Archived decisions

RESPONSE TO "CHANGES TO PLANNING OBLIGATIONS: A PLANNING-GAIN SUPPLEMENT CONSULTATION", DEPARTMENT FOR COMMUNITIES AND LOCAL GOVERNMENT

1. The Government has published a suite of documents in regard to the proposed introduction of a Planning-Gain Supplement (PGS). Broadly speaking, the purpose of a PGS is to capture a portion of the land value uplift arising from the planning process in order to fund the infrastructure required to make new development both successful and sustainable. An initial consultation document published in December 2005 proposed the introduction of a PGS and this was considered by the Cabinet on 27 February 2006 resulting in a detailed response being sent to the Government.

2. Subsequently, the Department for Communities and Local Government (DCLG) published a further consultation document relating to changes to planning obligations, which is of particular relevance to the County Council. The approach set out in the consultation document is in line with that put forward in the December 2005 consultation and suggests that the Government intends to take forward the introduction of a PGS in parallel with a scaled-back system of planning obligations resulting in a "twin-track" approach to developer contributions. Accordingly, the Cabinet considered a report on 26 February 2007 which summarised the main issues in regard to the Government's proposals as follows:

· the `Development Site Environment' approach - limits planning obligations to those matters which relate directly to the viability of the physical environment of the site and to affordable housing


· in-kind contributions of land for public and community facilities on large sites - under the `development-site environment' approach, contributions towards community and social facilities associated with a new development would fall within the scope of the PGS rather than within the scope of planning obligations, with a separate decision being required on the treatment of the land on which the facilities are located


· affordable housing - the Government wishes to clarify the basis for delivery of affordable housing through the planning system, for example by reviewing whether improvements could be made to the current legal basis for planning obligations for affordable housing contributions or by producing clear policy statements


· use of planning obligations/highway agreements for managing the transport impacts of new developments - the Government is seeking views on which aspects of transport provision might best be included within planning obligations or highway agreements in future and which aspects might be better dealt with directly by the public sector using PGS and other revenues


· use of planning obligations versus planning conditions - the Government proposes to reinforce the current policy presumption that planning obligations should only be used where it is not possible to use a planning condition, but not to provide for this in legislation in order to retain flexibility

3. Although the Government has heeded requests for more detail by publishing the current range of documents and inviting views on detailed technical aspects, the Cabinet were mindful that it is still unclear as to how several aspects of the new system would operate such as the taxation rate, the level of funds to be repatriated locally and what mechanism will be used to allocate the funds in a two-tier area. It is still not possible to assess whether this would be advantageous or detrimental to Hampshire in terms of funding infrastructure provision. The Cabinet concluded therefore that a risk-averse approach was the right way forward to endeavour to keep as much as possible within the planning obligations system whilst continuing to pursue a tariff-based approach, where appropriate.

4. The Cabinet agreed a response on behalf of the County Council particularly emphasising that:

· the County Council believes that infrastructure requirements at the county level would be delivered more effectively through a locally collected and administered tariff system under S106 rather than through a PGS, which would promote the benefits of simplicity and certainty for developers and the community; and


· if a PGS is introduced, the County Council considers that 100% of the funding should be reallocated locally in support of timely and adequate provision of infrastructure alongside development, which is critical to the delivery of sustainable communities and to public acceptance of new development.

5. A copy of the substantive response is available in the Members' Rooms and additional copies can be obtained, upon request, from Democratic Services in the Chief Executive's Department.