County Surveyors' Society

Issues: planning

Planning gain supplement

Section 106 agreements have been seen to cause considerable delays for developers seeking large-scale permissions and their use up and down the country is very patchy in achieving the maximum contribution in the delivery of sustainable communities. To maximise value from the granting of permission, change is necessary but should this be through a national scheme or remain within the community where development is impacting?

Miles Butler

“If supporting infrastructure is to keep pace with accelerated housing and employment growth, it is vital that a robust system to capture developer contributions is in place. PGS should not undermine the ability of local authorities to provide essential local infrastructure and overall a tariff based approach could prove the best way to manage conflicting demands.”

Miles Butler
Chair
Strategic Planning and Regeneration Committee

Where does CSS stand?

Favours a tariff-based approach, especially for areas of major development which address all the identified infrastructure requirements and are managed by specific Local Delivery Vehicles.
Believes the case to be unproven that PGSs will lever out greater value from developer contributions. However, if it is to be applied it should be assessed against a costed infrastructure framework undertaken by principal Authorities and managed through the Local Area Agreement framework.
It is helpful that central government recognises in the second consultation that removing off-site highways works from planning obligations will be problematic and are supportive of the option to require developers to provide land for major on-site community infrastructure.

CSS is producing a guide to better practice in relation to transport related planning obligations, based on a number of case studies.