As well as performing sufficient calculations it is important to note that with any planning application the LPA will attach conditions. The conditions are always never personal and usually 'run with the land', therefore the conditions used include:
- securing the adequate landscaping of a project;
- phasing a development to match the completion of infrastructure;
- linking 'granny annexes' to the main dwelling so that it cannot be sold off as a separate entity;
- limiting the operation of noisy plant or machinery to particular hours in the day and days in the week;
- limiting the number of flights from an airfield and/or restricting the time of landings and take-offs;
- protecting trees and water courses during construction.
By making the bid more attractive to the LPA there is a greater chance of securing the site against your competitors.
Locational Strengths and Weaknesses from an Occupiers Perspective
with a project of this scale and complexity there are always going to be number of advantages and disadvantages for any occupier. In this section I will look to highlight strengths and weaknesses to give you a better incite to the viability as the owner of the site.
Here is a brief overview of the site. The 40 hectare site is just outside the city, but is not located within the green belt zone which surrounds the remainder of the city. A motorway is located to the south of the site with access to the site being gained through a dual carriage way to the west of the site. It is important to remember that a Site of Special Scientific Interest is also located on the site, covering an area of 2,000 square metres.
In the UK today we are seeing many offices move from outside the city centre and more towards the suburbs as the cost of leasing continues to increase. Given the general location of the site and the local authorities use classification of B1 (stating the redevelopment for a high quality business park), the motorway and dual carriage way put in in a prime location for this type of development.
'what seems clear from a succession of major surveys is that location remains the single most important factor to occupiers' – Ratcliffe 2009
As mentioned before the existing motorway and dual carriageway already provide great access to the site, but with Local Authorities having to reduce their carbon emissions and footprints, new infrastructure maybe needed to help reduce the additional input that the business park may cause. under the Section 106 agreement the LPA are likely to seek funding for any additional infrastructure required. This will be negotiated by yourself and the LPA and will be discussed in depth further on in the report.
green belts were introduced in 1955 in England to prevent urban sprawl in a bid to preserve open spaces around cities. Green belts cover around 12% of the land in England with one of the largest sites surrounding London covering 486,000 hectares. Green belt land is generally a nightmare for developer’s as the is usually little or no chance of planning permission being granted on those selected sites. Although there is a large greenbelt zone around the city, the proposed site doesn't actually fall under these restrictions. This means the local authority will be far less stringent for the uses in the redevelopment of the land. This is a great advantage as it means there are unlikely to be any future developments of this type in the foreseeable future. In essence this means that you would have rental monopoly, as there wouldn't be any comparable developments in the local vicinity.
We must remember that site also contains an SSSI (Site of Special Scientific Interest), meaning it must be preserved at all times (before, during and after the redevelopment of the land). Where potential harm may arise it is likely the government will refuse the proposed development.
With this in mind the potential you will need to seek consultation with Natural England as without planning consent or written permission from Natural England it is considered an offence to do so. Liaising with Natural England is important as under the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000, as more power has been given to strengthen the protection of SSSI's. The 2000 Act allows restoration orders to be produced through the courts as well as fines for land owners who deliberately damage SSSIs.
The LA has marked the redevelopment of the site for B1 usage and is more than suitable to support this type of business. However to maximise the site and make it a more attractive site all round, it may be worth looking at proposing additional use classes such as A3 (restaurants and cafés), A4 (drinking establishments), B8 (storage and distribution), C1 (hotels). Gaining these additional use classes would greatly maximise the the potential of the site. Companies seeking sites for B8 usage would find the site very attractive due to the good access to the site from the nearby motorway and the close proximity to the city. What tends to occur with many business parks is they become dormant after office hours. If you were to obtain planning consent for A3, A4 and C1 along with careful redevelopment of the SSSI would see the site greatly increase in value. It is not certain how successful application for these additional uses may be. If rejected you would have the right to appeal, however this is a right that I would reserve as I feel negotiation with the LPA will have a more successful outcome in the long term. Also bear in mind that the project can be phased, and may come to a different outcome at a later stage.
Planning Agreement
a Planning Agreement is a number of planning obligations that discussed between the Local Planning Authority (LPA) and the developer where by they become legally binding once the LPA has granted planning consent for the developer’s proposal. Planning obligations was first introduced in 1991 under section 106 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. the new reformed section 106 was introduced into the Act by the planning and compensation Act 1991. the new Section 106 reform contained two parts; Section 106A (power to modify or discharge an obligation) and Section 106B (appeal against refusal to modify or discharge and obligation). It is important to remember that the Section 106 forms a legal contract where obligations must be honoured and are legally enforceable. The Section 106 has been used to secure a wide range of obligations including infrastructure improvements, affordable housing and training. By doing this it consequently reduces the bill to the tax payer to provide such services.
Sometimes planning obligations can go beyond what can be achieved by planning conditions. Under the the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM) issued a circular on planning obligations (Circular 05/2005), stating the governments policy on what can be achieved by planning obligations. Obligations can be used to:
- prescribe the nature of the development by, for example, requiring it to contain a proportion of affordable housing units;
- compensate for the loss or damage to amenity caused by a development, for example the loss of habitat or landscape to a major scheme;
- mitigate a developments impact perhaps through the provision of public transport or landscaping works to soften the visual affect on the surroundings.
Circular 05/2005 (paragraph B5 'Testing for planning obligations') highlights the prerequisite for planning obligation to be considered legitimate, and are as follows:
- Relevant to planning
- Necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms
- Directly related to the proposed development
- Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development
- Reasonable in all other aspects
As planning obligations are essentially an agreement with the LPA and the developer, government studies showed wide variations across the country in the use of agreements and long delays over drafting clauses in agreements. It was noted that variations were due to the impreciseness of guidelines, which in turn leads to ambiguity.
This lead to the introduction of the Planning Gain Supplement (PGS) in 2005, along with a reduced Section 106 obligations. The idea was that PGS would be a uniform tax on the uplift in land value at the point when planning permission is granted. This new form was expressed as:
Planning Value (PV) – Current Use Value (CUV) = uplift in site value
Planning Gain Supplement (PGS) = PGS rate x uplift
this new reform by the government came into heavy criticism most notably from those in the property industry whose main concern was the difficulties in valuation that PGS would highlight. However this was not the only flaw of the paper which people argued taxing in this way would not deliver the level of funding sought for new local infrastructure, which was highlighted by study to test PGS undertaken by Knight Frank in 2006. his report concluded:
there is great concern that the community infrastructure required for these large scale developments, which under the PGS would be supplied by the local authorities or other government agencies, would not be adequately funded or provided in time so serve new developments. (Knight Frank 2006)
it found that to equal revenues currently reached by the Section 106 agreements the PGS would need to be set at 30% and above, impacting on the viability of smaller projects, which in turn would have a detrimental affect on the supply of housing. Based on these findings and others that came to similar conclusions, the government decided to scrap the introduction of PGS and looked to implement the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
The CIL was introduced as part of the Planning Bill and Reform Act 1998, where it explains that:
...the overall purpose of the CIL is to ensure that costs incurred in providing infrastructure to support the development of an area can be funded (wholly or partly) by owners or developers of the land the value of which increases due to permission for development. (Planning Bill 2007 -section 198)
As stated by Ratcliffe 2009 the Bill was to be a dual system of negotiated planning obligations (mitigating detailed impacts of development) and standard charges set by individual councils (to pay for major and identified infrastructure) would be established. Basically meaning that affordable housing would still be negotiated through the current method of planning obligation, while issues such as infrastructure would be levied as a standard tariff which set a rate £ per m2 or £ per dwelling. Similar to the Milton Keynes roof tax, where house builders and commercial developers on large sites formed a Section 106 agreement with the Milton Keynes LA to pay a fixed rate per dwelling at £18,500 and £260,000 per acre for commercial development.
As the government has yet to introduce the new CIL reforms the current Section 106 agreements would still apply. It terms of the proposed site for development this would mean entering into an agreement with the LPA, where we would see charges in the form of infrastructure. As I mentioned earlier there can be a very wide variation on charges depending on the area and LPA involved, with some seeking full payment for infrastructure costs. For this reason I would suggest adopting a similar approach to the CIL or the one currently undertaken by the Milton Keynes LA.
Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)
Environmental impact assessment (EIA) is an important procedure for ensuring that the likely effects of new development on the environment are fully understood and taken into account before the development is allowed to go ahead. The process of EIA should begin when a project is initiated and continue right through to monitoring the impacts of the development, the on-going operation of mitigation measures and, where appropriate, site restoration. The European Community (EC) requirements for the environmental impact assessment of major projects have been incorporated into consent procedures in the UK. The Directive 97/11/EC amends the original Directive 85/337/EEC on 'The assessment of the effects of certain public and private projects on the environment'.The effect of the Directive is to require environmental impact assessment to be carried out, before development consent is granted, for certain types of major project which are judged likely to have significant environmental effects. Under the regulations the preparation of an environmental statement by the developer to accompany a planning application, consultation with expert bodies and the public, and scrutiny by the planning authority. In this way the available information about the environmental effects of a project is collected and evaluated before being taken into account in the determination of the planning application.
The regulations apply to two separate types of development:
- 'Schedule 1 developments' for which an EIA is mandatory include; crude oil refineries, nuclear power stations and waste disposal incinerators.
- 'Schedule 2 developments' may be required at the discretion of the LPA (or Secretary of State on appeal), these include large urban developments, peat extraction, marinas, holiday villages, wind farms, motorway service areas and coastal defence works.
the site that we are interested in would fall under a schedule 2 development, where the LPA will then make its own decision whether or not and EIA is required using a process called a 'screening opinion'.
in our case it is most certain that the LPA will require an EIA, the main reason being the SSSI which is located on site. This means an Environmental Statement (ES)will need to be produced along with the planning application, and only once this has been done will the LPA give a decision in regards to the planning application therefore making it an integral part of the bid.
The ES must contain:
- a description of the proposed development;
- a description and data on the likely effects on flora, fauna, people, landscape and heritage;
- mitigation measures to remedy the identified effects;
- a non technical summary
in addition to yourself the LPA may bring in consultants to check on the ES and may even request further information if they feel you haven't sufficiently covered certain aspects.
As there is an SSSI on the site the ES must highlight the ways in which this may be affect the SSSI and more importantly ways in which these will be remedied. The most notable impact is likely to be during construction, where dust and debris and the constant movement on-site will cause likely disruptions to the SSSI. By putting a protective fencing around the site will help to reduce the affect to plants and wildlife. In addition to this I would recommend limiting the amount of traffic in that area during and after construction so as to limit the amount of direct pollution emitted in that particular area. As long as the ES is done correctly and takes into account the all the relevant information there shouldn't be any major problems with ES. However if the EIA were to be rejected then an appeal could be made to the Secretary of State under what's known as a 'screening direction'. It is also worth noting that where the EIA procedure reveals that a project will have an adverse impact on the environment, it does not follow that planning permission must be refused. It remains the task of the local planning authority to judge each planning application on its merits within the context of the Development Plan, taking account of all material considerations, including the environmental impacts. (website1)
Conclusion
from analysing this particular site in its whole entirety myself and my consultants feel that this particular project would be worth proceeding with. The site is in a great location, and if you were to obtain permission for the additional use classes you would see the land value shoot up dramatically. if you do decide to submit a bid then it is worth noting that great attention should be paid to the SSSI. I feel this will be the main sticking point in gaining planning permission from the LPA. To ensure that the ES is carried out effectively I would advise you to hire an outside team to perform the EIA along with the rest of your team. As this is a very large site and I would suggest making a phased bid, in accordance with infrastructure completion, which will be more favourable with the LPA.
