To What Extent have Standard Charges Improved the Practice of Planning Obligations in the UK - Literature review Example

?To what extent have Standard Charges improved the practice of planning obligations in the United Kingdom Introduction The appearance of StandardCharges, as an approach of the planning obligations practice, is rather recent; however, the roots of this approach can be identified in earlier legislative texts, as for instance the standard revenue established through the 1921 Act - related to railways (Haywood 2009, 42). The introduction of Standard Charges in regard to the planning obligations practice in 2005 (through the Planning Obligations Circular 05/2005, as noted in Ratcliffe et al. 2009, p.161) was considered as a key tool for ‘increasing the planning gain’ (Great Britain: Department for Communities and Local Government, 2007, p.55). The most common form of Standard Charge in relation to planning is the, so called, ‘roof-tax’, which is a tariff imposed ‘on development’ (Syms 2010, p.206). Despite the initial concerns regarding the role and the value of Standard Charges, it has been proved that the specific measure could help towards the improvement of planning obligations in Britain. The ways in which the above target is achieved are analytically explained in this paper; reference is made to the potential differentiation of Standard Charges from other, similar, approaches of planning obligations practice, such as the negotiated approach. 2. Critical review of planning obligations practice The framework of the planning obligations practice in Britain has been extensively examined in the literature; the contribution of these obligations in community development has been considered as one of the most important causes of this phenomenon. However, the emphasis on the planning obligations practice has been also related to various political interests, as analytically explained below. In order to understand the level at which Standard Charges can help towards the improvement of planning obligations in Britain – the key theme of this paper – it would be necessary to refer primarily to the context of planning obligations, as described in the literature published in the particular field. Planning obligations are one of the most critical parts of British planning system, having the power to affect ‘the public confidence on political decisions’ (Goodchild 2008, p.174). In accordance with Ratcliffe et al (2009) in their initial form, planning obligations were considered as ‘land-use/ amenity – related gains and social/ economic – related gains (Debenham et al. 1988 in Ratcliffe et al. 2009, p. 16). Another characteristic of planning obligations system in Britain is that the specific system is based ‘upon negotiation and bargaining’ (Ratcliffe et al 2009, p.16). It is assumed that planning obligations system is not fully standardized, but it can be rather transformed and customized in accordance with the needs of each particular case. In this context, flexibility is an additional characteristic of planning obligations system; it is this characteristic, which can result to problems for the effective operation of the specific system, a gap that is covered through Standard Charges, as they are analytically explained below. The planning obligations practice in Britain has to address a series of issues, the most important of which is the demand for increase of development across the country. In a report published by the House of Commons in 2006 reference is made to the need for urban development in the greater London area (House of Commons, 2006, p.198); furthermore, it is explained that the planning obligations practice could help the efforts of the London borough – and the Councils of the surrounding boroughs also – to support land development across London so that the housing needs of the local population to be covered. In the above context, it is made clear that the planning obligations system in London ‘should ensure that increases in value are captured and used to support infrastructure investment to maximize capacity and sustainability’ (House of Commons 2006, p.198). Moreover, Healey et al. (1995) note that, in Britain, the planning obligations system is differentiated from other, similar schemes, developed in other countries worldwide. Reference is made to this difference in order to emphasize on the importance of the negotiations phase for development projects in Britain – in opposition with other countries, where the negotiations phase cannot severely affect the level of planning obligations (Healey et al. 1995). In order to evaluate the current status of planning obligations practice in Britain, reference should be made to the framework of this practice but also to the problems that are likely to appear in each development project. Planning obligations are part of the development obligations, as applied across Britain. For this reason, the understanding of the role and the value of planning obligations practices requires the explanation of the development obligations, part of which are the planning obligations. In the context of planning obligations practice, a developer who submits a planning application needs to proceed to a series of activities, as suggested by the local planning authority, aiming to reduce the negative effects of the project on the local community – these effects are usually related to sustainability and community infrastructure (Canterbury City Council 2010). In Britain the development obligations are based on negotiations. More specifically, the local planning authority, after examining the terms of a proposed development scheme, it can choose among the two practices: a) to set a planning condition or b) to start negotiations; in the context of these negotiations a planning arrangement is made; this practice is quite common in Britain. Therefore, the planning obligations, which are imposed in a later phase of the process, have been considered as ‘substitute of a betterment levy or development tax’ (Grant 1991, in Healey et al. 1995, p.22). It should be noted that the decision of the local authority plan regarding the planning obligations of a particular development project needs is related to the cost of the development plan – reference is made to the cost of the development ‘for the inhabitants that the planning authority represents’ (Healey et al. 1995, p.22). In this context, the above cost would be decided in accordance with the following two criteria: ‘the infrastructure needed to service the development and the adverse environmental effects that the development will cause’ (Healey et al. 1995, p.22). The above details are important in order to understand the framework of planning obligations practice and to explain the value of Standard Charges – as part of the above practice’s reform. In practice, a development project needs to address a series of additional issues, apart from the community needs, such as: sustainability and urban planning – meaning the alignment of each development project with the rules of urban planning applied on the particular area (Healey et a. 1995, p.224). On the other hand, it has been proved that the actual effects of a development project on the social life of a community cannot be estimated in advance (Healey et al. 1995); under these terms the level of planning obligations would be difficult to be set, taking into consideration also the fact that development projects are likely to be differentiated – as of ‘their sites, the situations of the developers involved and in their impacts’ (Healey et al. 1995, p.224). Additionally, in many cases, local authorities consider planning obligations as a standard source of funding ignoring the other aspects of development projects, such as sustainability, alignment with urban planning standards and rules. The above problems are expected to be resolved through the planning obligations practice, as initiated through the Circular 05/2005. Through the reform of the planning obligations practice, as enforced through the Circular 05/2005, planning obligations have become ‘more transparent and predictable’ (Ward 2004, p.242); at the same time, the financial support to the local communities would be standardized, a fact that would also positively influence the community plans. In accordance with the issues discussed above, the support of planning obligations system, as updated, is necessary in order for land development – including various construction projects – across Britain to be adequately supported. This view had already supported in a report published by the Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchanges (1978); in accordance with the above report, the private sector in Britain did not participated – at least not sufficiently - in the development of the country; reference is made specifically to the land development and the construction projects of various types; as a result, the government had to establish an appropriately customized planning obligations system which would ensure that the funding required for the completion of various construction and infrastructure projects will be available on time. In other words, the planning obligations system guarantees that the funds required for the development of public construction and infrastructure projects will be available – each time that such need appears. 2.1 Standard Charges – Description and role Standard Charges – as part of planning obligations – are regulated through the 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (Section 106); the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act of 2004 is also likely to used for resolving certain critical issues in regard to Standard Charges. The rules of the above texts have been incorporated in the Circular 05/2005. The key parts of these texts – as related to Standard Charges are explained below. 2.2 Negotiated approach 3.Use of Standard Charges for improving the practice of planning obligations in UK Standard Charges have been considered by the British government as a tool for resolving a series of problem regarding the existing planning obligations practices. Indeed, through the Standard Charges, the practice of planning obligations in Britain will be improved, at least this is the target set by the initiators of the relevant project. One of the major contributions of Standard Charges in the specific field would be the limitation of interventions in the planning process – referring to those interventions that aim to reduce charges in favour of developers. This problem is analytically explained in the study of Evans (2004) where reference is made to the following phenomenon: because planning decisions in Britain are depended on the views of local politicians, there are certain persons who try to act as mediators between the developer and the local authorities – aiming to achieve a reduction in the planning obligations (Evans 2004, p.97). Through the introduction of the Standard Charges this practice would be effectively controlled. On the other hand, Standard Charges would help to the achievement of the following target: the limitation of time required for the completion of critical development projects, such as those related to transport (Department for Communities and Local Development, 2007). This target would be mostly achieved if the Circular 05/2005 was further amended ‘removing some or all of the policy restrictions’ (Department for Communities and Local Development, 2007). Another important benefit resulted from Standard Charges would be the limitation of planning obligations, which are often not fully justified, a problem which is often related to the lack of experience of planning officers (Parliament, House of Commons 2006). However, such result would require the further amendment of Circular 05/2005 in order to become more effective. At this point, the following issue should be highlighted: in their current form, planning obligations have been negatively criticized as resulting to the transformation of ‘planning gain to the sale of planning permission’ (Gilg 2005, p.1981); moreover, it is noted that planning gain has led to the introduction of ‘a different attitude of development which may put financial interests over objective planning considerations’ (Gilg 2005, p.1981). The expansion of Standard Charges could help to the limitation of the above phenomena either in the short or the long term. 4. Conclusion In their initial role, Standard Charges aimed to control the complexity and time loss related to the completion of planning projects. Indeed, in a research developed by the National Audit Office (Leigh 2009) it was revealed that there were cases of planning approvals that had ‘17 conditions attached’ (Leigh 2009, p.11). On the other hand, it has been proved that many planning officers are not appropriately skilled (Parliament, House of Commons 2006), a fact that sets concerns regarding the interpretation of Circular 05/2005 and the other legislative texts that regulate Standard Charges. In their current form, Standard Charges need to address a series of issues, including the complexity of the process and the extended time required for the approval of the planning application. Most important, Standard Charges would help towards the standardization of the costs related to the various phases of planning application; indeed, variations in the planning obligations and the costs involved have been identified among cases handled by planning authorities in England (Yeo, 2010, p.54). The value of Standard Charges in the reduction of time required for the completion of the planning application process is highlighted in a relevant report of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005, p.25). In the above report, emphasis is given on the value of new National Policies on Planning for the improvement of phases of the relevant processes. References Audit Commission – Route Map to improved planning obligations – Improving performance on Section 106 Agreements, August 2006 [online]. Available at http://www.audit-commission.gov.uk/SiteCollectionDocuments/AuditCommissionReports/NationalStudies/securingcommunitybenefitsroutemap.pdf Booth, P. (2007) Spatial planning systems of Britain and France: a comparative analysis. Taylor & Francis Canterbury City Council (2010) [online]. Available at http://www.canterbury.gov.uk/main.cfm?objectid=1884 Carpenter, J., 2010, Tory planning paper: IPC and CIL face axe [online]. Available from: http://www.regen.net/news/ByDiscipline/Policy/985553/Tory-planning-paper-IPC-CIL-face-axe/ [Accessed 28 February 2011] Chapmpan, T., 2004, Planning Obligations Good Practice Research [online]. Available from: http://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk/London%20Councils/10Planningobligationsgoodpracticerepor.doc [Accessed 28 February 2011] Circular 05/2005. [Online]. Available online on Communities and Local Government website http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/circulars/planningcirculars/ Cullingworth, B., Vincent, N. (2006) Town and Country Planning in the UK. London: Routledge Ennis, F. (2003). Infrastructure provision and the negotiating process. Urban and regional planning and development. Ashgate Publishing Evans, A. (2004) Economics and land use planning. John Wiley and Sons Gilg, A. (2005) Planning in Britain: understanding and evaluating the post-war system. London: Sage Goodchild, B. (2008) Homes, cities and neighbourhoods: planning and the residential landscapes of modern Britain. Ashgate Publishing Great Britain: Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (2005) Sustainable communities: homes for all. The Stationery Office Great Britain: Department for Communities and Local Government (2007) Homes for the future: more affordable, more sustainable. The Stationery Office Great Britain. Committee on Currency and Foreign Exchanges (1978) British Parliamentary reports on international finance: the Cunliffe Committee and the Macmillan Committee reports. Ayer Publishing Haywood, R. (2009) Railways, urban development and town planning in Britain: 1948-2008. Ashgate Publishing Healey, P., Purdue, M., Ennis, F. (1995) Negotiating development: rationales and practice for development obligations and planning gain. Taylor & Francis HM Treasury and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, 2005, Planning-gain Supplement: a consultation [online]. Available from: http://hm-treasury.gov.uk/d/pbr05 planninggain 449.pdf [Accessed 28 February 2011] Leigh, E. (2009) Planning for homes: speeding up planning applications for major housing developments in England, thirty-third report of session 2008-09, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. The Stationery Office Milne, R., 2010, In a nutshell – Community Infrastructure Levy, [online]. Available from: http://planningportal.gov.uk/england/professionals/news/archive/2010/feb2010/2010 [Accessed 28 February 2011] Parliament: House of Commons (2006) Affordability And the Supply of Housing, Session 2005-06: House of Commons Papers 703-ii 2005-06. The Stationery Office Parstey, D., 2007, The planning gain supplement is dead. Long live the roof tax? [online]. Available from: http://www.building.co.uk/story.asp?storycode=3097738 [Accessed 28 February 2011] Ratcliffe, J., Stubbs, M., Keeping, M. (2009) Urban planning and real estate development. Taylor & Francis Starkey, P. (2006) Planning Gain Supplement. The Stationery Office Syms, P. (2010) Land, Development and Design. John Wiley and Sons Tewdwr-Jones, M., Williams, R. (2001) The European dimension of British planning. Taylor & Francis The British Property Federation, 2007, Roof tax could hold keys to new cities [online]. Available from: http://www.bpf.org.uk/newsroom/pressreleases/document/23140/roof-tax-could-hold-keys-to-new-cities [Accessed 28 February 2011] Ward, S. (2004) Planning and urban change. London: SAGE Yeo, T. (2010) Adapting to climate change: sixth report of session 2009-10, report, together with formal minutes, oral and written evidence. The Stationery Office Read More