Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

Atlas Presentation: Birmingham

989 views

Published on

Atlas Presentation: Birmingham

Published in: Government & Nonprofit
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

Atlas Presentation: Birmingham

  1. 1. PAS 106 Workshops ADVISORY TEAM FOR LARGE APPLICATIONS
  2. 2.  Advisory Team for Large Applications  Impartial advice  Provided at the request of Local Authorities …. but available to the benefit of all partners  Large Scale (200+, 500+ housing units)  Projects at all stages in planning process  Working on “large sites”: urban extensions, new settlements, LIF projects, public sector land, garden cities Introducing ATLAS
  3. 3. ATLAS Project Activity - Jan 2016 ESE SSW MID NTH Total Projects Total Units Total 16 17 17 26 75 239,816 LSIP/ HDF - Sites >1,500 15 15 16 16 62 227,825 - Sites <1,500 1 1 1 10 13 11,991 - Housing Zones 1 3 3 5 12 23,067 - Priority Sites 3 4 0 2 9 44,870 Garden Cities - DCLG Supported 3 1 1 0 5 42,700 - DCLG Awareness 4 0 0 0 4 31,500 Public Sector Land - HCA Land 0 0 1 0 1 1,880 - OGDs Land 0 2 0 0 2 5,745 Large Site ( >1500) Large Site ( <1500) Public Sector Land Garden City (supported) Housing Zone Garden City (aware) Priority Sites
  4. 4. What we’ll cover  Look at challenges that large sites present for s106’s  How to deal with these issues in a timely manner  Tools and techniques from our experience  Your experiences
  5. 5.  Start early!!  Get clarity on vision & critical outcomes  Collaborate & share information  Ensure evidence is robust  Test alternative ways of doing things  Work positively to find solutions  Be flexible where possible  Don’t compromise too far Vision Does the potential solution fit the agreed vision and objectives / anticipated outcomes? If not, is it acceptable? Impact on Viability Will the potential solution close the viability gap and enable the development to proceed. Prospect of Delivery Will the potential solution be deliverable, i.e. are the appropriate partners on board, is the solution eligible for potential funding? Level of “Acceptable” Risk What are the risks associated with the solution. Is this considered acceptable? Some Key Themes
  6. 6. Pitfalls - of course it’s not that simple…….  CIL can get in the way – relationship with s106  Reg 122 – contributions have to be necessary; directly related; and fair & reasonable  Reg 123 – no longer pool more than 5 contributions for type of piece of infrastructure  Evidence of Inspectors beginning to apply strictly  Starter Homes – unclear impact on viability and AH provision going forward
  7. 7. Your Experiences…….  Political risk taking – setting priorities; being flexible etc.  Issues of openness and collaboration (not to mention skills) on viability?  Pooling issues – is this starting to cause a problem?  Use of s106 Frameworks - any experiences?  Use of review mechanisms?  Views on Starter Homes impact?
  8. 8.  Creating quality places  Requires balance and mix of uses - sustainability  Significant infrastructure needs: transport, utilities, social & community  Often multiple land owners  Over a long time – many phases Key Challenges Scale & Components
  9. 9. Number of organisations involved Local Authorities Private Sector Public Bodies
  10. 10. Typical large scale approach  6000 homes extension to Scunthorpe  Significant infrastructure – flooding  Multiple ownerships  Define as much as possible at policy stage
  11. 11. Outline application stage – design parameters
  12. 12. Breaking the site down
  13. 13. Site Specific Infrastructure Delivery Plan  What infrastructure is needed?  Where is it needed?  When will it be needed?  How will it be paid for?  Who will deliver it?  CIL may well impact upon this?
  14. 14.  40% affordable homes  £5.7m primary school  £5m secondary school  £2.1m community centre  £2.3m access road  £2.1m community centre  £1.4m guided bus  £0.8m local transport initiatives  £0.6m play area maintenance  £0.6m community payments Example scope of obligations Trumpington Meadows, Cambridge 1,200 units & associated mixed uses, approved Oct 2009. Scope of obligations:  Ecological mitigation  Allotments maintenance  Household waste / recycling  Sports facilities maintenance  Sports Development officer  Bus allowance  Library, health & police  Community Development  Youth facility, youth worker …. etc
  15. 15.  Initial land release: “patient” money  Multiple developer / land interests  Phasing of infrastructure & enabling works  Long term returns on investment -10,000 -8,000 -6,000 -4,000 -2,000 0 2,000 4,000 6,000 8,000 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Additional Challenges Scale & land, phasing & cashflow
  16. 16. Dealing with the Challenges Collaborative and Integrated Approach
  17. 17. Framework Agreements  Establishes a mechanism for collection and management of contributions  Agreed infrastructure package  Specifies what infrastructure needs to be provided and when
  18. 18. Framework Agreements Some Considerations  Overall Planning Strategy agreed  Consistent approach to the Planning Applications  The components of proposed Framework S106 Agreement itself  Infrastructure Delivery Plans  Relationship to CIL  Development Framework Plans  Relationship to Masterplanning
  19. 19. Appraisal Tools  Development Appraisal Tool  Works for up to 20 years  Populate income with: unit numbers, sizes, values and rents amongst others and allows up to 5 phases  Costs can be specified and include developer overheads and return for risk, and planning obligations  Garden Cities Model  Bespoke for very large schemes – at high level  Allows public funding to be included  Allows for value capture
  20. 20. Review Mechanisms  NPPF promotes the approach – ‘to take account of changes in market conditions over time and be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development from being stalled ‘(para 205)  Accept due to project viability, based on current costs and values not all S106 obligations will be fully funded  Re-appraisals will need to be carried out  Involves risk – if viability does not improve then some obligations will not be fully met!
  21. 21. Deferred obligations (one variable: value uplift) Actual Sale Price Implementation Baseline appraisal Deferred Obligations, contingent on uplift in values Initial “Residual Regardless” contributions Capped Total
  22. 22. Review Mechanisms Some Key Principles  Baseline on viability approved up front  Be clear on S106 priorities and accept all cannot be provided now!  Don’t review too often and keep any mechanisms simple  Take care re relationship to CIL Regs and pooling issues  Often based on 2 key variables – costs and sales values  Cap overall obligations  Has to work for the developer as well
  23. 23. Further Information The ATLAS Guide: Planning for Large Scale Development: www.atlasplanning.com The HCA’s guide to the Development Appraisal Tool: http://www.homesandcommunities.co.uk/ou rwork/development-appraisal-tool

×