Emphasise that it’s important to identify issues EARLY – S106’s for large schemes are complex and need time to resolve – so the earlier you start the better!!
Large scale has number of significant and different components and many of these will need to feature in 106 – key is working out what it is you want to deliver. What kind of place do you want to create and how can a 106 help you deliver this?
Different land use components; infrastructure requirements etc.
Added complexity that a number of organisations will be involved in delivering large scale schemes, so they need to be at the table as early as possible – opportunity to emphasise the COLLABORATIVE approach.
This example is Lincs Lakes – but substitute an example of your own if you wish, but the key is to start with a masterplan – you need a clear idea on the key components that need to be delivered and where they will go. A masterplan (or framework plan) will start to map this out and allow you to define key infrastructure. If CIL is in place or being considered, then think about it early.
The detail of this site is not important – the important point here is that as well as knowing what you want to deliver, you also need to understand the detail of when it will need to be delivered. This is a key part of place making – delivering timely infrastructure. Understanding phasing will help in the formulation of a realistic and deliverable 106.
Where it’s a particularly large scheme, you may need to break the site down into areas to be able to understand how they will work and what infrastructure is required, when. The extract demonstrates that if you start early enough, you can be prescriptive in your policy (although still allow for flexibility), to create a robust basis for formulating a S106 further down the line.
The example is from The Avenue and demonstrates how important it is to keep the masterplanning approach going – to help further define the key infrastructure from a place making point of view. This needs to be constructed via a collaborative approach.
Before you start to construct a S106, you need clarity at this level – a delivery plan that is specific for your site. This can come in at policy and/or outline stage.
Will end up with a significant list of items to be included - may need to prioritise this as not all may be afforded at this stage? This slide also demonstrates that a number of items can be revenue and shouldn’t be forgotten about (items listed in blue) as the place/infrastructure will need to be maintained and there is a need to calculate at least elements of this as part of the 106 preparation.
Be clear on where you are fixed and where you can show flexibility – may need to be creative. This also demonstrates that you need to include a number of parties in the discussions (LA depts, County etc.)
This slide highlights the number of people/organisations that may need to be involved and that this will have to be structured and led! Tough choices and decisions need to be made with the right level of information and ideally need to be understood by all.
Understanding the economics of how developer’s approach things is also important to understand how to construct a 106 and where to be flexible – helps create pragmatic solutions and problem solving.
Large scale 106’s lend themselves to review mechanisms as they will be developed over a significant period of time and several economic cycles (potentially). Including review mechanisms also avoids obsessing over detail that can’t really be fixed now – but enables you to understand some of these issues further down the line.
This illustrates how review mechanisms can work in relation to the baseline appraisal. 106 will need to specify how often to review; what to review; and what to do with any additional monies. Can also build in other sources of funding that may emerge over time etc.
Getting into the detail of viability is crucial and needs to be an open and transparent process to enable decisions to be made and solutions found – don’t just rely on developers figures and avoid the adversarial approach. Helpful to use District Valuer to inform on costs and values.
Framework agreements MAY be a solution but relatively untested – help to create a defacto equalisation agreement and is basically an agreement to agree contributions in the future.
Reg 122 has now enshrined the tests for 106 in law and inspectors are beginning to scrutinise this. Inspectors are also looking closely at pooling and can take a strict line
Discussion should be generated via going through a list of questions and offering to capture responses to feedback to PAS/DCLG.
The questions listed are based on bringing out the experience from the audience, as well as their views on what the impact of starter homes may be on viability.
PAS 106 Workshops
ADVISORY TEAM FOR
Advisory Team for Large Applications
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
ATLAS Project Activity - Jan 2016
ESE SSW MID NTH Total
Total 16 17 17 26 75 239,816
- 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
- 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)
Garden City (aware)
What we’ll cover
Look at challenges that
large sites present for 106’s
How to deal with these
issues in a timely manner
Tools and techniques from
Requires balance and
mix of uses -
transport, utilities, social
Often multiple land
Over a long time –
Key Challenges of Large Scale
Scale & Components
Number of organisations
Private Sector Public Bodies
Typical large scale approach
Define as much as
possible at policy
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:
Household waste / recycling
Sports facilities maintenance
Sports Development officer
Library, health & police
Youth facility, youth worker …. etc
Initial land release:
/ land interests
Long term returns
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Scale & land, phasing & cashflow
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
Re-appraisals will need to be carried out
Involves risk – if viability does not improve then some
obligations will not be fully met!
Some Key Principles
Baseline on viability approved up front
Be clear on S106 priorities and accept all cannot be provided
Don’t review too often
Keep any mechanisms simple
Often based on 2 key variables – costs and sales values
Cap overall obligations
Has to work for the developer as well
(one variable: value uplift)
uplift in values
Initial “Residual Regardless” contributions
• 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
• Garden Cities Model
• Bespoke for very large
schemes – at high level
• Allows public funding to be
• Allows for value capture
• Establishes a
• Specifies what
needs to be
provided and when
Get clarity on vision &
Collaborate & share
Ensure evidence is robust
Test alternative ways of
Work positively to find
Be flexible where possible
Don’t compromise too far
Does the potential solution fit
the agreed vision and
objectives / anticipated
outcomes? If not, is it
Impact on Viability
Will the potential solution
close the viability gap and
enable the development to
Prospect of Delivery
Will the potential solution be
deliverable, i.e. are the
appropriate partners on
board, is the solution eligible
for potential funding?
What are the risks
associated with the
solution. Is this
Hints & tips
Pitfalls - of course it’s not that
CIL can get in the way
Reg 122 – contributions have to be necessary; directly
related; and fair & reasonable
Reg 123 – no longer pool more than 5 contributions for
single piece of infrastructure
Evidence of Inspectors beginning to apply strictly
Starter Homes – unclear impact on viability and AH
provision going forward
Points for discussion
Use of review mechanisms?
Issues of openness and collaboration (not to mention
skills) on viability?
Political risk taking – setting priorities; being flexible etc.
Pooling issue – is this starting to cause a problem?
Use of 106 Frameworks - any experience?
View on Starter Home impact?
The ATLAS Guide:
Planning for Large Scale Development:
The HCA’s guide to a development appraisal tool: