RTPI welcomes Government's attempts to secure infrastructure cash for communities » Communities » 24dash.com

The Royal Town Planning Institute (RTPI) fully supports the concept of, and need for, using the changes in the value of land in order to provide the infrastructure to support the creation of mixed and sustainable communities and to achieve sustainable development.

However the RTPI’s response to the consultation paper on Planning Gain Supplement goes on to critique the approach outlined in the draft paper.

Kelvin MacDonald, Director of Policy and Practice at the RTPI said: "It is one of the key shortcomings of the current planning system that, despite a number of attempts, no satisfactory system of capturing value has been implemented.  An RTPI Committee on Compensation and Betterment said the same thing over sixty five years ago. The RTPI, therefore, very much welcome the fact the current Government is keen to devise an acceptable, workable and effective system to achieve this.”

Whilst the RTPI wholeheartedly accepts the principle behind the proposals for Planning Gain Supplement (PGS), we do not believe that the approach set out will achieve the objectives for PGS. There are several main reasons for this.

It is not certain that significant additional revenue will accrue;  The proposed PGS scheme appears to break the link between the infrastructure needs of a community that are generated by a new development and the provision of that infrastructure before the development commences; It is not clear how money derived from PGS will be distributed in practice – not least in relation to devolved administrations - nor, consequently, how transparent PGS will be; There is the danger that those communities most in need of infrastructure investment, particularly those with failing markets, will lose out to those with development pressure – with a consequent ‘overheating’ of the local economy for the latter areas; The proposed scheme appears to have been written with a green field development model in mind. This makes it less relevant given that, for example 67% of housing is built on brown field sites; The retention of affordable housing within Sec.106 as opposed to within PGS, albeit understandable, may have adverse effects on the achievement of this key aspect of Government policy; There are a number of more detailed criticisms related to the methodology set out for valuation, which may lead to uncertainly, delay and a failure to deliver.  In this context, it needs to be borne in mind that previous attempts at capturing and returning the uplift in value failed not only because of political differences between administrations but because of their complexity and difficulty in delivering the objectives of those schemes.

Ends

Press release issued: March 1 2006