ITEM CA21
CABINET –
RESPONSE TO ENVIRONMENT & ECONOMY SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
REVIEW OF PLANNING OBLIGATIONS
Report by Head of
Sustainable Development
Introduction
1. Planning obligations (under Section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990) are legal commitments made by developers to provide on-site works and/or funding for infrastructure such as roads, schools, or libraries which are necessary to meet needs arising from a new development proposal. Comparable agreements under Section 278 of the Highways Act 1980 cater for the provision of off-site highway works by the developer. Planning obligations are usually required to be completed before the grant of planning permission to secure the provision of the infrastructure required in consequence of the development
(Planning Obligations Scrutiny Review - Summary - download as .pdf file).
(Planning Obligations Scrutiny Review - download as .pdf file)
3.
The County
Council has a small developer funding team of officers who are responsible for
identifying, justifying, negotiating, monitoring and collecting funds and
disseminating information on funds secured from new development. They sit in
the Planning Implementation Group of Sustainable Development. Their work is
closely interrelated with the planning and transport functions of the Council
(transport staff also play a significant negotiating role), they are vitally
supported by the Legal Unit, and rely on co-operation and support from all
Directorates of the Council in that they seek to collect funding for all
relevant areas of the Council’s service provision.
4.
Significant
planned new growth in Oxfordshire for the coming 20 or so years means that demands on Council services will grow. This will make the securing
of funding from all appropriate sources even more important in the future. Already much of the Council’s capital
programme is heavily reliant on developer funding.
5.
The Environment
and Economy Scrutiny Committee has conducted a review of the effectiveness of
the way in which the planning obligations system is used by the County Council.
This has been conducted over a period of about a year, has involved interviews
with a wide range of internal and external customers together with assessment
of current and emerging government policy. It contains 14 recommendations and
the following section highlights the Scrutiny Committee’s recommendations,
followed by my comments.
Scrutiny Committee Recommendations and Comments of
the Head of Sustainable Development
6.
R1 The Committee
RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to make the production of a planning
obligations policy guidance document an immediate priority.
Response:
I agree that such a document is a priority. A
temporary member of staff has been employed (funded through underspend because of larger planning application fee income than forecast) to produce a
policy guidance document that can be used either as a free standing document,
or incorporated into district council supplementary planning guidance documents
(officers have already had an input into the City Council’s planning
obligations guidance).
Timescale: by February 2008
R2 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to introduce clearly
defined and formulae-based systems as a starting point for determining the
level of contributions for residential and commercial developments.
Response:
Officers already use some standard formulae but these
will be reviewed and a more comprehensive approach provided through the new
guidance document to meet Recommendation 1 above.
At the moment officers seek and achieve contributions
from both residential and commercial development. Most effort goes into
residential developments but transport impacts of all development proposals are
assessed. This can be adjusted over time with a view to securing, for example,
appropriate library and waste management contributions from commercial
developments as well.
Timescale: by February 2008
R3 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to replace the
10-dwelling threshold with a much lower threshold based on bedroom numbers
rather than dwellings and address incremental impact of commercial
developments.
Response:
Assessment of the impact of a residential development
based on the number of bedrooms is more likely to identify the infrastructure/service
needs arising from a development. It is in practice the present basis for
calculating the impact of a development but not for identifying those
developments from which funding will be secured.
Incremental transport impacts of commercial developments
are already assessed but the impacts of commercial development on other
services are not.
Reducing the threshold at which county officers
generally seek contributions would have resource implications and be beyond
current staff resources both within the team and in other directorates.
district councils have Best Value Performance Indicator
targets which have a 10 dwelling threshold. That means they have a target of
deciding planning applications with fewer than 10 dwellings in 8 weeks, and of
10 plus dwellings in 13 - 16 weeks. They may baulk at the idea of requiring
legal agreements for ‘minor’ fewer than 10 dwelling applications.
It would be desirable to meet this recommendation but
not so easy in practice. I think it is something we might look to pursue after
March 2008.
R4 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to add money into the
budget for 2008/09 for one additional developer funding team post.
Response:
The developer funding team secures funds for
transport, schools, libraries, waste management infrastructure and more (around
£20m 2006/7) which far and away exceeds developer funding staff costs (around
£200,000 inclusive annually). The current workload includes potential financial
contributions amounting to over £85m. These sorts of sums could be put at risk
without adequate staff resources. It is
worth noting that staff in the developer funding team routinely work large
amounts of unpaid overtime and that the scrutiny committee report expressed
concern at the particular risks posed by a very few staff carrying this sort of
workload. More staff employed toward
negotiating, helping to keep on top of and responding ahead of policy
initiatives, and ensuring funds are properly collected and administered, would
give value for money as would additional in-house legal support.
I recommend that additional staff resources be
created from 2008/9 budget onwards to provide:
A senior negotiator (G12/13) – to increase capacity
to negotiate and secure contributions from major developments:
A policy development officer (G10) - to take forward
initial work by the temporary appointment charged with producing the policy
guidance document and make sure that the Council gets to and stays at the
forefront of councils’ approaches to maximising justified infrastructure
contributions from new developments. The post would enable the developer
funding team to work with the various Directorates better to develop strategies
and infrastructure requirements and incorporate them in district Local
Development Frameworks (LDFs). The post would also
enable stronger links to be developed with the various Directorates/Service
areas to deliver the objectives behind Recommendation 6.
An agreements monitoring officer (G8) - to make sure
that the Council can manage the increasing number of complex agreements, makes
sure we get in the money committed and enable Directorates to be able to spend
it effectively while maintaining proper audit processes.
A solicitor (G13) within the Corporate Core - to
provide critical legal rigour to the increasing numbers of agreements that
would be secured through the increased developer funding team capacity.
In addition there is an intention to identify, as
part of the Service and Resource Planning process, the need for additional
staffing in Property Services and the Children, Young People & Families
Directorate to manage the additional expected projects for new schools in the
growth areas, and that the costs be funded from
developer contributions.
Timescale: For 2008/9 budget onwards
R5 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to review annually the
administration and monitoring fee that developers are charged and benchmark
against top quartile authorities to ensure it remains at appropriate levels.
Response:
Legal and administrative/monitoring charges are made
and have become an established part of development costs where Section 106
agreements are necessary. These costs are likely to form part of district
council Local Development Framework Supplementary Planning Documents (already
the case in
Timescale – post February 2008.
R6 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to ensure that by
October 2007 every Directorate has a named contact to form the basis of a
‘virtual team’ for developer funding team liaison.
Response:
Key contacts have already been established and these
are being reviewed to ensure that they are relevant and that the list is
comprehensive. There is more work to do to actively engage all Directorates and this needs to go beyond the immediate contact
(champion). Developer Funding Team officers intend to set up a
cross-directorate user group to help engagement. More developer funding
activity will generate extra demands on key areas of directorates.
Timescale: Contacts by October,
engagement longer term over 2007/8
R7 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to ensure councillors
are better able to input into the ‘needs identification’ stage by:
(a) establishing a process to check councillors are informed of
planning applications in a timely and useful way;
(b) producing
a short guidance note/presentation for inclusion in councillors’ induction and
training that explains the most constructive way for councillors to give voice
to their communities’ interests; and,
(c) offering preliminary meetings for councillors of relevant
divisions to discuss any planning obligation requirements with officers prior
to all applications for a major development being submitted.
Response:
I do not think it would be practicable to offer
meetings with Councillors on all applications over 10 dwellings. As a
non-statutory consultee the County Council has 21
days in which to respond to a district council on an application. A meeting,
together with the subsequent discussions that would inevitably follow, would
take significant officer time and reduce the effectiveness of the team.
A more practical way to help officers’ awareness of
local infrastructure demands would be invite the local Member to provide officers
with an annual health check of local infrastructure-related issues. This could
support negotiations where new development proposals are being discussed.
Where the County Council is involved in the more
significant development proposals - initially say for developments of more than
200 dwellings (and corresponding commercial proposals) where there is likely to
be wider public interest and implications - I think greater involvement of
local Members could be appropriate, beneficial and achievable provided staff
resources allow.
Guidance on the involvement of local Members in the
early consideration of applications would need to be carefully considered
together with the implications of the Planning Code of Conduct where they are
also Planning & Regulation Committee members. A short guidance note can be
prepared and disseminated and then used with a presentation as part of Members’
induction following the next elections.
Once the guidance note is produced we will introduce
notification to local councillors of all developments where we are negotiating.
Timescale: guidance note April 2008
R8 The
Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to encourage a stronger sense of district and
county partnership and work together with each Oxfordshire district council to
ensure district and county planning obligation policy guidance are well
integrated (preferably in a single joint document.)
Response:
I agree there should be close working with district
councils and indeed day-to-day working relations are generally good. Officers
intend to produce a single guidance note for County Council infrastructure
requirements. I think district Councils may not wish to combine their own
policy requirements into the same document because of their own Local
Development Framework timescales and varying local standards. We intend to
involve district councils in the process of producing the County Council’s
single document, which will then be used to feed into district plans.
Timescale: Greater district council
involvement from this Autumn.
R9 The
Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to ensure the Council has sufficient legal
capacity to avoid the need for outsourcing work since work undertaken in-house
results in additional resources which can be used to enhance the capacity and
expertise of the in-house team.
Response:
Legal resources are already stretched, and the
intensification of activity to secure developer funding contributions
(including land and works) will put the County’s Legal Services Unit under
further pressure. Development of in-house expertise is preferable to hiring
consultants. Costs can be recouped through existing systems.
I agree that maintaining sufficient in-house legal
capacity is desirable and the Council’s Solicitor will need to keep this under
close review and increase the resources when appropriate. The recommendation at
R4 above is to increase the Legal Services Unit capacity by one member of
staff.
R10 The
Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to improve payment compliance by developing
the financial monitoring software to produce automatic alerts to officers, as a
high priority.
Response:
I support the principle of improving compliance with
agreements, and making sure that all the money secured is received and used.
Agreements are complex and numerous and automatic
alerts at all points may be too ambitious. We can continue to explore and
implement improvements to our database systems. The e-Planning project also
will help to introduce more checks and initial triggers and increase
appreciation of where and when permitted developments actually take place.
Timescale: Ongoing modifications and improvements
plus benefits from e-Planning from Spring 2008.
R11 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to improve linkages
between planning obligations and the Council’s capital programme so that the
monitoring and reporting of them are better aligned.
Response:
I strongly agree with this recommendation. Senior
officers have begun the process of strengthening these linkages to make sure
that, when preparing the capital programme, there is greater awareness of
forthcoming development pressures and of developer funding money available or
likely to become available.
Timescale: This will happen from this Autumn onwards.
R12 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to produce a guidance
note to be sent to all parish and town councils that:
(a)
explains
the concept of planning obligations;
(b)
encourages
them to produce Town/Parish Plans that consider planning issues and include
details of their local infrastructure requirements; and,
(c)
advises them to
give their contact details to the district planning team and request they be
consulted on all applications likely to affect their own parish.
Response:
I think that it is important to relate our work to
town and parish councils and to use local knowledge to help us provide
appropriate council infrastructure and services. The vast majority of planning
applications are processed and decided by district councils and part of their
process includes consulting parishes. Guidance would best
come from district councils and South
Timescale: a priority from April 2008.
R13 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to find new and
improved ways actively to inform a range of local stakeholders of the
facilities provided to their communities through planning obligation
contributions, beyond merely publishing the annual report to Cabinet on the
County Council’s website.
Response:
I agree with this recommendation. I think there are a
number of steps that officers could take which include use of e-Planning and
websites to provide more information, press releases on the back of successful
planning applications and greater acknowledgment of developer contributions
through the capital programme.
Timescale:
some steps can be taken immediately but others will flow from ePlanning next spring.
R14 The Committee RECOMMENDS the Cabinet to produce an Action
Plan in response to the scrutiny committee recommendations rather than a
Cabinet meeting minute.
Response:
Annex 2 (download as .doc file) provides a timeline for implementing the
measures recommended in this report. A considerable amount of work is involved.
Implementing all the actions is dependent on having additional staff resources
as set out under my comments on Recommendation 4 above.
Financial and Staff Implications
7.
The developer
funding team secured around £20m of funds toward County Council infrastructure
over the 2006/7 financial period and is currently working on a further £85m
minimum. This has been achieved with a small team which is working
significantly beyond capacity. The Environment & Economy Scrutiny Committee
report identified a range of measures which in broad terms aim to create an
exemplar approach capable of maximising developer contributions. If the recommendations at R4 above are
supported this would require investment of up to £170k per annum. However, it is already established practice
that developer contributions should fund local authority legal and monitoring
costs, and some local authorities have succeeded in widening the range of work
funded by contributions. There may be
scope, therefore, to reduce the investment requiring base budget funding. However, even at the maximum investment, it should
generate many times its value in Council infrastructure and thus represent
value for money. Without investment there is a serious risk that the team
cannot continue to perform at its present level or indeed adapt itself to
emerging approaches to securing infrastructure funding.
Equality and Inclusion Implications
8.
Providing appropriate
infrastructure and public services to accompany new development is essential to
the creation of thriving communities and meeting the strategic priorities of
the County Council.
Sustainability Implications
9.
Part of the
Council’s aim in promoting and enabling new development through the planning
system is to ensure that such development is as sustainable as possible. This may be through measures such as ensuring
adequate public transport or in the promotion of employment and community
facilities which reduce the need to travel, measures which can be secured
through appropriate planning obligations.
RECOMMENDATION
10.
It is RECOMMENDED that the Cabinet:
(a)
thank the Environment & Economy Scrutiny Review
Committee for their report and the significant work behind it;
(b)
agree the action plan set out in Annex 2 to this
report;
(c)
agree to
consider, as part of the Service & Resource Planning process, the need to
invest £170k in the Developer Funding Teams from 2008/9 to meet the
requirements identified under Recommendation 4 above. In addition, officers should continue to
explore the scope for meeting as large a proportion of this as possible from
developer contributions; and,
(d)
agree to consider the need to invest and fund the
additional staffing in Property Services and CYP&F Directorate required to
ensure the delivery of the required projects resulting from planning
obligations be identified as part of the Service & Resource Planning
process for 2008/09.
CHRIS COUSINS
Head of Sustainable Development
Environment & Economy
Background Papers: “Planning Obligations” Scrutiny
Review.
Contact Officer: Rob Dance, Planning
Implementation Manager (Tel: 01865 815077)
September 2007
|