The Scottish Government

• Use supported as a positive
• Agree that the current system of obligations is seriously flawed and in need of review
• RTPI first advanced the idea of a tariff solution in 2000 and therefore support the principle
• Improving obligations system is not a substitute to introducing a form of betterment taxation operating outside the planning system
• Planning obligation should not be seen as a form of taxation
• Sound foundation in development planning essential
• Necessity and proportionality tests should remain and planning gain should bear a close relationship to the development proposed
• Tariff by negotiation to suit local circumstances and not tariff plus negotiation
• Guidelines on conditions should be reviewed
• Proposals in relation to transparency and accountability strongly supported
• Standard terms and dispute resolution provisions supported

• Introduction of an optional charge will do little to overcome criticisms of lack of certainty and transparency
• System of negotiated obligations will be needed to operate alongside tariffs to deal with non financial development specific requirements which cannot be dealt with by condition
• mproving obligations system is not a substitute to introducing a form of betterment taxation operating outside the planning system
• Sound foundation in development planning essential
• Charging implies too much emphasis on financial contributions
• Greater use of conditions should be explored as an alternative to obligations agreements in certain cases
• Necessity and proportionality tests should remain and planning gain should bear a close relationship to the development proposed

• Objectives of reform should be to secure greater certainty, consistency and transparency and reducing delay
• Best achieved through modifying existing system ie Section 106 agreements without need for new legisalation
• Proposals lack level of detail or sophistication to be workable
• More work needed on potential impacts in areas of low or negative land value
• Opposed to system of nationallyb determined tariffs or impact fees
• "Necessity test" must be retained; otherwise it would become adevelopment land tax and would be opposed
• Support use of standard clauses and mediation

• Improvement on pure tariff approach but shares similar disadvantages
• Support Governments initiative to improve the obligations system
• Support the objectives of greater transparency, predictability and accountability
• "Necessity test" should be retained
• Proposal to realign policy with case law not supported
• Defrayal should bear a direct assoc. with the proposed development and used locally
• Delay will still occur as agreement will still in most cases be required. Where is the choice?
• Lack of clarity as to how authorities will resource additional valuation work within local plan timescales
• Do not agree that the proposal to allow the developer the option to make commuted payments in lieu of on site provision is flawed.

• Strong support for the delivery of speedier decision making and greater certainty in the planning system
• Obligations have an important role to play
• Fundamentally believe that obligations must continue to directly relate to the development proposed ie strict enforcement of the "necessity test" required
• Necessity test offers the system sound parameters within which it can operate fairly and reasonably
• Practice should be brought back into line with policy not vice versa
• Costs to the industry inevitable which will deter investment in support of the sustainable communities agenda
• Ringfencing and clawback provisions necessary
• Doubtful whether LAs have the necessary resources and expertise to implement the proposals
• Following measures supported :

- Standard terms
- External resources to help planning deliver
- Clarity about an authority's approach set out in development plans
- Phased payments
- Clear and transparent accounting by LAs
- Independent dispute resolution mechanism
- Single obligation agreement per development bringing together and co ordinated by LA.

Comments on tariffs apply

• Not agreeable to meet wider community needs through planning obligations
• Worried that levels will be set high and stifle development
• Negotiated agreements will still be necessary as well as a tariff
• Link between the development and the planning obligation must be retained
• Obligations should be impact related rather than interpreted as general public services funding etc.
• Local negotiations favoured
• Where a contribution is negotiated and agreed it should be fixed
• ODPM should issue list of fixed infrastructure "heads" with LAs justifying any additions
• Annual infrastructure provisions documents ( IPDs) should be published annually by Councils setting out public sector provision and how private sector contributions are to be established and used
• IPDs should be basis for calculation of formulae
• Unilateral obligations provisions to be retained
• Negotiations to take place during lifetime of an application

Standard clauses to speed up process supported

• Transparency, speed, certainty needed
• Fundamentally opposed to the removal of the "necessity test"
• Otherwise system not considered to be fair, open and reasonable and be seen as an expensive DLT
• Emerging practice should be brought back into line with policy and not vice versa
• Withholding of land may result from a charging policy
• Link to development planning welcomed
• No clarity about windfall sites
• Use of formulae supported provided that the linkage back to the development is demonstrated through discussion between parties and agreed
• Support for phased contributions
• Pooling arrangements may be difficult to define in practice
• Standard heads of terms and clauses supported
• Support for use of third party expertise by Councils
• Mediation supported
• Charging should not support general community needs
• Doubtful if level of charge could be adequately controlled
• Concerns that to be accountable and transparent the scale of charges would have to be simple to understand. Not possible if it is to be disaggregated in accordance with the need to relate it to a particular proposal
• Delivery of affordable housing is not adequately addressed
• Unacceptable resource implications for LAs (skills, time, money)