8 replies to this topic

[Fran]

Bribing officials to help get a planning application through would clearly be morally wrong and indeed, illegal. (I’m talking hypothetically, don’t know of any cases and suggest that anyone who thinks they do, avoids potentially libellous posts.)

In contrast, for the local authority to make planning permission conditional on the developer putting things right, such as resurfacing a damaged road or installing a roundabout to cope with extra traffic is commonplace and largely uncontroversial, even though the local authority arguably gets a cash benefit by not having to pay for those things itself.

But what about the grey area in-between, for example, making the developer build surgeries, schools, shops and other infrastructure that normally the local authority is responsible for? After all, if dozens of small schemes mean a new school is needed, the local authority pays, but if a single large scheme creates the same need (even though it may be less profitable), the local authority may make the developer pay.

Also, is it morally different if such peripheral work is offered by the developer in advance, rather than imposed as a condition by the local authority?

No right answers, obviously; I’m just mulling it over…

[Matthew (MPJ/Admin)]

Related issue, which makes things even more complicated. What happens if a planning condition created as in Fran's post is initially met, but then it lapses. Is it easy / morally easy to enforce?

[David P]

If it's a small development, e.g. in-fill, then the infrastructure is already there and it costs the developer and/or the council nothing. If it's a major development then I think it has always been the case that the developer pays for the infrastructure - roads, drains, utilities, etc. After all, there would be no need for them if the housese were not being built so the capital cost must be seen as part of the cost of the development. Once complete, the council (water board or whoever) takes responsibilty but the running costs are then financed by council tax, water rates, etc.
Shops, pubs, etc. The council has never been responsible for providing these and it would normally be up to commercial interests to provide them. I think t entirely reasonable that planning is made conditional on providing space for these because the new community will need them. Once you've done that you might as well build them. Presumably the developer can then sell them (or rent them) so he does not lose financially.
That only leaves schools (possibly surgeries, libraries) that I can think of. If it's a sufficiently large development I think it entirely justifiable to regard these as part of the infrastructure - part of the capital cost of the development but down to the local authorities to pick up the running costs.
So no, I see no problems at all with making planning permission conditional on such things. In fact, I would say it ought always to make such conditions.

[Alan]

Bribing officials to help get a planning application through would clearly be morally wrong and indeed, illegal. (I'm talking hypothetically, don't know of any cases and suggest that anyone who thinks they do, avoids potentially libellous posts.)

In contrast, for the local authority to make planning permission conditional on the developer putting things right, such as resurfacing a damaged road or installing a roundabout to cope with extra traffic is commonplace and largely uncontroversial, even though the local authority arguably gets a cash benefit by not having to pay for those things itself.

But what about the grey area in-between, for example, making the developer build shops, schools and other infrastructure that normally the local authority is responsible for? After all, if dozens of small schemes mean a new school is needed, the local authority pays, but if a single large scheme creates the same need (even though it may be less profitable), the local authority may make the developer pay.

Also, is it morally different if such peripheral work is offered by the developer in advance, rather than imposed as a condition by the local authority?

No right answers, obviously; I'm just mulling it over…

Fran
We the great employed. Pay more, nothing to do with politics????????????????????????????I give up, I now feel like telling my kinds to claim??????????????????????????????

[Fran]

If it's a small development, e.g. in-fill, then the infrastructure is already there and it costs the developer and/or the council nothing. If it's a major development then I think it has always been the case that the developer pays for the infrastructure - roads, drains, utilities, etc. After all, there would be no need for them if the housese were not being built so the capital cost must be seen as part of the cost of the development.

But lots of smaller developments can create the same needs as one large one, except that in the former case, the local authority has to pick up the whole bill for providing services and infrastructure.

Perhaps a better solution would be for all developers of new homes to pay towards such things, with the amount varying according to the number of households or bedrooms provided? I can't see that happening, as creating such obvious new tax would be politically damaging for whoever introduced it.

So no, I see no problems at all with making planning permission conditional on such things. In fact, I would say it ought always to make such conditions.

But at what point would a developer offering to provide facilities above and beyond the call of duty cross the boundary to inducement/bribe?

[Alan]

But at what point would a developer offering to provide facilities above and beyond the call of duty cross the boundary to inducement/bribe?

You'd need to show the intent, the definition if I remember correctly is as follows 'A bribe is the giving or receiving of a gift with the object of inducing a person to do or forbear to something contrary to their duty.' They may claim they were supporting the community?

[Eng1]

I have been viewing this esteemed Forum for a while and thought I may be able to offer a little insight into the mysteries of Town and Country Planning.



Contributions by Development to Local/Regional/National need are covered by the 1990 Planning Act; under Section 106 Developers and Planning Authorities are allowed to enter into contract to deliver Infrastructure, Public Use Buildings, etc as required by Consent. Contributions are based on the mitigation required against the Development Impact on the area in question, for example higher traffic generation may require new roads, junction improvements, new public transport services. The contribution will be proportionate to the impact and it is normal for small developments to make their contribution in funds and not physical works, where the funds are held in trust by the Planning Authority and when sufficient development has come forward these are then expended accordingly.



Contributions can only be required where there is a specific policy context which expresses such a need, which must be published in either the Local Development Framework, Regional Strategy or by National Policy or Guidance. This is well established under law to both protect the Applicant from being held to ransom, and to ensure that Applicants make a fair contribution to increased demands on the local planning area that have come about by their proposals, and to prevent somebody ‘buying’ a consent.



Housing Development contributions tend to be in terms of: Provision of Social Housing, Schools (Part or Full), Transportation, Highways, Environment, and Public Open Space. Matters of Health, Policing and Emergency Services tend to be centrally funded, based on predicted growth within the 5 year plan periods set for each authority area.



Conditions are the permissive parts of the Planning Consent and it is possible that some or all of these are covered by the S106 Agreement, but there are quite a few other agreements under other Acts that can be used, these tend to apply to Highway, Transportation, Drainage and Utility matters.



Hope this helps

[Alan]

I have been viewing this esteemed Forum for a while and thought I may be able to offer a little insight into the mysteries of Town and Country Planning.



Contributions by Development to Local/Regional/National need are covered by the 1990 Planning Act; under Section 106 Developers and Planning Authorities are allowed to enter into contract to deliver Infrastructure, Public Use Buildings, etc as required by Consent. Contributions are based on the mitigation required against the Development Impact on the area in question, for example higher traffic generation may require new roads, junction improvements, new public transport services. The contribution will be proportionate to the impact and it is normal for small developments to make their contribution in funds and not physical works, where the funds are held in trust by the Planning Authority and when sufficient development has come forward these are then expended accordingly.



Contributions can only be required where there is a specific policy context which expresses such a need, which must be published in either the Local Development Framework, Regional Strategy or by National Policy or Guidance. This is well established under law to both protect the Applicant from being held to ransom, and to ensure that Applicants make a fair contribution to increased demands on the local planning area that have come about by their proposals, and to prevent somebody 'buying' a consent.



Housing Development contributions tend to be in terms of: Provision of Social Housing, Schools (Part or Full), Transportation, Highways, Environment, and Public Open Space. Matters of Health, Policing and Emergency Services tend to be centrally funded, based on predicted growth within the 5 year plan periods set for each authority area.



Conditions are the permissive parts of the Planning Consent and it is possible that some or all of these are covered by the S106 Agreement, but there are quite a few other agreements under other Acts that can be used, these tend to apply to Highway, Transportation, Drainage and Utility matters.



Hope this helps

It makes some sence to get the developers to contribute to the local whatever

[Fran]

Hope this helps

Yes, thanks. Very comprehensive and sounds pretty even handed and sensible.