Advisory Team for Large Applications

1. PAS 106 Workshops
ADVISORY TEAM FOR
LARGE APPLICATIONS

2.  Advisory Team for Large Applications
 Impartial advice
 Provided at the request of Local
Authorities …. but available to the
benefit of all partners
 Large Scale (200+, 500+ housing units)
 Projects at all stages in planning process
 Working on “large sites”: urban
extensions, new settlements, LIF
projects, public sector land, garden cities
Introducing ATLAS

3. ATLAS Project Activity - Jan 2016
ESE SSW MID NTH Total
Projects
Total
Units
Total 16 17 17 26 75 239,816
LSIP/ HDF
- Sites >1,500 15 15 16 16 62 227,825
- Sites <1,500 1 1 1 10 13 11,991
- Housing Zones 1 3 3 5 12 23,067
- Priority Sites 3 4 0 2 9 44,870
Garden Cities
- DCLG Supported 3 1 1 0 5 42,700
- DCLG Awareness 4 0 0 0 4 31,500
Public Sector Land
- HCA Land 0 0 1 0 1 1,880
- OGDs Land 0 2 0 0 2 5,745
Large Site ( >1500)
Large Site ( <1500)
Public Sector Land
Garden City (supported)
Housing Zone
Garden City (aware)
Priority Sites

4. What we’ll cover
 Look at challenges that
large sites present for 106’s
 How to deal with these
issues in a timely manner
 Tools and techniques from
our experience

5.  Infrastructure not just
mitigation
 Requires balance and
mix of uses -
sustainability
 Significant
infrastructure needs:
transport, utilities, social
& community
 Often multiple land
owners
 Over a long time –
many phases
Key Challenges of Large Scale
Creating Quality Places

6.  Start early!!
 Get clarity on vision &
critical outcomes
 Collaborate & share
information
 Ensure evidence is robust
 Test alternative ways of
doing things
 Work positively to find
solutions
 Be flexible where possible
 Don’t compromise too far
Vision
Does the potential solution fit
the agreed vision and
objectives / anticipated
outcomes? If not, is it
acceptable?
Impact on Viability
Will the potential solution
close the viability gap and
enable the development to
proceed.
Prospect of Delivery
Will the potential solution be
deliverable, i.e. are the
appropriate partners on
board, is the solution eligible
for potential funding?
Level of
“Acceptable”
Risk
What are the risks
associated with the
solution. Is this
considered
acceptable?
Some Key Themes

7. Pitfalls - of course it’s not that
simple…….
 CIL can get in the way
 Reg 122 – contributions have to be necessary; directly
related; and fair & reasonable
 Reg 123 – no longer pool more than 5 contributions for
single piece of infrastructure
 Evidence of Inspectors beginning to apply strictly
 Starter Homes – unclear impact on viability and AH
provision going forward

8. Your Experiences…….
 Political risk taking – setting priorities; being flexible etc.
 Issues of openness and collaboration (not to mention
skills) on viability?
 Pooling issues – is this starting to cause a problem?
 Use of s106 Frameworks - any experiences?
 Use of review mechanisms?
 Views on Starter Homes
impact?

9.  Significant
infrastructure needs:
transport, utilities,
social & community
 Often multiple land
owners
 Over a long time –
many phases
 Engaging with
organisations (HE,
EA, Health)
Key Challenges of Large Scale
Delivery Issues

10. Typical large scale approach
 6000 homes
extension to
Scunthorpe
 Significant
infrastructure –
flooding
 Multiple ownerships
 Define as much as
possible at policy
stage

11. Understanding the detail….

12. Breaking the site down

13. Outline application stage –
design parameters

14. Site Specific Infrastructure
Delivery Plan
 What infrastructure is needed?
 When will it be needed?
 How will it be paid for?
 Who will deliver it?
 CIL may well impact upon this?

15. Constructing a 106

16. Define required infrastructure
(Masterplan/IDP/Policy)
Test Viability
Fix site specific priorities
Agree review mechanism (for viability and
masterplan/IDP)
Agree S.106 HOTs – Clarity of committee
resolution
Discuss legal drafting
Sign S.106

17. NNDA
Persimmon
Taylor Wimpey
Church
Commissioners

18. Upper Callerton
Lower Callerton
Middle Callerton
Green Belt
Line of O.O.R

19. Collaborative and Integrated
Approach

20.  Initial land release:
“patient” money
 Multiple developer
/ land interests
 Phasing of
infrastructure &
enabling works
 Long term returns
on investment
-10,000
-8,000
-6,000
-4,000
-2,000
0
2,000
4,000
6,000
8,000
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Balance
Additional Challenges
Scale & land, phasing & cashflow

21. Review Mechanisms
 NPPF promotes the approach – ‘to take account of
changes in market conditions over time and be sufficiently flexible to
prevent planned development from being stalled ‘(para 205)
 Accept due to project viability, based on current
costs and values not all S106 obligations will be fully
funded
 Re-appraisals will need to be carried out
 Involves risk – if viability does not improve then some
obligations will not be fully met!

22. Some Key Principles
 Baseline on viability approved up front
 Be clear on S106 priorities and accept all cannot be provided
now!
 Don’t review too often
 Keep any mechanisms simple
 Often based on 2 key variables – costs and sales values
 Cap overall obligations
 Has to work for the developer as well

23. Deferred obligations
(one variable: value uplift)
Actual Sale
Price
Implementation
Baseline appraisal
Deferred
Obligations,
contingent on
uplift in values
Initial “Residual Regardless” contributions
Capped Total

24. Appraisal Tools
• Development Appraisal Tool
• Works for up to 20 years
• Populate income with: unit numbers, sizes, values and rents amongst
others and allows up to 5 phases
• Costs can be specified and
include developer overheads
and return for risk, and
planning obligations
• Garden Cities Model
• Bespoke for very large
schemes – at high level
• Allows public funding to be
included
• Allows for value capture

25. Framework Agreements
• Establishes a
mechanism for
collection and
management of
contributions
• Agreed
infrastructure
package
• Specifies what
infrastructure
needs to be
provided and when

26. Framework Agreements
Some Considerations
 Overall Planning Strategy agreed
 Consistent approach to the Planning Applications
 The components of proposed Framework S106
Agreement itself
 Infrastructure Delivery Plans
 Relationship to CIL
 Development Framework Plans
 Relationship to Masterplanning

27.  Start early!!
 Get clarity on vision &
critical outcomes
 Collaborate & share
information
 Ensure evidence is robust
 Test alternative ways of
doing things
 Work positively to find
solutions
 Be flexible where possible
 Don’t compromise too far
Vision
Does the potential solution fit
the agreed vision and
objectives / anticipated
outcomes? If not, is it
acceptable?
Impact on Viability
Will the potential solution
close the viability gap and
enable the development to
proceed.
Prospect of Delivery
Will the potential solution be
deliverable, i.e. are the
appropriate partners on
board, is the solution eligible
for potential funding?
Level of
“Acceptable”
Risk
What are the risks
associated with the
solution. Is this
considered
acceptable?
In conclusion
Hints & tips

28. Points for discussion
 Use of review mechanisms?
 Issues of openness and collaboration (not to mention
skills) on viability?
 Political risk taking – setting priorities; being flexible etc.
 Pooling issue – is this starting to cause a problem?
 Use of 106 Frameworks - any experience?
 View on Starter Home impact?

29. Further Information
The ATLAS Guide:
Planning for Large Scale Development:
www.atlasplanning.com
The HCA’s guide to a development appraisal tool:
http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ourwork/development-
appraisal-tool