Draft Development Contributions SPD - September 2022
Search representations
Results for Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation search
New searchComment
Draft Development Contributions SPD - September 2022
1 INTRODUCTION
Representation ID: 10253
Received: 19/10/2022
Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation
General
We welcome progress with this document, which has been in process for some time.
Can you please advise how much engagement took place with landowners and developers in the evolution of this draft? We would expect roundtable type discussions to assist in understanding the needs of all parties (landowners, developers, solicitors, District and County Councils), which would give the best opportunity for successful and smooth Section 106 agreements. We have not been invited to be part of any discussion despite previously making representations, but wonder whether this has taken place with others? This may have ironed some of the issues that exist with this document.
We believe there is an opportunity for a far shorter and more concise document that is more intuitive and easier to utilise. There are a large number of pages that are not necessary for a Developer Contributions SPD and it seems to slip into a developer guide, with discussion about master planning principles and a repeat of policy aspirations.
An example is the Natural Environment section, where there are pages of master planning principles. We do not disagree with these principles, but why is this in a SPD about developer contributions, when most of the text is of no relevance to the purpose of the SPD? The aim of the SPD in our opinion is to provide certainty, evidence and justification to support developer contributions.
We would therefore recommend that a large amount of text could be removed by simply making reference to the Design SPD and other policy documents.
The draft discusses viability in Section 2.3 and that paying too much for the land will be disregarded (which we would agree with), but in formulating land value, the amount to be set aside for planning contributions is a significant element to determining this value. The greater amount of certainty for these costs before a planning application is formulated or the land is acquired, gives the best possible chance that contributions will be secured. Trying to negotiate these later during the planning application is challenging and can detract from the quality of the development, which could be the case arising from the lack of certainty in the SPD.
As part of the Council’s supporting evidence on viability, it would be helpful to see some examples of likely contributions for major development that encompass HCC and NHC obligations using this SPD. This would have been run in order to demonstrate internally that agreements will be reasonable and that the SPD has considered the whole package of likely obligations in the round. This would be useful background evidence to the consultation and SPD.
With respect to viability, over the past 12 months build, planning and development costs have grown at an alarming rate. We think that it would be useful to recognise this in the document, as this would not have been factored into many land purchases, due to the unexpected nature of the changes to the economy.
Clearly Herts County Council obligations are a significant element of any Section 106 in North Hertfordshire. Having their SPD as an entirely separate document and the absence of any of HCC’s standard calculations in the relevant sections does make matters more difficult. The Council is expecting landowners and developers to have a single Section 106 agreement which encompasses both the District and County’s obligations, so it would seem reasonable that there is joint working between the two authorities to produce a single piece of guidance. This is essential to enable obligations to be considered as a whole and less chance of different authorities priorities being challenged.
We suggest it would be more appropriate to provide links to where up to date evidence can be sourced that support the Council’s approach and fill any gaps in justification.
Detailed Comments
Section 2.2 – Applications
To avoid significant legal costs and time delays before applications are reported to Planning Committee on straightforward Section 106 agreements, it would be far preferable that a draft agreement does not need to be completed, but heads of terms and evidence of title along with a willingness by all parties to enter into an agreement. I appreciate in more complex agreements it may be appropriate to agree wordings, but this should only be the case in a small number of applications. This would avoid unnecessary time delay for both the Council and applicants, whilst having certainty that an agreement will proceed should the application be supported by Members.
Section 2.3 – Viability
We have mentioned above about the need to recognise significant inflation in costs. Where reference is made to viability appraisals, it would be far easier for the Council and applicants/developers if a standard toolkit is used and included in the SPD or at least referred to. This would take away the need for discussion about methodology and follow the approach taken by the GLA with their toolkit.
Section 2.4 – Viability Mechanisms
Again, standard formats may be of assistance in this circumstance.
Section 3 – Economy & Town Centres
Reference is made to a local labour agreement. An example of this in the appendices would be useful.
There could be a stronger commitment to apprenticeships linked to development. North Herts College is well placed to deliver apprenticeship and training programmes as a lead partner, an approach they have taken with Stevenage Council as part of the SG1 regeneration. This would make a significant contribution for local people and the local economy. Reference is made to encouraging this on larger development schemes, but apprenticeship and training is commonplace for many authorities, particularly London Boroughs, for a range of development sizes. If working with an approved training provider such as North Herts College this would enable the pooling of contributions, meaning that a lower threshold for sites could be included.
There could also be an opportunity for developments to opt out of contributions or agreements with the College if they make provision for training in-house, subject to certain criteria and approval.
Where reference is made to town centre regeneration, there should be mention of the BIDs and the Heritage Foundation as partners on this.
Section 4 – Transport
This lacks detail and provides no indication of the likely level of contributions – an example of where joint working with HCC would be of benefit.
Section 5 – Housing
Although reference is made to Neighbourhood Plans and Parish Housing Need Surveys, there should be recognition of the shortfall of the SHMA that looks (correctly) at the wider housing market area of Stevenage and North Herts and has little relevance to locations such as Letchworth GC that is different to the remainder of this market area. Here there is a large proportion of socially rented housing, with an over supply of 3 bedroom dwellings in social rent (mentioned in this section) and where there is arguably a greater need for more intermediate housing, as well as rented accommodation, suggesting an alternative split be considered. There should therefore be a recognition of local housing need surveys, such as the 2019 Letchworth survey and the role that they should play in determining affordable housing requirements. As with the Letchworth survey, the methodology should be agreed by the Council. This would fill in the gaps that exist with the SHMA and provide more up to date information.
There should also be a recognition of taking a portfolio approach to provision where a landowner has a number of sites. For example, in Letchworth it would make sense to link sites together for the purpose of affordable housing, so for example sites that are more suited to affordable apartments in more accessible locations can be utilised for that purpose, which can be offset against other sites more suited to houses. This is particularly where above policy provision is made on a site, which can be counter balanced elsewhere. This could apply to the Heritage Foundation’s land holdings, whilst ensuring policy provision is made cumulatively across all sites with housing types in the most relevant location.
Where registered providers are discussed, reference should be made to co-operatives and community land trusts and in line with the amended text approved by the Inspector at the Public Examination and incorporated in Policy HS2. These bodies should be encouraged and can play an important role in affordable housing delivery.
In Section 5.3 where self-build is discussed, again the role of CLTs and co-operatives should be referred to. It is also recommended that there should be a local connection criteria for self builds. There is some positive approaches by Cherwell District Council that achieve this in the Craven Hill scheme.
We support the use of Local Development Orders to help bring forward these schemes, as mentioned in the SPD text.
Section 7 – Healthy Communities
This section highlights the challenge of this document, where there are very specific and understandable requirements for aspects such as health (although comments on this follows) and then very general text for the other requirements that provide no clarity on what may be required for what could be extensive contributions.
Where reference is made to education, this can be the highest contribution sought and most complex where new schools are provided. This should be a joint piece with HCC setting out requirements, methodology, evidence and cost.
With respect to health, this is a hugely complex issue with a range of bodies and agencies involved. It is unrealistic to require new GP provision, when this is completely out of the hands of the landowner, developer and the health authorities, as GP practices are generally private bodies and a new GP practice or additional GP numbers cannot be guaranteed. We agree and support the need for additional GPs and enhanced health facilities, but the provisions of this part of the SPD should be realistic and reflect the complexities of health delivery.
Libraries (7.7) is a clear example of where HCC has a standard calculation that is used that could be incorporated in this document.
When community centres (7.8) are discussed this refers to the freehold being transferred to the Council. The Council has recently disposed of its interest in some community centres and seeking to reduce commitments in a number of community halls and passed this on to local groups. If land and buildings are to be transferred to the Council this should incorporate clear covenants to ensure that they are used for no other purpose. It should however be recognised that the Council plays less of a role in the provision of community halls and there are other groups and organisations that can take these on.
Section 8 – Natural Environment
This section is clearest example of text being included that is not needed with respect to obligations with extensive discussion on master planning principles, which should be part of other guidance or the Design SPD and not this document.
This does however include clearer guidance with respect to open space, taken from the Fields in Trust guidance, which is not found in many parts of the document.
Conclusions
We welcome the development of the draft, but request a more concise document that includes more certainty on contributions and landowner requirements, with the incorporation of HCC requirements so that planning obligations can be considered in the whole.
We would recommend that the main landowners, developers and local authorities gather in a round table discussion to address some of these issues, which we would be happy to participate in.
General
We welcome progress with this document, which has been in process for some time.
Can you please advise how much engagement took place with landowners and developers in the evolution of this draft? We would expect roundtable type discussions to assist in understanding the needs of all parties (landowners, developers, solicitors, District and County Councils), which would give the best opportunity for successful and smooth Section 106 agreements. We have not been invited to be part of any discussion despite previously making representations, but wonder whether this has taken place with others? This may have ironed some of the issues that exist with this document.
We believe there is an opportunity for a far shorter and more concise document that is more intuitive and easier to utilise. There are a large number of pages that are not necessary for a Developer Contributions SPD and it seems to slip into a developer guide, with discussion about master planning principles and a repeat of policy aspirations.
An example is the Natural Environment section, where there are pages of master planning principles. We do not disagree with these principles, but why is this in a SPD about developer contributions, when most of the text is of no relevance to the purpose of the SPD? The aim of the SPD in our opinion is to provide certainty, evidence and justification to support developer contributions.
We would therefore recommend that a large amount of text could be removed by simply making reference to the Design SPD and other policy documents.
The draft discusses viability in Section 2.3 and that paying too much for the land will be disregarded (which we would agree with), but in formulating land value, the amount to be set aside for planning contributions is a significant element to determining this value. The greater amount of certainty for these costs before a planning application is formulated or the land is acquired, gives the best possible chance that contributions will be secured. Trying to negotiate these later during the planning application is challenging and can detract from the quality of the development, which could be the case arising from the lack of certainty in the SPD.
As part of the Council’s supporting evidence on viability, it would be helpful to see some examples of likely contributions for major development that encompass HCC and NHC obligations using this SPD. This would have been run in order to demonstrate internally that agreements will be reasonable and that the SPD has considered the whole package of likely obligations in the round. This would be useful background evidence to the consultation and SPD.
With respect to viability, over the past 12 months build, planning and development costs have grown at an alarming rate. We think that it would be useful to recognise this in the document, as this would not have been factored into many land purchases, due to the unexpected nature of the changes to the economy.
Clearly Herts County Council obligations are a significant element of any Section 106 in North Hertfordshire. Having their SPD as an entirely separate document and the absence of any of HCC’s standard calculations in the relevant sections does make matters more difficult. The Council is expecting landowners and developers to have a single Section 106 agreement which encompasses both the District and County’s obligations, so it would seem reasonable that there is joint working between the two authorities to produce a single piece of guidance. This is essential to enable obligations to be considered as a whole and less chance of different authorities priorities being challenged.
We suggest it would be more appropriate to provide links to where up to date evidence can be sourced that support the Council’s approach and fill any gaps in justification.
Detailed Comments
Section 2.2 – Applications
To avoid significant legal costs and time delays before applications are reported to Planning Committee on straightforward Section 106 agreements, it would be far preferable that a draft agreement does not need to be completed, but heads of terms and evidence of title along with a willingness by all parties to enter into an agreement. I appreciate in more complex agreements it may be appropriate to agree wordings, but this should only be the case in a small number of applications. This would avoid unnecessary time delay for both the Council and applicants, whilst having certainty that an agreement will proceed should the application be supported by Members.
Section 2.3 – Viability
We have mentioned above about the need to recognise significant inflation in costs. Where reference is made to viability appraisals, it would be far easier for the Council and applicants/developers if a standard toolkit is used and included in the SPD or at least referred to. This would take away the need for discussion about methodology and follow the approach taken by the GLA with their toolkit.
Section 2.4 – Viability Mechanisms
Again, standard formats may be of assistance in this circumstance.
Section 3 – Economy & Town Centres
Reference is made to a local labour agreement. An example of this in the appendices would be useful.
There could be a stronger commitment to apprenticeships linked to development. North Herts College is well placed to deliver apprenticeship and training programmes as a lead partner, an approach they have taken with Stevenage Council as part of the SG1 regeneration. This would make a significant contribution for local people and the local economy. Reference is made to encouraging this on larger development schemes, but apprenticeship and training is commonplace for many authorities, particularly London Boroughs, for a range of development sizes. If working with an approved training provider such as North Herts College this would enable the pooling of contributions, meaning that a lower threshold for sites could be included.
There could also be an opportunity for developments to opt out of contributions or agreements with the College if they make provision for training in-house, subject to certain criteria and approval.
Where reference is made to town centre regeneration, there should be mention of the BIDs and the Heritage Foundation as partners on this.
Section 4 – Transport
This lacks detail and provides no indication of the likely level of contributions – an example of where joint working with HCC would be of benefit.
Section 5 – Housing
Although reference is made to Neighbourhood Plans and Parish Housing Need Surveys, there should be recognition of the shortfall of the SHMA that looks (correctly) at the wider housing market area of Stevenage and North Herts and has little relevance to locations such as Letchworth GC that is different to the remainder of this market area. Here there is a large proportion of socially rented housing, with an over supply of 3 bedroom dwellings in social rent (mentioned in this section) and where there is arguably a greater need for more intermediate housing, as well as rented accommodation, suggesting an alternative split be considered. There should therefore be a recognition of local housing need surveys, such as the 2019 Letchworth survey and the role that they should play in determining affordable housing requirements. As with the Letchworth survey, the methodology should be agreed by the Council. This would fill in the gaps that exist with the SHMA and provide more up to date information.
There should also be a recognition of taking a portfolio approach to provision where a landowner has a number of sites. For example, in Letchworth it would make sense to link sites together for the purpose of affordable housing, so for example sites that are more suited to affordable apartments in more accessible locations can be utilised for that purpose, which can be offset against other sites more suited to houses. This is particularly where above policy provision is made on a site, which can be counter balanced elsewhere. This could apply to the Heritage Foundation’s land holdings, whilst ensuring policy provision is made cumulatively across all sites with housing types in the most relevant location.
Where registered providers are discussed, reference should be made to co-operatives and community land trusts and in line with the amended text approved by the Inspector at the Public Examination and incorporated in Policy HS2. These bodies should be encouraged and can play an important role in affordable housing delivery.
In Section 5.3 where self-build is discussed, again the role of CLTs and co-operatives should be referred to. It is also recommended that there should be a local connection criteria for self builds. There is some positive approaches by Cherwell District Council that achieve this in the Craven Hill scheme.
We support the use of Local Development Orders to help bring forward these schemes, as mentioned in the SPD text.
Section 7 – Healthy Communities
This section highlights the challenge of this document, where there are very specific and understandable requirements for aspects such as health (although comments on this follows) and then very general text for the other requirements that provide no clarity on what may be required for what could be extensive contributions.
Where reference is made to education, this can be the highest contribution sought and most complex where new schools are provided. This should be a joint piece with HCC setting out requirements, methodology, evidence and cost.
With respect to health, this is a hugely complex issue with a range of bodies and agencies involved. It is unrealistic to require new GP provision, when this is completely out of the hands of the landowner, developer and the health authorities, as GP practices are generally private bodies and a new GP practice or additional GP numbers cannot be guaranteed. We agree and support the need for additional GPs and enhanced health facilities, but the provisions of this part of the SPD should be realistic and reflect the complexities of health delivery.
Libraries (7.7) is a clear example of where HCC has a standard calculation that is used that could be incorporated in this document.
When community centres (7.8) are discussed this refers to the freehold being transferred to the Council. The Council has recently disposed of its interest in some community centres and seeking to reduce commitments in a number of community halls and passed this on to local groups. If land and buildings are to be transferred to the Council this should incorporate clear covenants to ensure that they are used for no other purpose. It should however be recognised that the Council plays less of a role in the provision of community halls and there are other groups and organisations that can take these on.
Section 8 – Natural Environment
This section is clearest example of text being included that is not needed with respect to obligations with extensive discussion on master planning principles, which should be part of other guidance or the Design SPD and not this document.
This does however include clearer guidance with respect to open space, taken from the Fields in Trust guidance, which is not found in many parts of the document.
Conclusions
We welcome the development of the draft, but request a more concise document that includes more certainty on contributions and landowner requirements, with the incorporation of HCC requirements so that planning obligations can be considered in the whole.
We would recommend that the main landowners, developers and local authorities gather in a round table discussion to address some of these issues, which we would be happy to participate in.
