The Scottish Government

• Better balance necessary between planning and the market
• Planning should consider more the consequences of its actions on , for example house prices and affordability
• In local plan allocations buffer allocations should be introduced to allow greater flexibility
• Decisions about land allocations should be grounded in evidence about the value society attaches to different types of land use
• Government should introduce two alternative routes for developers seeking planning permission to speed up the system and flexibility
• Greater attention needed to frontloading community engagement and once undertaken the need for it should not be necessary later in the decision making cycle
• Government should consider increasing p.d. rights
• Supports concept of Local Development Orders
• Increased planning fees supported
• Project teams should be allocated to large projects and freed up from engagement in minor developments and have the support of specialist resources.

• Government should consider making local authority funding settlements more forward looking taking into account the likely impact of future programmed development to overcome time lag before the benefits of expenditure kick in from Council tax income
• Consideration should be given to disregarding accrued Council tax from new development (3 years)in the calculation of grant allocation
• Greater involvement by infrastructure providers necessary in the plan making process. Risk of subsequent objection lifted; greater certainty about programming of capital funding.
• Supports establishment of a Community Infrastructure Fund in England ; £100-120m vested in ODPM; bids from regions; used to lever private sector capital for up front infrastructure costs with claw back provisions; opens scope for joint venture and public/private partnership approaches; also "ringmaster" role for third parties in providing capital providing and payback agreements with Councils.
• If above accepted then Sec 106 provisions should be scaled back to achieve the principle aim of direct impact mitigation and "should not allow local authorities to extract development gain over and above this"
• If accepted local authorities would be "compensated" with a share of " Planning Gain Supplement" (see below)
• If however the Government decides to leave the fiscal framework as it is, then it should pursue Sec 106 reforms (optional charge) as second best.
• Sec 106 obligation agreements should retain current provisions in relation to affordable housing under Circular 6/98.

• A strong case for Government considering the use of tax measures to allow the community to share in the increase in development gains its actions create.
• The report looked at land value taxation (Development Gains Tax and Local Sales Tax) and rejected both
• Imposing VAT at 17.5% on new build housing considered and rejected with zero or lower rates applying on brownfield sites ; also reducing VAT on repair/maintenance and improvement projects. Rejected .
• Planning Gain Supplement or Supplementary Planning Contribution supported

- paid at point where planning permission is obtained
- payment would be in proportion to local land values
- rate would be known in advance and developer would be able to deduct from land price paid
- therefore cost passed back to landowner
- money would go directly to the local authority
- would be accompanied by a scaling back in role of Sec 106 agreements (see above)
- transitional arrangements would be necessary.