.36 87,477.35 452,950.52 040 - Penn Hill 23,224.53 14,048.76 56,077.17 112,145.95 185,318.64 392,631.09 3,240.94 40,808.27 355,063.76 050 - Canford Cliffs 41,562.04 27,998.22 106,398.89 175,817.57 291,671.34 643,448.06 4,942.85 197,519.79 450,848.52 060 - Bourne Valley 39,813.47 29,468.98 103,331.91 129,741.26 209,618.19 526,230.17 3,737.20 122,662.92 407,304.45 070 - Alderney 5,305.49 3,544.02 19,279.36 26,799.69 42,495.47 97,424.03 703.54 6,881.70 91,245.87 080 - Newtown 39,091.92 28,103.56 105,811.13 181,922.40 317,769.57 674,500.12 6,796.98 334,572.61 346,724.49 090 - Oakdale 12,715.53 5,905.90 36,527.61 59,006.40 93,697.45 207,852.89 2,011.00 42,641.33 167,222.56 100 - Canford Heath 5,152.06 10,329.61 3,005.86 4,949.49 7,856.07 31,293.09 67.80 24,513.09 6,847.80 110 - Creekmoor 1,526.61 597.78 5,175.54 8,163.91 12,969.33 28,433.17 350.30 16,057.30 12,726.17 120 - Broadstone 8,546.49 5,281.82 27,589.12 43,010.28 69,086.40 153,514.11 1,429.60 65,141.30 89,802.41 130 - Canford Magna 1,755.83 1,155.14 5,947.27 7,782.88 14,057.64 30,698.76 212.44 8,396.72 22,514.48

POOLE TOTAL 323,183.02 218,356.14 890,063.58 1,217,525.00 2,218,420.57 5,035,422.20 37,259.12 1,917,687.28 3,154,971.44 PLANNING OBLIGATIONS FOR RECREATION

MEMBER GUIDE

1. Introduction

1.1 The policy announcing the intention of the Council to negotiate with developers for the provision of recreation facilities through planning obligations was included in the Draft Poole Local Plan 1994. The Draft Plan, together with Draft Supplementary Planning Guidance explaining how the obligations policy would work, was the subject of public consultation before confirmation in the Deposit Plan and adopted SPG. The Council agreed to implement the policy in August 1995, prior to the public local inquiry into the Plan, in order to avoid the prospect of developers submitting a flood of planning applications for the sole purpose of circumventing the proposed policy. The Council agreed to return any contributions made if the policy was not included in the finally adopted Plan.

1.2 In the event, the policy received the support of the Inspector who conducted the Local Plan inquiry and has been supported on appeal. The Supplementary Planning Guidance has already been updated and a further amendment, following public consultation, is the subject of a report to the Planning and Transportation Committee on 30 March 2000. Nevertheless, there remains a degree of confusion about the policy and its implementation. The purpose of this note is to briefly explain that process.

2. The Need for the Policy

2.1 During the 60s, 70s and 80s rapid population growth was accommodated through the provision of new housing largely on green field sites, such as Canford Heath, Merley, Bearwood and Creekmoor. These were large scale developments, able to accommodate their recreational needs on-site.

2.2 More recently the balance has shifted and the Structure Plan now requires the Borough to accommodate 9,500 dwellings between 1994 and 2011, largely through small developments within the urban area. This also reflects Government policy encouraging brown field development. The cumulative impact of this level of housebuilding will be substantial and will place additional pressure on the Borough’s recreational resources. A policy is therefore required to ensure that new development meets its own needs even where the development is too small to accommodate those needs on-site.

3. The Statutory Justification for the Policy

3.1 The DETR’s Draft Revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 12, “Development Plans” (1999), reiterates the advice contained in the current (1992) version that the adequacy of infrastructure is a material consideration in determining planning applications and that the local authority’s policy should be set out in development plans where constraints are to be overcome on a regularly recurring basis. 3.2 Planning Policy Guidance Note 17, “Sport and Recreation” (1991), indicates that Local Plans are the appropriate context in which to establish local recreational needs and that planning agreements might cover contributions from small developments to nearby sport and recreation or open space provision.

3.3 The recently revised Planning Policy Guidance Note 3, “Housing” (2000), emphasises the importance of local infrastructure capacity in accommodating new housing.

3.4 Circular 1/97 offers guidance on planning obligations, which should be fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development and necessary for the development to proceed. These tests have been applied by the Local Plan inquiry and appeal Inspectors and the Council’s policy approach has been endorsed. The Government has announced its intention to review its policy on obligations, the document “Modernising Planning” having offered encouragement to innovative approaches in this field.

4. Local Plan Policy L21

4.1 The Borough's recreational needs were established through the co-ordinated preparation of the Local Plan and the Council's Leisure Strategy. The principal components of need are:  A capital programme of built facilities;  The National Playing Fields Association standard of 6 acres (2.4ha) of open space per 1000 population, covering the provision of playing fields, casual play space, equipped children's play; and  A requirement for 0.8 ha amenity open space per 1000.

4.2 Policy L21 of the Local Plan requires residential development to make provision for necessary recreational facilities to the standard described in paragraph 4.1, above. Generally, a contribution would be made to the off-site provision of these facilities, with the exception of amenity open space and casual play space which can be provided on site if the proposed development is large enough to support the provision of an area of at least 0.2ha.

4.3 Since provision levels are population based, the level of contributions is based on the net increase in the population generated by new housebuilding. This has regard to the fact that the population is growing less fast than the housing stock because average household size is falling.

4.4 In calculating population increase, occupancy rates are varied for houses and flats. No other distinctions are made because Census data indicates that dwelling size has little influence on occupancy.

4.5 Nevertheless, it is recognised that type of residential accommodation will influence the need for different types of recreation facility. Houses and flats are expected to contribute to all types of facility. Bed-sits, hostels, student accommodation and sheltered accommodation are not expected to contribute to children's play or casual play. Very sheltered accommodation, rest and nursing homes are not expected to make any contribution. 4.6 The need for a contribution to a particular type of facility also varies with its catchment area. Outdoor play (playing fields), major built facilities and certain major areas of amenity space are deemed to have a Borough-wide catchment and a contribution will always be sought. Casual play and amenity open space is generally held to have a ward based catchment area, though this may be applied flexibly when the development is on the periphery of a ward. For children’s play, a contribution is only sought where a new or improved facility is or can be provided within 400m of the development, although even this figure may be varied according to the type of facility planned.

4.7 The level of contributions is updated in line with inflation and there are other variations in the application of the policy. For full details, Members should consult the Supplementary Planning Guidance, itself.

4.8 Developers occasionally prefer to make their contribution prior to the permission being issued and without the need for a legal agreement. Sometimes a single payment is made on completion of a legal agreement. In the case of larger developments, the legal agreement may allow phased payment as the development proceeds. The administrative burden varies according to the method of payments and the small administrative charge varies accordingly.

5. Recreational Provision

5.1 The level of contributions made since the policy was applied in 1995 is set out at the end of this note. The contributions are kept in a ring-fenced fund.

5.2 Borough-wide provision is allocated to schemes in the Culture and Leisure Committee's capital programme.

5.3 Ward based schemes can draw on the funds collected from developments in that ward. Priorities within wards are to be established by the Joint Culture and Leisure and Planning and Transportation Task Force subject to consultation with Ward Members who will want to take soundings from their own ward.

6. Conclusion

6.1 The fund has so far only contributed to provision at Princess Road. However, the Task Force is set to receive its first annual report which will be submitted to the respective Committee's at their next meeting.

6.2 Nearly £200,000 of funding for Borough-wide provision has been committed to Carter Community School, Upton Country Park and the Council's playing pitch strategy. Ward based expenditure will also begin in the new financial year.

6.3 The administrative charge will provide for a part time post, which will facilitate site by site monitoring of income and expenditure, enabling regular reports to be made to Members on progress. Planning Obligations – Recreation Contributions

Summary of contributions spent and allocated

What has been collected and how much of it has been spent or allocated?

Collection Collected Spent Allocated Balance Remaining Major Built 215,927 25,245 49,000 141,682 Facilities Youth/Adult 159,971 108,110 4,846 47,015 Outdoor Play Upton Country Park 95,295 13,076 42,575 39,644 Beaches 344,594 7,050 38,000 299,544 Poole Park 322,296 0 23,000 299,296 Equipped 608,461 143,148 0 465,313 Children’s Play Casual Play and 1,641,391 226,034 287,918 1,127,439 Amenity Open Space Totals 3,387,935 522,663 445,339 2,419,933

What have the funds been spent on?

The funds have been used to deliver a wide range of improvements to open spaces and recreational facilities in the Borough. These include provision of play areas, skateparks, floodlights, delivery of management plans and lighting improvements. Expenditure aims to increase the carrying capacity of existing sites and facilities, in so much as it brings previously underused areas into use and makes sites more welcoming and attractive to potential users.

What are the allocated funds going to be used for?

Allocated funds are those which have been approved to be used on specific sites or facilities. These have all been through the appropriate approval process. In some cases the projects that these funds are allocated to deliver may not have started yet but the allocation represents a financial commitment to the project as and when it is progressed.