Planning gain news
Research out today from the DCLG (still getting used to that acronym!) is really interesting, and to me, quite a shock. It shows quite how few developments actually involve any sort of section 106 agreement to offset their commercial gain by contributing to the public good.
60 per cent of medium and large residential sites and 90 per cent of smaller sites, and an amazing 79 per cent of retail developments and 88 per cent of industrial applications have no s106 obligations attached to their planning permissions. That's incredibly low in my opinion. And the value of the s106 agreements that are made only added up to £2bn in 2003/04. - not very much, and to put that in more comprehensible figures, the average value per agreement was as follows:
Affordable housing has the highest average at just under £250,000, followed by education (£118,000), transport and travel (£83,000), community and leisure (£59,000) and open space (£25,000).
Given the amount of money that is being made by these commercial developments, contributing £25k to 'open space' is completely pathetic. That would pay for a few yards of new pavement at most. And a quarter of a million for affordable housing is also completely risible, paying for maybe three new units, or a fresh lick of paint on an aging council block? Granted, I know that a lot of developments provide public open space, amenities and affordable housing within the development as they know that otherwise they would be obligated to pay, but still I am amazed at how low these figures are.
Commenting on the report, Yvette Cooper said: "The research shows there should be plenty of scope to increase contributions from planning gain without hindering development" and for once, I think that's an understatement.
60 per cent of medium and large residential sites and 90 per cent of smaller sites, and an amazing 79 per cent of retail developments and 88 per cent of industrial applications have no s106 obligations attached to their planning permissions. That's incredibly low in my opinion. And the value of the s106 agreements that are made only added up to £2bn in 2003/04. - not very much, and to put that in more comprehensible figures, the average value per agreement was as follows:
Affordable housing has the highest average at just under £250,000, followed by education (£118,000), transport and travel (£83,000), community and leisure (£59,000) and open space (£25,000).
Given the amount of money that is being made by these commercial developments, contributing £25k to 'open space' is completely pathetic. That would pay for a few yards of new pavement at most. And a quarter of a million for affordable housing is also completely risible, paying for maybe three new units, or a fresh lick of paint on an aging council block? Granted, I know that a lot of developments provide public open space, amenities and affordable housing within the development as they know that otherwise they would be obligated to pay, but still I am amazed at how low these figures are.
Commenting on the report, Yvette Cooper said: "The research shows there should be plenty of scope to increase contributions from planning gain without hindering development" and for once, I think that's an understatement.
Comments
In some cases, I am sure this is due in part to the nervousness of local authorities, who belive that onerous planning conditions will scare away developers and leave their town without new employment and retail facitlities.