The Great west ferry Print works exaggeration.
p.9 4.2
““Past problems of valuation complexity could well be resolved with Big Data and Artificial Intelligence – Zoopla probably sets local property prices more efficiently and more accurately than the estate agency industry does!”
The Great west ferry Print works exaggeration.
Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventur'd piteous overthrows
Doth with their death bury their parents' strife
Romeo And Juliet Prologue, 1–8
As a free market property developer my Company Real Estate Land and developments Limited is interested in the framework within which we bid for Land and seek planning consent. Our mission is to provide Affordable Homes to Purchase for Londoners on average incomes, at a Budget price point, to an acceptable Standard with timely delivery and offering a best in class Value proposition for our customers.
It is of great interest for my Shareholders then that the Planning risks associated with the Community Infrastructure Levy and the Mayoral Infrastructure levy is both predictable and consistent both within specific Boroughs where we wish to serve our customers and across the Capital generally
Breathless headlines appeared after questions in the Houses of Parliament about a month ago.
Heres a Flavour of this very peculiar furore.
Henry McDonald
Wed 27 May 2020 19 10 BST
Former Tory donor's housing project 'unlawfully approved to avoid £40m hit'
Ministry denies claims of bias in approval of Richard Desmond’s development one day before levy kicked in https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/27/richard-desmond-housing-project- unlawfullyapproved-robert-jenrick-isle-dogs-london-avoid-40m-hit
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/21/jenrick-under-growing-pressure-after- freshdesmond-revelation
Heather Stewart Political editor
Sun 21 Jun 2020 14.18 BST
Jenrick under growing pressure after fresh Desmond revelation
Minister viewed video of £1bn property development before overruling officials to approve it
https://www thetimes co uk/article/robert-jenrick-watched-housing-promo-video-on-richarddesmonds-phone-bqb0s8kz2 https://www mpsontwitter co uk/search/%23Westferry? offset=0&min date=1576191600&tweets=1&order=timestamp
Gabriel Pogrund, Emanuele Midolo, Tom Calver and George Greenwood The Sunday Times INVESTIGATION
Robert Jenrick watched housing promo video on Richard Desmond’s phone ‘I followed the rules,’ said minister — then admitted he didn’t
On January 14, eight weeks after the dinner, Jenrick overruled a planning inspector and approved the plan to redevelop Westferry Printworks into luxury flats. It is the only time he has rejected official advice to back a scheme. It later emerged that he acted less than 24 hours before a local levy would have come into force, requiring Desmond to pay £40m. He also waived affordable housing rules, a decision estimated to have saved the former Daily Express owner a further £106m.
The claims fluctuate widely from a favour to the tune of £30 millions up to a particularly fanciful £106m in the Sunday Times of 21st June.
To unravel the hysterics lets just go back to basics.
Planning consents for developments over 100 square meters attract Community Infrastructure levy’s , Tower hamlets had released a revised charging rate up from 2015’s £200 per sqm to £280 per sq m, the charge is not a new thing and the potential increase is also effected by planning guidance on application of the charges weighed against the Affordable housing and other social and commercial benefits any particular Scheme offers to the community in which it is proposed.
https://www.saffronforintermediaries.co.uk/section-106-cil-explained/
Section 106 and CIL explained
Posted on
June 30, 2017
When I talk to developers I’m often asked for information about a range of technical issues such as Section 106 agreements, brownfield site development and issues relating to planning gain. I thought it may be helpful, therefore, to produce a series of short blogs which provide background information about these issues. This first blog aims to explain section 106 legal agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy. If you would like further information about these subjects, you’ll find some useful links at the end of this blog.
What is a Section 106 Agreement?
Section 106 (S106) agreements, which are also known as planning obligations, are legal agreements made between local authorities and developers. S106 agreements are designed to address issues that new developments may place on local infrastructure. The agreement will vary depending on the nature of a development, but will typically address issues such as:
• Affordable housing
• Highways
• Education
• Public open space
• Town centre improvements
The content of a S106 agreement is agreed during the consultation period of the planning application and the agreement is prepared by the council’s solicitor. Smaller developments have the option of completing a Unilateral Undertaking instead of a full S106 agreement.
What is a Community Infrastructure Levy?
A Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a new planning charge introduced by the government via the Planning Act 2008. It provides a means of ensuring that a new development contributes to the cost of the infrastructure that the development will rely on, such as schools and roads.
The levy applies to most new buildings and charges are based on the size and type of the floor space being created. The idea behind the CIL is that it’s fairer, faster and more certain than the system of S106 planning obligations, which are negotiated on a case-by-case basis.
Under the system of S106 planning obligations only 6 per cent of all planning permissions nationally made any contribution to the cost of supporting infrastructure. With CIL, all but the smallest building projects will make a contribution towards infrastructure costs.
S106 or CIL?
All local authorities in England & Wales are empowered, but not required, to charge a CIL on new developments in their area. Although S106 planning obligations will continue with some developments, reforms have been introduced to restrict their use. It’s worth bearing in mind that the CIL is intended to provide infrastructure to support a development, rather than make an application acceptable in planning terms. There may therefore be some site-specific impact mitigation requirements without which a site won’t be granted planning permission. A S106 planning obligation may therefore be imposed to ensure that the consequences of a development can be mitigated.
What is and is not liable for CIL?
A development will be liable for CIL if it involves:
• new build of at least 100m2 gross internal area (GIA) floor space or,
• the creation of one or more dwellings.
A development is not liable for CIL if it:
• involves only a change of use, conversion or extension.
• is for structures such as wind turbines, pylons or buildings into which people don’t normally go (e.g. for housing plant or machinery).
• is permitted by a ‘general consent’ or is for a use which benefits from zero charges set out in the CIL charging structure.
Further information
You can find further information about S106 and CIL charges at: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-obligations https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/ POS_Advice_Note_S106_and_CIL_final_version_Apr2011.pdf
You may also find further information in the planning section of your local authority’s website.
3.11 With regards to the Council’s consideration of planning obligations in relation to viability – including the assessment of affordable housing provision, PPG states: “In making decisions, the local planning authority will need to understand the impact of planning obligations on the proposal Where an applicant is able to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the planning obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the local planning authority should be flexible in seeking planning obligations
This is particularly relevant for affordable housing contributions which are often the largest single item sought on housing developments. These contributions should not be sought without regard to individual scheme viability. The financial viability of the individual scheme should be carefully considered in line with the principles in this guidance.”
3.8 of National Planning Policy Framework.
The NPPF also recognises that development should not be subject to such a scale
obligation and policy burdens that its viability is threatened. This reinforces the need forviabilit testing in order to allow willing landowners and developers to receivecompetitive returns which in turn enable the delivery of development.
3.9 In the context of achieving sustainable development the NPPF refers to ensuring viability and deliverability and states: “To ensure viability, the costs of any requirement likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking into account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable
© copyright reserved 2018 Gerald Eve LLP Page 72
Appendix 11 – Affordable housing statement
Former Westferry Printworks, London E14
Affordable Housing Statement
https://drive.google.com/file/d/123EW7vazvWZx7BPLun4WHqCfWo0mveK7/view?usp=sharing Prepared by DS2 LLP
On behalf of Northern & Shell Investments No. 2 Ltd
August 2015
AFFORDABLE HOUSING STATEMENT
Westferry Printworks, London E14 24
7 Approach to Financial Viability
7.1 In accordance with planning policy the amount of affordable housing that can be supported by the proposals will be determined by scheme viability. A Financial Viability Assessment (FVA) will be submitted by DS2 and made available for the council’s independent reviewer, however due to the highly commercially sensitive nature of its content it is to be provided on a strictly private and confidential basis.
7.2 The methodology underpinning a residual valuation is a relatively simple concept. In short, the gross value of the completed development is assessed, including, amongst others, the aggregated value of any residential properties, commercial income, car parking income and ground rents. Secondly, the cost of building the development is deducted along with professional fees, finance costs and developer’s profit. This is illustrated below in Table 3.
Table 5 – Residual valuation methodology
7.3 The output is the Residual Land Value (RLV). Simply, if the RLV produced by a scheme is lower than the benchmark land value, then the scheme is deemed to be unviable and is therefore unlikely to come forward for development, unless the level of affordable housing and /or planning obligations can be reduced. If the RLV is higher than the benchmark then the scheme can, in theory, provide additional affordable housing and /or other planning obligations.
7 4 Alternatively, the benchmark land value can be inserted into the appraisal as a fixed cost and the level of profit generated by the scheme becomes the output by which viability is measured If a sufficient level of developer’s profit is generated the scheme is deemed to be viable This is the approach that has been adopted within the FVA
7.5 The topic of what is an appropriate benchmark is covered in more detail within the FVA, but in summary it is a benchmark land value that incentivises the site to come forward for development whilst optimising the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and other planning obligations. The approach is in accordance with the NPPF and London Plan in that it seeks to encourage rather than restrain development.
7.6 The DS2 FVA will be subject to independent verification by the council’s viability advisor.
The Planning obligations on westferry Printers are secured in a s.106 deed for the Planning permission Granted in 2016.
Robert Jenrick’s decision makes it quite clear that the 2016 s.106 is a fall back position and those obligations endure on the developer, additional obligations are admitted in and contained in the decision and the refereed to supporting documentation particularly the Financial Viability calculation which specify contributions as follows,
Financial Viability Assessment in support of the Planning Application https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tSolSiVGMg7g0099VRKUmGqwkkTidoWA/view? usp=sharing
Planning Obligations Package £11,490,732 DP9
Planning Obligations/Payments
Mayoral CIL 5,517,565 Oct-18 Oct-18
S106 5,973,167 Oct-18 Oct-18
£11,490,732 1.3%
17 Jan2020
SECRETARY OF STATE APPEAL DECISION - ALLOWEDPERMISSION GRANTED. Correspondence
TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY WESTFERRY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED LAND AT FORMER WESTFERRY PRINTWORKS SITE, 235 WESTFERRY ROAD, LONDON E14 3QS APPLICATION REF: PA/18/01877/A1
Main issues The fallback position
16.The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s assessment of the fallback position at IR417-419. He is satisfied that the site benefits from an existing permission for 722 residential uni (20% affordable), a secondary school and other uses (‘the consented scheme’). The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector that the consented scheme represents a realistic fallback position there is a reasonable 4 prospect this would continue to be implemented if this proposal were to b dismissed. He agrees with the Inspector at IR596 that many of the public benefits of the appeal scheme would be delivered by the consented scheme. However, the Secretary of State considers t there are significant benefits that the proposed scheme would deliver in comparison with the consented scheme, as set out below.
34.The Secretary of State considers, however, that while not in line with the policy requirements for affordable housing, an increase in affordable units from 140 to 282 (IR583) provided by the appeal scheme as against the consented scheme is a benefit of the scheme. In the judgment of the Secretary of State, contrary to the finding of the Inspector, the delivery of an additional 142 affordable homes attracts significant weight in the planning balance, notwithstanding the conflict with LonP Policy 3.12, CS Policy SP02 and THLP Policy S.H1. Further, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s findings above as to the housing mix, the Secretary of State considers that the additional housing which the proposal would deliver is of itself a benefit to the scheme. While the Council can demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing sites, the Secretary of State considers, for the reasons given by the Appellant as recorded by the Inspector at IR191-194, that significant weight can be accorded to this benefit, contrary to the arguments of the other parties. Overall the Secretary of State concludes that the benefits of increased provision of affordable housing and open market housing should attract substantial weight in favour of the proposals.
Planning obligations
39.Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR404-616, the Unilateral Undertaking dated 6t September 2019, paragraph 56 of the Framework, the Guidance and the Community Infrastructur Levy Regulations 2010, as amended, the Secretary of State 9 agrees with the Inspector’s conclusio for the reasons given in IR533-537 that the obligation at clause 3.8(b) with regards to the Late Stag Review would meet the tests contained in Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations. He agrees, however, that the obligation fails with regards to Schedule 8 and Schedule 15 to comply with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at paragraph 56 of the Framework. He agrees that the other elements of the Undertaking would comply with the CIL Regulations and paragraph 56 of the Framework. 40.The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR565-568 that while the appeal scheme would not itself provide a secondary school, the planning obligation given in connection with the consented scheme would be carried forward. He agrees with the Inspector’s conclusions at IR568 and considers for the reasons given that the undertaking in relation to a scho is neutral in the planning balance. He has taken those obligations set out at IR564-569 into accoun in reaching his decision. He further agrees with the Inspector at IR591 that the contributions to employment and training, affordable workspace, local employment/procurement and apprenticeships would be greater than the consented scheme and should attract moderate weigh favour of the proposals.
Formal decision
42.As set out above, the Secretary of State considers the consented scheme to be a realistic fallba position. As such, his assessment of the planning balance is carried out by comparison with the consented scheme.
43.The Secretary of State considers that the proposal would provide a significantly greater amount of market and affordable housing than the consented scheme. He considers that, even though the scheme would not deliver the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and might reasonably provide up to 35% affordable housing so as to comply with the minimum target in CS Policy SP02, would not deliver the balance of market housing types sought and would not maximise the provision of family homes, there is no evidence before the Secretary of State of any other scheme which might come forward or what level of affordable (or market) housing such a scheme might deliver and the provision of an additional 142 affordable units and 660 market units are nonetheless significant benefits to the proposed scheme in comparison with the consented scheme. Overall, he gives substantial weight to the housing benefits of the scheme. He considers there would be additional employment benefits during construction by reference to the consented scheme, to which the Secretary of State
48.Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s recommendation. He hereby allows your client’s appeal and grants planning permission subject to the conditions set out at Annex B to this letter, for a comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment comprising 1,524 residential units (Class C3), shops, offices, flexible workspaces, financial and professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments (Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4), community uses (Class D1), car and cycle basement parking, associated landscaping, new public realm and all other necessary enabling works in accordance with application ref: PA/18/01877/A1
49.This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country Planning A 1990. Right to challenge the decision
50.A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an application to the High Court within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for leave to bring a statutory review under section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 11 51.A copy of this letter has been sent to London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Greater London Authority, and notification has been sent to others who asked to be informed of the decision. Yours faithfully Phil Barber Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf
Meanwhile in Ealing another substantial housing development has had a much smoother ride.
SUBMITTED VIA PLANNING PORTAL REF: PP-07933406
Ealing Council Regeneration and Planning Perceval House 14-16
Uxbridge Road London W5 2HL
FAO CHRIS MALTBY 26 July 2019
Dear Mr Maltby, TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT) REGULATIONS 2017 (AS AMENDED) FRIARY PARK ESTATE, ACTON, LONDON, W3 - HYBRID PLANNING APPLICATION
On behalf of our client, Friary Park 1 LLP (a Partnership between C atalyst Housing and Mount Anvil) (“the Applicant”), we hereby submit an application for planning permission at the above site (hereafter referred to as “the Application Site”). The application seeks part outline and part detailed planning permission for: https://pam.ealing.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do? activeTab=documents&keyVal=PVLSE9JM0GW00 http://www.actonw3.com/default.asp? section=info&page=actfriarypark007.htm
Allegations of Duplicity Over True Scale of Friary Park Redevelopment
Opponents say both Catalyst and Council withheld full picture during consultation
CGI of development produced by opponents of the scheme
The 1980s estate next to Acton Mainline station currently consists of 225 social rented homes described by planning consultants Barton Willmore as 'undersized', in a site that 'lacks permeability, encourages anti-social behaviour and has ' inadequate green space.'
It's proposd that all the current buildings on the Friary Park Estate and its surrounding roads will be demolished, and replaced with new homes of mixed type. The scheme has been worked on since 2014 and the plans are expected to deliver 372 'affordable' homes and 618 for private sale.
Opponents of the recently approved scheme to redevelop the Friary Park Estate in Acton are claiming the developer and Ealing Council misled them over the real size of the project
Planning permission was granted to Catalyst to demolish the estate replacing the homes with around 930 new ones in tower blocks.
Subscription expired RSSbox powered by rssinclude.com Participate
Private Developer Brought in to Friary Park Project Tower Blocks For Friary Park Sign up for our Acton newsletter Comment on this story on the forum
Catalyst say, ''Our proposals will dramatically improve the housing conditions on the estate by providing high quality new homes. There will be an increased number of family-sized homes for social rent to meet the needs of the families currently living on the estate '' However, in the documentation submitted by the developer as part of their application and the associated consultation process, no images were provided which gave an indication of the true scale of the development.This has been a feature of many of the developments in the area including the Council's own scheme in central Ealing and residents who are uncomfortable with the height of buildings being proposed across the borough are producing red block CGIs themselves in an attempt to make clear what the impact will be
23
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hTaS9FoqNnfKhz6a2vYUEt Zjk-LDzaX/ view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bGSYDX1LRwSHLz4PPmxmTPGTPTILBAML/ view?usp=sharing
The Ealing scheme is on land already owned by and occupied as affordable housing association homes, it was developed in the 1980’s as private sector housing and acquired by Catalyst in a very bad housing market.
Catalyst along with Mount Anvil have secured a very dense consent to demolish and replace the affordable housing with a huge uplift in Private housing for sale, the scheme also features notorious “Poor Doors”!
The Planning Contributions are less than half those at Westferry printers even though the site is 45 metres from a new Crossrail station and there are many architectural merit concerns raised by local residents almost 300 objections were registered on the application compare with less than 30 on westferry printers.
To cap it all Mount Anvil announce earlier this month that the GLA had made a £50 Million pound loan to the company,
So to the Introductory quote after taking some “Bleedin Liberties”
Two Schemes alike in wealth
both un alike in infamy,
In fair London, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd developers Lay their suit.
Whose misadventur'd piteous overthrows
Doth with their Consents bury their Political strife
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Collection and Reporting. https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/planning and building control/ Infrastructure planning/community infrastructure levy.aspx https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m98ykqjLvDx2aluZ5roOk3zBpeLX rMP/ view?usp=sharing
Expenditure Report
For Financial Year 2015/16
4(a) Total CIL receipts in the reported year £6,774,441.64
4(b) Total CIL Expenditure in the reported year £0
4(d) CIL receipts retained for expenditure in future years
4(d)(i) Total amount of CIL receipts for the reported year retained at the end of the reported year excluding the neighbourhood proportion £5,080,831.23
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Collection and https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xoLueBPaU1wzICFzyw BFmJI5E XuEKW/ view?usp=sharing Expenditure Report
For Financial Year 2016/17
4(a) Total CIL receipts in the reported year £18,338,813.16
4(b) Total CIL Expenditure in the reported year £0
4(c)(iv) The amount of CIL applied to administrative expenses pursuant to regulation 61 and that amount expressed as a percentage of CIL collected in that year in accordance with that regulation £916,940.66 (5%)
4(ca)(ii) The amount of CIL passed to any person for that person to apply to funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure N/A
4 (cb) CIL Neighbourhood Portion / ‘Local Infrastructure Fund’
4(cb)(i) Total amount of the neighbourhood portion of CIL receipts in the reported year
Area 1: £174,205.45 Area 2: £111,041.18 Area 3: £2,630,490.57 Area 4: £1,668,966.10 Total: £4,584,703.30
Please refer to the report referred to the Council’s Cabinet meeting on the 6th December 2016 for an overview of the Council’s approach including the 4(d)(i) Total amount of CIL receipts for the reported year retained at the end of the reported year excluding the neighbourhood portion £13,754,109.86
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Collection and https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nmjc2To AriFHlvmgzwZKRdTLLKw7z9-/ view?usp=sharing
Expenditure Report
For Financial Year 2017/18
CIL Regulation 62 Amount/Description
4(a) Total CIL receipts in the reported year £13,991,577.67
4(b) Total CIL Expenditure in the reported year £42,220.91
4 (cb) CIL Neighbourhood Portion / ‘Local Infrastructure Fund’
4(cb)(i) Total amount of the neighbourhood portion of CIL receipts in the reported year Area 1: £691,648.75 Area 2: £92,392.05 Area 3: £2,610,313.01 Area 4: £103,540.61 Total: £3,497,894.42 Please refer to the report referred to the Council’s Cabinet meeting on the 6th December 2016 for an overview of the Council’s approach including the proposed boundaries. 4(d) CIL receipts retained for expenditure in future years 4(d)(i)
Total amount of CIL receipts for £10,493,683.25 4(d)(ii)
Total amount of CIL receipts from previous years retained at the end of the reported year excluding the neighbourhood portion £29,401,215.07 4(d)(iii) Total amount of neighbourhood portion CIL receipts for the reported year retained at the end of the reported year Area 1: £691,648.75 Area 2: £92,392.05
Area 3: £2,610,313.01
Area 4: £103,540.61
Total: £3,497,894.42
4(d)(iv)Total amount of neighbourhood portion CIL receipts from previous years retained at the end of the reported year
£9,800,405.02
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Collection and https://drive.google.com/file/d/147wv4W FDVdIYWFdt8s Dii9TBbBzUS2/ view?usp=sharing
Expenditure Report
For Financial Year 2018/19
4(a) Total CIL receipts in the reported year £7,412,333.97
4(b) Total CIL Expenditure in the reported year £124,781.68
4(d)(iv)Total amount of neighbourhood portion CIL receipts from previous years retained at the end of the reported year £11,417,215.86 (excl. surcharges as per Reg 88(3a))
p.9 4.2
““Past problems of valuation complexity could well be resolved with Big Data and Artificial Intelligence – Zoopla probably sets local property prices more efficiently and more accurately than the estate agency industry does!”
How should developer contributions be reported?
For the financial year 2018/19, charging authorities must report on CIL it has collected, or any CIL collected on its behalf. The report must be published on the authority‘s website no later than 31 December 2019 and include
•
• • the total CIL receipts for the reported year; the total CIL expenditure for the reported year;
summary details of CIL expenditure during the reported year including:
•the items of infrastructure to which CIL has been applied;
•the amount of CIL expenditure on each item;
•the amount of CIL applied to repay money borrowed, including interest, with details of the infrastructure items which that money was used to provide;
•the amount of CIL applied to administrative expenses and that amount expressed as a percentage of CIL collected in that year; and
•the total amount of CIL receipts retained at the end of the reported year.
For the financial year 2019/2020 onwards, any local authority that has received developer contributions (section 106 planning obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy) must publish online an infrastructure funding statement by 31 December 2020 and by the 31 December each year thereafter. Infrastructure funding statements must cover the previous financial year from 1 April to 31 March (note this is different to the tax year which runs from 6 April to 5 April).
Local authorities can publish updated data and infrastructure funding statements more frequently if they wish. More frequent reporting would help to further increase transparency and accountability and improve the quality of data available. Infrastructure funding statements can be a useful tool for wider engagement, for example with infrastructure providers, and can inform Statements of Common Ground.
Local authorities can also report this information in authority monitoring reports but the authority monitoring report is not a substitute for the infrastructure funding statement.
For information on what an infrastructure funding statement must contain see ‘What data should be in an infrastructure funding statement?’.
Paragraph: 025 Reference ID: 10-025-20190901
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/3plan-making#para34
Development contributions 34. Plans should set out the contributions expected from development. This should include setting out the levels and types of affordable housing provision required, along with other infrastructure (such as that needed for education, health, transport, flood and water management, green and digital infrastructure). Such policies should not undermine the deliverability of the plan.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability#para002
How should plan makers and site promoters ensure that policy requirements for contributions from development are deliverable?
The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable development but should be used to ensure that policies are realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies will not undermine deliverability of the plan.
57. Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions expected from development, planning applications that comply with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case, including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the plan was brought into force. All viability assessments, including any undertaken at the plan-making stage, should reflect the recommended approach in national planning guidance, including standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available.
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/ 4-decision-making#para57
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability#Should-a-viabilityassessment-be-publicly-available
https://github.com/digital-land/digital-land/issues
https://github.com/digital-land/digital-land-tiddlywiki#readme
https://www.gov.uk/guidance/publish-your-developer-contributionsdata
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-schools-tosupport-housing-growth
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/ uploads/attachment data/file/843957/
Developer Contributions Guidance update Nov2019.pdf
Mechanisms for securing developer contributions 1. Developer contributions for education are secured by means of conditions attached to planning permission, a planning obligation under Section 106 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). CIL revenues are intended to help fund the supporting infrastructure needed to address the cumulative impact of development across a local authority area. CIL can be used to fund the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of a wide range of infrastructure, including education. Alternatively, a Section 106 planning obligation secures a contribution directly payable to the local authority for education (or direct provision of a school ‘in kind’), though a planning obligation must comply with the following tests set out in the CIL Regulations1, requiring it to be: • Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms • Directly related to the development • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development 2. The CIL Regulations (as amended in September 2019) no longer impose a ‘pooling restriction’ on the use of planning obligations to fund the same type of infrastructure or infrastructure project, and an infrastructure project may receive funding 1 Regulation 122 of The Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. 6 from both CIL and Section 106. We advise you to work with local planning authorities in devising their approaches to securing developer contributions, to consider the most appropriate mechanism (Section 106 planning obligations and/or CIL) to secure contributions from developers towards education alongside other infrastructure funding priorities. Also, when CIL charging schedules are prepared, this engagement with local planning authorities should ensure that school developments are
among those D1 uses that are viability tested. A nil rate can be applied if the viability evidence indicates this is appropriate. Local planning authorities should be made aware of the considerable public investment in community infrastructure that a school represents.
https://viability-comparison-tool.netlify.app/
Approved by Mayor
https://planning southwark
https://planning southwark
https://planning.southwark.
7) Informatives: 1 S106 agreement It should be noted that there is a separate legal agreement which relates to the development for which this permission is granted.
6. CIL phasing - this planning permission is as a ‘Phased Planning Permission’ for the purposes of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). ‘Phased Planning Permission’ has the meaning defined in the interpretation section of the Regulations at 2(1). Regulation 9(4) of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) states that in the case of a grant of Phased Planning Permission, each CIL Phase of the development is a separate chargeable 33 development and will in turn attract its own CIL Liability. Notwithstanding the Phasing Plans referred to in Condition 52, The CIL Phases are to be defined by a separate CIL Phasing Plan submitted to the Local Planning Authority.
This is a build to rent scheme owned by Grosvenor,
What is intriguing is this Alpha software being developed by the local authorities, Bermondsey Project
Local Authority: Southwark
Date submitted: 2019-01-10
Application reference: VA 17/AP/4088
Habitable rooms: 2705
Residential units: 1343
Affordable housing: 32%
Commercial Area: 19,579m²
Developer profit (% of GDV): 13%
Max number of storeys: 36
GDV: £936,705,001
Construction Costs: £455,301,516
Professional Fees (% of construction costs): 11%
Marketing and letting Fees (% of construction costs): 1%
Finance: £81,474,151
Financial planning obligations: £67,807,148
https://viability-comparison-
This is the problem with Bureaucracy on a Stalinist scale the Process number crunches will descend into a mire of what aboutery and nothing ever gets done
I have not studied this scheme in depth I do know the fact that this one has been granted consent without comment and a lowish contribution and the furore on the Westferry Printers point to another Agenda in respect of the whole Farago.
(+44) (0)7498880719. CALL Roger Lewis