Recommandé
Contenu connexe
Tendances
Tendances (20)
En vedette
En vedette (20)
Similaire à Jim Cliffe - Viability
Similaire à Jim Cliffe - Viability (20)
Plus de PAS_Team
Plus de PAS_Team (20)
Dernier
Dernier (20)
Jim Cliffe - Viability
- 1. S106 -2 day viability course- York Gilian Macinnes Date: June 2015 www.pas.gov.uk
- 2. It is all about delivery • Growth • Viability – including developer/landowner motivation • Mitigation - Infrastructure • Community expectations • Policy requirements – e.g. affordable housing
- 3. Money money money There is only so much - how much? • What will bring development forward? • You need to have information on viability • You have choices
- 4. Viability is a tool Viability is a material consideration
- 6. s106 obligations can: • restrict the development or use of the land in any specified way • require specified operations or activities to be carried out in, on, under or over the land • require the land to be used in any specified way; or • require a sum or sums to be paid to the authority on a specified date or dates or periodically.
- 7. S106 can: • be subject to conditions, • specify restrictions definitely or indefinitely, • And in terms of payments the timing of these can be specified in the obligation. If the s106 is not complied with, it is enforceable against the person that entered into the obligation and any subsequent owner. The s106 can be enforced by injunction.
- 8. S106 Obligations • S106 is not replaced by CIL but… • Viability - reality – pre 2008 and post 2008 • Legislation -pre and post 2010 CIL regulations and now post April 2015
- 9. S106 - tests • If the development is capable of being charged CIL, the S106 obligation must meet these legal tests: • NECESSARY to make the development acceptable in planning terms • DIRECTLY RELATED to the development • FAIRLY AND REASONABLY related in kind and scale to the development • These are also now the policy tests in the NPPF
- 10. S106 obligations • Site specific mitigation measures • April 2015/CIL adoption onwards up to 5 obligations where infrastructure not funded by CIL – restricted pooling • NPPF- planning obligations should take into account changes in market conditions over time and, where appropriate, be flexible to prevent stalling (para. 205)
- 11. PPG: planning obligations • LPAs will need to understand the impact of planning obligations and should be flexible…Affordable housing contributions are often the largest single item sought on housing developments. These contributions should not be sought without regard to individual scheme viability.
- 12. PPG – Planning Obligations • Assessing viability should lead to an understanding of the scale of planning obligations…where safeguards are necessary to make a particular development acceptable, and these safeguards cannot be secured, planning permission should not be granted.
- 13. Necessary to make acceptable in planning terms: Persimmon Homes North Midlands v SSCLG [2011] EWHC 3931: -High Court upheld the decision of an Inspector who dismissed an application for planning permission for 200 dwellings on the basis that it was not possible to determine whether the section 106 obligations complied with the CIL Regulations. -“It seems to me that those requirements could properly be said to be directly attributable to, though not exclusively so, to amongst other factors the proposed development by this developer, and that some contribution to those requirements was therefore necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms.” Source: Andrew parkinson Landmark chambers
- 14. Land north of Littleworth Road, Benson Appeal Ref: APP/Q3115/A/14/2222595 • 53... Some of the provisions of the agreement would clearly be pooled but there is no information to indicate how many of these would be pooled with more than five contributors. I have therefore taken into account in my decision only those elements of the agreement (the affordable housing, the open space and the highways works) which would clearly not benefit from pooled contributions. This does not however invalidate the signed agreement.
- 15. Renegotiation of s 106BA • Changes in the Growth and Infrastructure Act that require a council to renegotiate previously agreed affordable housing levels • viability of affordable housing requirements only • not reopen any other planning policy considerations or review the merits of the scheme
- 16. Appeals • Under section 106 BC- Appeal on affordable housing viability – revised level of Affordable housing for 3 years
- 17. S106 BC - Appeals • Burden is on the developer to show the scheme is not viable • Starting point is the assumptions used during the original assessment
- 18. S106 BC – Appeal examples • Appeal Ref: APP/X2410/Q/14/2225175 Land off Iveshead Road, Shepshed LE12 9ER- AH reduced (30% to 17%) • Appeal Ref: APP/P1615/Q/14/2215840 Land between Lydney Bypass and Highfield Road (known as Lydney A and Lydney B), Lydney, Gloucestershire- AH reduced(20% to 14%) • Wychavon reduced from 40% to 30%
- 19. S106 - Recent changes Ministerial statement in November 2014 introduced changes to -Size of development for which you seek affordable housing contribution -Size of development for which you can seek a financial contribution (tariff) -Treatment of vacant buildings Change March 2015 - Starter homes
- 20. Affordable housing threshold • 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floor space of 1,000 square metres, affordable housing and tariff style contributions should not be sought (also applies to all residential annexes and extensions)
- 21. Rural designations • In designated rural areas authorities may choose to implement a lower threshold of 5- units or less, beneath which affordable housing and tariff style contributions should not be sought. • If the 5-unit threshold is implemented, payment between 6-10 units should be sought as a cash payment only and be commuted until after completion of units within the development.
- 22. No change: • Not applicable to rural exception sites • Affordable housing and tariff style contributions should not be sought in relation to residential annexes and extensions.
- 23. Vacant buildings credit • A credit, equivalent to the existing gross floor space of any vacant buildings brought back into any lawful use or demolished for re- development, should be deducted from the calculation of any affordable housing contributions sought. • Does not apply to vacant buildings which have been abandoned. • http://www.pas.gov.uk/web/pas1/s106/-/journal_content/56/33 2612/6783401/ARTICLE
- 24. S106 viability and review mechanisms • Quantum based on development plan • Other material consideration • Careful wording and reassessment criteria • ATLAS examples Local Planning Authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and wherever appropriate be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development from being stalled (para 205).
- 25. FOI /EIR and the Courts • Elephant and Castle – Heygate • Royal Borough of Greenwich v Information Commissioner • Courts – supporting confidentiality
- 26. Heygate – partial disclosure
- 27. Greenwich – Public interest for disclosure
- 28. R (English) v East Staffordshire Borough Council & Anor [2010] EWHC 2744 • The High Court refused permission for judicial review. The court highlighted that: • The local authority has a duty to ensure sufficient information is made available to enable an intelligent response from the planning committee; but • It was sufficient to disclose the “gist” of the information as the report had been independently verified.
- 29. Monitoring Fees Oxfordshire County Council v SSCLG [2015] EWHC 186 -Argued that Inspector erred in finding that a monitoring fee was not necessary for the purpose of reg. 122, and that monitoring fees will always be necessary where there is a planning obligation to be monitored. -HELD: “This was a routine planning application for a relatively small development in which the Claimant was seeking a fee based on its standardised table of fees rather than any individualised assessment of special costs liable to be incurred for this particular development. The only allowable contributions (education and library services) did not require ongoing management or maintenance; they were single payments...In these circumstances, I consider that the Inspector was entitled to conclude that [the contribution] was not “necessary”. Source: Andrew Parkinson – Landmark chambers
- 30. Speeding up s 106 • Autumn Budget statement • Consultation -Section 106 Planning Obligations – speeding up negotiations • March 2015 changes to PPG- Extensive additional advice to improve implementation of s106 and add clarity
- 32. Questions?
Notes de l'éditeur
- This is a large and thorough presentation. Feel free to just use the bits which are most relevant to you
- ‘It is all about delivery’ Often delivery is about viability – will that development come forward – - Is there a profit to be made for the developer : Is the new use/ development worth more than the existing use /development – be careful of the traps- for example old and tatty industrial might be worth more that the cost of the proposed use. It must be worth redeveloping The developer will consider: How much will the development cost, how much can I sell it for and Is it worth the risk. If it isn’t going to make any money for the developer it is highly unlikely that they will bring it forward. Developers profit is the reason they do it – the higher the risk the higher level of profit they, and their banks, will expect them to build into their calculations. At present, in quite a risky environment, it is over 20% for a lot of developments and even higher. Banks are not lending unless there is a significantly high profit margin demonstrated. This is all based on risk – there is no one percentage that fits all – it will depend on a lot of risk factors.
- Ultimate question do you want this site developed now? – If so do you need to compromise and by how much? What are your priorities? When the developer comes forward to you and says this site is not viable if I have to provide affordable housing and s106 do you say OK provide half the affordable housing and half the s106 – you might, or do you say come back when the viability has changed. You need to assess whether the development is contrary to your policies and the other material circumstances ( one of which will be current viability) What basic infrastructure is required e.g. the road junction into the site and water and sewerage. What mitigation is required? What is the basic minimum for ‘place making’ – e.g. public open space. It is about the decisions you need to make – do you need this housing site to come forward now – are there other sites that can come forward now. You need to have an eye on your housing land supply. CIL will also change your decision, at the moment you can negotiate s106 but CIL is a set charge only able to be varied on very specific grounds– you will still be able to negotiate site specific s106. You need to decide what you collect from CIL and what from s106.
- Reality was that pre 2008 developers did not argue much about developer contributions/106 requests because the values and viability of their sites were generally rising. A big impact on viability was the time a development spent in planning – it was cheaper for them just to agree to the contributions/ s106 than spend time arguing. Developers as we all know just stopped building in some areas because the viability just wasn’t there. Lowest level of housebuilding now for around 100 years SO developers are less likely to accept unreasonable developer contribution requests as they are closer to the viability threshold in uncertain times. They will not bring the site forward – you will not be able to realise your local plan/core strategy In addition, the legislation has changed for s106’s, there are not only policy tests in the NPPF and the legal tests introduced by the 2010 CIL regs. There are more and more appeal decisions where s106’s are not considered reasonable. Post April 2015 – no pooling of 5 or more projects or types of infrastructure. So where does that leave you – you need to be able to evidence why a developer contribution through s106meet the tests and m ake sure they are not affected by pooing restriction . – see next slide
- For development capable of being charged CIL– Not for other s106 obligations e.g. affordable housing, habitats except infrastructure for habitats ( visitor centre) The Community Infrastructure Levy regulations 2010 (as amended): Limitation on use of planning obligations 122.—(1) This regulation applies where a relevant determination is made which results in planning permission being granted for development. (2) A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is— (A)NECESSARY TO MAKE THE DEVELOPMENT ACCEPTABLE IN PLANNING TERMS; (B)DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE DEVELOPMENT; AND (C)FAIRLY AND REASONABLY RELATED IN SCALE AND KIND TO THE DEVELOPMENT. (1) NPPF: 204. Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: ●necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; ● directly related to the development; and ● fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development. 205. Where obligations are being sought or revised, local planning authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled.
- Have you done an audit? Do you know how many s106 you have had in the past and for what ‘types’ of development? The pooling restriction will force authorities to become more project specific ( the down side is that you will need to spend it on the project – or give it back – so you need to be sure that that is the appropriate project.
- If the scheme cannot provide for mitigation to make the development acceptable it will be contrary to the policies of the development plan and should be refused. If you are wanting to approve it you will need to outline what the material consideration that overcomes the need for the mitigation.
- In the Persimmon Homes case when referring to the Tesco Stores case the learned judge stated that “that was a case which demonstrated the mischief with which regulation 122 might be said to be intended to deal.” The Persimmon Homes case concerned a refusal of planning permission for a residential development of 200 homes on the ground that it was a piecemeal development which was unacceptable as an area action plan was being consulted on to which future developments would need to conform. Although the developer offered some planning obligations it was considered that these only addressed the immediate impact of the proposed development site rather than the overall impact of the development upon the sustainable urban extension as a whole. This was too narrow an approach by the judge. In deciding whether the necessary requirement of reg. 122(2)(a) was satisfied the judge stated that this meant that it had to be determined what is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms which in turn requires consideration of the development plan which in this case bought in the core strategy and emerging area action plan. No contribution was being offered to mitigate the costs of the infrastructure requirements of the wider area and the judge considered that some contribution to those requirements was necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The Inspector’s decision was upheld on the basis that the refusal was justified be cause there was no realistic assessment of apportionment of the overall infrastructure costs referable to the area action plan. Commentary source – Christopher Cant 9 Stone buildings.
- South Oxfordshire case- need to have undertaken an audit and make sure it is clear to developers and inspectors/decision makers where you are with the pooling limitation. The Inspector only took into account non pooled agreements. And presumably the reason for the last sentence in this quote is that the s106 in a contract that can be enforced and due to the Savage and Derwent decisions. But - Beware blue pencil clauses – where anything that doesn’t meet the CIL regs – that the inspector does not consider is necessary is struck through. Source of case commentary – Christopher Cant – 9 Stone Buildings R (oao Savage) v Mansfield DC[2015] EWCA Civ 4 at para. 68 Derwent Holdings Limited v Trafford BC [2011] EWCA Civ 832 at para. 15 Lewison LJ stated in R (oao Savage) v Mansfield DC46 that reg. 122 “will only be engaged if that particular planning obligation was a reason for granting planning permission. If proposed development is acceptable in planning terms the securing of additional planning benefits by means of planning obligations is not unlawful: Derwent Holdings Limited v Trafford BC.”47 This reflects para. 62 of the DCLG’s Community Infrastructure Levy An Overview May 2011 it is stated that it is unlawful to take into account planning obligations which do not satisfy the statutory tests in reg. 122 when determining a planning application. In the Savage case the provision in the planning agreement alleged to be unlawful was originally a provision that if the planning permission was revoked or modified then the developer would not claim compensation from the Council. This was varied to an obligation to repay any compensation received so as to bring it within section 106. It was challenged on the ground that it did not overcome a legitimate planning obligation and was not necessary to do so and thus fell foul of reg. 122. Lewison LJ considered that as the provision could not be invoked if the development was completed it meant that the committee must have thought that the built development would be acceptable in planning terms without regard to the provision. He reasoned that any environmental impact must be caused by the actual development rather than the grant of planning permission and the provision could not operate once the development had been completed so it had not been used to overcome a planning objection. No mention of the provision was made in either the stated reasons for the grant of planning permission or the summary in the officers’ report but from the reasoning in his judgment and the need for such reasoning it appears that Lewison LJ did not consider the absence of any reference to the provision in either summary to be conclusive on this point. In consequence the planning obligation was valid. The effect of this decision appears to be to create a class of valid planning obligation which is outside the scope of reg. 122. The type of provision considered in the Savage case does not on the facts fall into the type of offer described as an unconnected offer buying the planning permission. In the Derwent Holdings case (considered in (iii) below) the permissible planning obligations were to secure the planning benefits anticipated by the developments and there was regarded to be a direct connection between the planning obligations and the proposed development. This connection between the developments and the planning obligations is crucial. The reference to “additional planning benefits” in the dicta of Lewison LJ quoted above is to planning benefits within the context of the relevant planning application or applications. Any suggestion that such dicta indicate there is no need for such a connection would be incorrect. The Savage decision is not opening the way for valid planning obligations unconnected with the proposed development. Planning obligations may still be valid even if not satisfying the tests in reg. 122 provided that they are for planning purposes and are not taken into account by the decision-maker. Once the decision is made what is stated on behalf of the committee or the Inspector if on appeal should determine what is taken into account when reaching a decision on a planning application. Reference may be made to the officers’ report to the committee. If the committee refers to the report in the summary of reasons then it will be. If there is no reference then it may be even if perhaps it should not be. What will not happen is that the Court will not substitute its own judgment as to the weight that should be attached to matters.
- Affordable Housing threshold - 10-units or less, and which have a maximum combined gross floor space of 1,000 square metres, affordable housing and tariff style contributions should not be sought (also applies to all residential annexes and extensions) Rural Designation In designated rural areas authorities may choose to implement a lower threshold of 5-units or less, beneath which affordable housing and tariff style contributions should not be sought. If the 5-unit threshold is implemented, payment between 6-10 units should be sought as a cash payment only and be commuted until after completion of units within the development. Not applicable to rural exception sites Affordable housing and tariff style contributions should not be sought in relation to residential annexes and extensions. Vacant building credit – applies to any vacant building – A credit, equivalent to the existing gross floor space of any vacant buildings brought back into any lawful use or demolished for re-development, should be deducted from the calculation of any affordable housing contributions sought. Does not apply to vacant buildings which have been abandoned. Starter homes- LPAs should not seek affordable housing contributions ( but can still seek contributions to mitigate the development including infrastructure)
- This can apply to any type of building that is vacant – not just residential. Only the net increase makes an affordable housing contributions
- S106 Viability & Review Mechanisms Overview There are a number of projects with signed S106 agreements that incorporate mechanisms to review and reappraise the financial viability of schemes over time, leading to potential future planning obligations. The NPPF promotes the approach, stressing that where obligations are being sought or revised, Local Planning Authorities should take account of changes in market conditions over time and wherever appropriate be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development from being stalled (para 205). The starting point is understanding and agreement that due to project viability under current day costs & values, projects are unable to fund all defined S106 planning obligations. Phased delivery of contributions can be deferred and made contingent upon future project viability, which could be assessed through: Full scheme financial reappraisal; or Tracking one or more specific key variables and updating the original appraisal with specific values only to calculate potential uplift. Most mechanisms relate purely to the provision of future affordable housing, although some do also consider other elements such as off site education, social care or open space obligations. Most also define a minimum level of obligations including minimum % of affordable housing to be provided, with the review offering potential to top-up provision over time. Any deferred developer contributions would only be payable if they become viable in the future. If market conditions do not improve, obligations would not become payable. Agreed Review Mechanisms: Illustrative Examples Project Local Authority Units Date of S106 Type of Review Frequency of Review Future obligations Sherford New Community South Hams DC & Plymouth CC 5,500 April 2013 (not signed) Tracks sales values & build costs. Set formula At 700 units, then at 500 unit intervals Affordable Housing only Plymstock Quarry Plymouth CC 1,684 Sept 2011 Tracks sales values & build costs. Set formula 4 reviews linked to phases Affordable Housing only Newark Southern Extension Newark & Sherwood DC 3,150 Nov 2011 Tracks sales values & build costs. Set formula At 800 units, then at 500 unit intervals Affordable Housing only Doncaster Industry Park Doncaster Council 166 Nov 2011 Tracks sales values & build costs. Set formula One only, at 125th dwelling Affordable Housing only Foxby Lane, Gainsborough West Lindsey DC 2,500 July 2011 Full reappraisal At 200 unit intervals Affordable Housing only Harworth Colliery Bassetlaw BC 996 March 2011 Tracks sales values & build costs. Set formula Two defined reviews Multiple components incl afford. hsg Newtown Road, Ashford Ashford BC 788 March 2009 Tracks uplift in sales values only Quarterly rolling review Multiple components incl afford hsg Key Working Principles Requires the financial viability position to be established and agreed upfront. This should fix a number of working assumptions and variables and form the baseline against which future reviews would be undertaken. Need to link review points to future phases of development, and include clarity about the timing of future reviews and the process to be followed. When setting out the process, the S106 can define certain decision making timeframes as well as clear fall back positions should any party not adhere to them.. Subject to the size of the scheme it is advisable to not have too many trigger points for reviews, to minimise resource implications. Best to try to keep the actual mechanism as simple as possible. Full reappraisal is not advised as this can risk opening up debate, potential disagreement and delay. Fixed and agreed formulaic approaches could assist to minimise ambiguity and any potential risk of future dispute/delay, but can take longer and involve greater resource upfront to establish them. This should however be offset by saving time later on. Such a formula could clearly define both the basis of working out any uplift, together with how that uplift could be translated into future provision of affordable housing units and/or other defined obligations. Terminology should be clear in particular in relation to definitions and the legal drafting of the relevant clauses. Vagueness could lead to future uncertainty and/or dispute Several of the S106 agreements have a clear formula to follow based upon simple updated data. The most common approach considers two key variables only, and undertakes reviews based upon how they change from baseline values: Achieved sales values – taken from data relating to units sold on the site; and Dwellings build costs – amended in line with standard industry known indices. Need to define an overall cap of obligations so clear what any excess monies through the review process would be used for, and ensure that the obligations meet legal (CIL) requirements.. When considering future affordable housing need to set out overall maximum provision across the site as a whole as well as within any individual phase. The latter could be higher than the former to enable capturing under provision, but capped so as to achieve socially mixed and balanced phases. Some pooling of contributions may be considered suitable, with associated need to be clear on approach to balancing delivery of infrastructure and other components, monitoring distribution and keeping overall contributions to defined components. If other funding could be secured for defined obligations (such as future affordable housing grant, Government investment in infrastructure or equivalent) then good to include in any review a mechanism to capture any such unforeseen windfalls and recycle them into the scheme. Likely need to maintain an incentive to the Owner to achieve improved values and agree to a percentage split of any future uplift, to be fairly apportioned between the Owner and Council (for payment specifically in relation to deferred obligations – not for an undefined profit share).
- Royal Borough of Greenwich v Information Commissioner.
- Why developers could share less viability information following a tribunal ruling Planning Magazine - 13 February 2015 by Jamie Carpenter , The latest tribunal ruling on whether sensitive financial details should be disclosed could make developers wary of sharing their data with councils when discussing viability. Greenwich Peninsula: residents' legal bid successful When the Royal Borough of Greenwich agreed to a reduction in the number of affordable homes on the 10,000-home Greenwich Peninsula scheme, local residents sought to use freedom of information legislation to obtain the financial details that the council used to inform its decision. …Brownie's Freedom of Information (FOI) request, submitted in June 2013, had sought a copy of the "financial viability report that was commissioned and undertaken to inform the variation of the section 106 agreement over the 11 plots in question across Greenwich Peninsula". The request was initially rebuffed by the Royal Borough of Greenwich. But 18 months later, a Ministry of Justice tribunal has ordered full disclosure of the document. The scheme's section 106 deal was drawn up in 2004. But the modification "would reduce the amount of affordable housing to be provided across all 11 plots overall from 38 per cent to 25 per cent by habitable room", a report to Greenwich's planning board said. The agreement to vary the terms followed a request from developer Knight Dragon, which acquired a majority share in the project in 2012. In its decision notice, issued last month, the tribunal concluded that the "important public interests" in keeping the information confidential "in this case do not outweigh the public interest in disclosing the information". The decision note said the "number of affordable homes to be provided on this enormous development, as well as their location, is an important local issue on which reasonable views are held strongly on both sides". It added: "This is a case where a company, robust enough to take on the development of a huge site over a period of 20 years immediately asks to be relieved of a planning obligation freely negotiated by its predecessor." The ruling follows the tribunal's ruling last year that a viability assessment submitted by developer Lend Lease as part of an application to redevelop the Heygate Estate should not be disclosed in its entirety. The tribunal held that the financial model used by Lend Lease as a basis for calculating viability should remain confidential, calling it a "trade secret" (Planning, 23 May 2014, p6). … Claire Fallows, a partner at law firm Charles Russell Speechlys, said the tribunal's latest decision seemed to go further than the Heygate ruling as it ordered the disclosure of residual land value data. …
- Is payment of administration and monitoring fees in section 106 obligations unjustified in some circumstances, and could we achieve faster conclusion of section 106 Agreements through dispute resolution? The recent case of Oxfordshire County Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government [1] casts doubt on the entitlement of local authorities to seek administration and monitoring fees through section 106 planning obligations. Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 requires planning obligations to comply with certain tests in order for them to constitute a reason for granting permission, including that the obligations must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms On appeals, for each planning obligation entered into, Inspectors will scrutinise carefully whether they comply with the tests and therefore whether any weight can be attached to them. THE FACTS The case involved a planning application and appeal for a relatively small development. The local authority sought an administration and monitoring fee in accordance with a standardised fee scale. The Inspector decided that certain financial contributions due before commencement of development complied with the Regulation 122 tests. However, it was not necessary for those obligations to be monitored and therefore the monitoring and administration fees did not comply. A (now commonplace) clause in the section 106 agreement provided that, if the Inspector concluded that any obligations did not meet the Regulation 122 tests, those obligations would cease to have effect - the requirement to pay the fees therefore fell away. The local authority applied to quash the Inspector’s decision. THE DECISION The High Court noted that there was nothing in the legislation, the National Planning Policy Framework or the Planning Practice Guidance which suggested that local authorities could or should recover administration and monitoring costs as part of planning obligations. Further, it is part of the local authority’s functions as a local planning authority to administer, monitor and enforce planning obligations. In the event of enforcement being required, the obligation provided for those costs to be recouped. The High Court upheld the Inspector’s decision. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THIS CASE? This judgement will affect local authorities used to routinely recovering the costs of administering and monitoring planning obligations from developers. The judgement does not preclude such fees from being sought in different circumstances, perhaps relating to complex circumstances where monitoring is a reasonable requirement. The onus will be on authorities, however, to justify how any such circumstances comply with Regulation 122 and why the level of fee sought is reasonable. … [1] [2015] EWHC 186 (Admin) This article was written by Jemma Gregory. Source legal blog - [email_address]
- View the changes to the practice guidance following the response to the consultation. View the government response to consultation: Section 106 Planning obligations – speeding up negotiations (Student accommodation and affordable housing contributions). View the original consultation. Changes include: Involve communities in s106 policy Does not now say public art is unnecessary More open book advice and making information available to the public Advice on discussion and negotiation encouraging early engagement – pre app Encouraging two tiers to work together Use of standardised templates More timely approach Encouraging collaborations and shared specialist Advice on negotiation and appeal Making it very clear that ministerial statements are national policy and generally minor changes throughout for clarity.