« Previous | Contents | Next »
Listen
CHAPTER FIVE - THE VALUE OF DIFFERENT TYPES OF CONTRIBUTION
Categorising Contributions
5.1 In order to analyse in detail the types of different contribution received, and to put a consistent value against them, a typology has been adopted that is based on the English research published in May 2006 ( DCLG, 2006), and 9 main headings have been identified.
- Affordable Housing
- Community Facilities
- Education
- Miscellaneous/Other
- Open Space and the Environment
- Public Realm
- Public Transport
- Recreation
- Roads and Infrastructure
5.2 There are numerous different types of contribution under each of the above headings. One of the key objectives of the research was to analyse the values of each different type of contribution. A case study approach has been adopted, allowing analysis of individual agreements in selected authorities between 2004 and 2007 to provide an insight into the scope of each type of contribution, and the values attributable to them, whether provided in-kind or through a direct payment, and establish any trends emerging over the last three years.
5.3 The findings of the case study research were combined with the results of the initial analysis of returns provided by planning authorities to provide a Scotland-wide picture of the value of different types of contribution. As previously indicated in Chapter Four, certain assumptions were made with regard to the 6 non responding planning authorities and for those situations where responding authorities did not provide usable information.
Stage 1 Findings
5.4 In contrast to Chapter Four, no reasonable assumptions can be made for non responding authorities about categories of contributions. This chapter is therefore concerned only with the detailed information which was available for the 2 stage survey of responding authorities. Table 5.1 identifies the numbers of contributions by type. The largest number of contributions is for Recreation. The numbers of contributions to Affordable Housing and Public Transport are growing and in 2006/07 each accounted for almost as many contributions as Recreation did in that year.
Table 5.1: Number of contributions by type of contribution per financial year
Contribution Type | Financial Year | Total for study period |
|---|
2004/2005 | 2005/2006 | 2006/2007 | Year not Identified |
|---|
Affordable Housing | 14 | 41 | 81 | 12 | 150 |
|---|
Community Facilities | 21 | 26 | 9 | 3 | 59 |
|---|
Education | 43 | 42 | 56 | | 139 |
|---|
Miscellaneous | 33 | 32 | 36 | 9 | 110 |
|---|
Open Space/ Environment | 15 | 29 | 30 | 1 | 75 |
|---|
Public Realm | 4 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 19 |
|---|
Public Transport | 19 | 60 | 78 | 11 | 168 |
|---|
Recreation | 65 | 116 | 84 | 21 | 286 |
|---|
Roads Infrastructure | 62 | 67 | 56 | 6 | 191 |
|---|
Not specified | 19 | 17 | 18 | 12 | 66 |
|---|
Grand Total | 295 | 440 | 451 | 77 | 1263 |
|---|
Notes to table
(Source: Analysis of the Stage 1 returns from the 28 local authorities who responded to the study team and Stage 2 Assessment.)
Purposes for which direct financial contributions are secured
5.5 Table 5.2 sets out the sums of money secured by each type of contribution. The largest sum relates to Roads Infrastructure contributions but a large amount of this is accounted for by one individual contribution. Recreation and Education contributions also account for a significant amount of the total. There is a clear upward trend in the sums being secured for affordable housing, open space/environment and public transport.
Table 5.2: Direct Financial Contributions by Contribution Type per Financial Year
Contribution Type | 2004/05 | 2005/06 | 2006/07 | Year not specified | Total |
|---|
Affordable Housing | £380,394 | £1,876,146 | £4,478,257 | £203,400 | £6,938,197 |
|---|
Community Facilities | £244,312 | £4,057,140 | £1,117,722 | £16,000 | £5,435,174 |
|---|
Education | £3,079,116 | £12,578,718 | £3,141,772 | £0 | £18,799,606 |
|---|
Miscellaneous | £378,642 | £381,605 | £1,581,406 | £224,600 | £2,566,253 |
|---|
Open Space and Environment | £65,323 | £480,383 | £3,725,764 | £0 | £4,271,470 |
|---|
Public Realm | £40,500 | £490,667 | £175,957 | £2,550 | £709,674 |
|---|
Public Transport | £297,485 | £1,985,686 | £3,782,553 | £79,084 | £6,144,808 |
|---|
Recreation | £2,121,218 | £6,268,243 | £4,621,003 | £299,503 | £13,309,968 |
|---|
Road Infrastructure | £2,459,290 | £2,692,583 | £21,791,416 | £1,481,215 | £28,424,504 |
|---|
Total | £9,066,281 | £30,811,172 | £44,415,848 | £2,306,352 | £86,599,653 |
|---|
Notes to table
(Source: Analysis of Stage 1 returns from the 28 local authorities who responded to the study team and Stage 2 Assessment.)
Value of in-kind contributions in relation to purpose of contribution
5.6 Table 5.3 sets out the estimated value of the in-kind contributions that it has been possible to value by each type of contribution. The overwhelming proportion of values captured is for Affordable Housing. The difficulty in assessing trends in this sector is demonstrated by the surge in the 2005/06 figures which are explained by in-kind provision of 75 actual units on site in Midlothian, East Lothian and Aberdeenshire. The trend in values captured for Recreation and Roads Infrastructure appears to be increasing, however, from the evidence of the table.
Table 5.3: Value of in-kind contributions by contribution type
Contribution Type | Financial Year | Grand Total |
|---|
2004/2005 | 2005/2006 | 2006/2007 | Year not Specified |
|---|
Affordable Housing | £4,635,000 | £14,423,650 | £5,510,000 | £762,900 | £25,331,550 |
|---|
Community Facilities | £25,000 | £0 | £0 | £1,000 | £26,000 |
|---|
Education | £0 | £0 | £0 | £0 | £0 |
|---|
Miscellaneous | £2,000 | £0 | £150,000 | £450 | £152,450 |
|---|
Open Space and Environment | £81,000 | £55,000 | £20,000 | £0 | £156,000 |
|---|
Public Realm | £2,500 | £17,800 | £0 | £16,800 | £37,100 |
|---|
Public Transport | £10,000 | £25,000 | £950,000 | £0 | £985,000 |
|---|
Recreation | £92,925 | £144,125 | £612,950 | £351,700 | £1,201,700 |
|---|
Road Infrastructure | £445,000 | £625,500 | £985,000 | £71,000 | £2,126,500 |
|---|
Grand Total | £5,293,425 | £15,291,075 | £8,227,950 | £1,203,850 | £30,016,300 |
|---|
Notes to table
(Source: Analysis of the Stage 1 returns from the 28 local authorities who responded to the study team and Stage 2Assessment.)
Main Findings from Stage 2 Detailed Case Studies
A Affordable Housing
5.7 Affordable housing contributions have been dominated by commuted sum payments in lieu of provision of affordable units on site by developers. Practices of authorities vary quite widely across Scotland, with some authorities favouring commuted sums in order that they can co-ordinate delivery of the affordable housing to places where it is required most. Other authorities focus on achieving on-site provision of units within private developments, while some authorities have no affordable housing policies either in development plans or as supplementary guidance. There is a relationship between the focus of the policy and the way in which contributions are received. For example, Aberdeenshire's policy is focussed on developers providing affordable housing on site, and this is reflected in their return to the study team which indicates that the majority of their affordable housing contributions involve the provision of units on site for affordable housing. The Scottish Borders, however, received commuted payments for 98% of their affordable housing contributions, and a large proportion from developments of less than 10 houses, which reflects their policies of securing financial contributions from developments of more than 2 houses.
5.8 Ten Authorities have provided information on the value of direct affordable housing contributions received as well as information on in-kind contributions. A degree of caution must therefore be applied to these results as authorities such as Edinburgh have produced detailed guidance on affordable housing contribution requirements, but have supplied no information on affordable housing contributions received between 2004 and 2007. A summary of affordable housing contributions, both as direct and in-kind contributions, is given in Table 5.4 together with the outputs in units and plots realised.
Table 5.4: Summary of Affordable Housing Contributions
Contribution Type | Total Value Secured |
|---|
In-kind contributions | £25.33m |
|---|
No of units in-kind on site | 120 units |
|---|
Serviced land/ plots | 79 plots |
|---|
Direct Financial Payments | £6.94m |
|---|
Notes to table
(Source: Analysis of Stage 1 returns from the 28 local authorities who responded to the study team and Stage 2 Assessment.)
Policy Approaches to Affordable Housing
5.9 Policy approaches vary across Scotland and are generally based on the findings of Local Housing Needs Assessment studies. Therefore it is to be expected that affordable housing criteria and thresholds will fluctuate from area to area. Commuted sum formulas vary across the country as do land values.
5.10 The case studies of several different authorities have provided an insight into the various different policies and procedures across the nation.
5.11 For direct payments most planning authorities have developed a policy based on a commuted sum per unit. The method of producing this figure varies from authority to authority as is illustrated by the following examples.
City of Edinburgh 5.12 Edinburgh City's policy for commuted payments is based on Communities Scotland Housing Association Grant targets. The City of Edinburgh benchmark is set at the top of the lowest quartile of grant costs per unit and is expressed as a three-person equivalent. The formula takes account of the costs of social rented provision in addition to mid-rent and low cost home ownership. The commuted payment currently stands at £49,311 multiplied by the number of affordable units that the developer would have been expected to provide. On site provision is expected at a level of 25% of all units on sites containing more than 12 residential dwellings. The policy framework is outlined in the Councils' Supplementary Planning Guidance (" SPG") on "Affordable Housing" and the method for calculating the commuted payment explained in detail in the SPG's implementation guide. |
West Lothian 5.13 West Lothian Council will look to secure on-site provision within private developments of 15% of the total site capacity. This is in line with Scottish Government policy in respect of achieving balanced communities. The preferred mechanism is for the developer to provide serviced land for 15% of the site capacity and transfer to an RSL at a value which minimises any impact on the availability of funding for the provision of affordable housing. 5.14 In exceptional circumstances off-site provision within the same settlement or elsewhere within West Lothian can be considered as an alternative to on site provision. In exceptional cases, West Lothian Council may accept a financial contribution where there is evidence that a RSL would not be able to develop the land for affordable housing within a period of 3 years. The value of the financial contribution is equivalent to the difference between the open market value of the land and the value for affordable housing of an equivalent area of fully serviced residential development land, within the same settlement as the original housing application. 5.15 The policy is applied to all housing developments, with sites less than 20 dwelling units expected to provide a commuted sum. |
Midlothian 5.16 Midlothian has devised its affordable housing policy to ensure that commuted sum contributions from developers are made in preference to provision by developers of units on site for affordable housing in order that the Council can provide affordable housing, in areas of most need. This approach is combined with requirements for developers to provide affordable housing on site on larger sites. |
Scottish Borders 5.17 Scottish Borders produced new guidance in April 2007. The document sets out the requirement for a set percentage between 15% and 25% of land within the application site to be provided for affordable housing within allocated and windfall sites, with the level of contribution depending on the particular housing market area. 5.18 The policy expects the affordable housing units to be provided on site, although there are exceptions whereby off-site provision and commuted sums can be justified. The Council will obtain expert advice from the District Valuer on commuted payments to ensure the contributions received in this manner do not exceed the cost of providing the serviced land in accordance with advice given in Planning Advice Note 74. 5.19 The Policy will be applied to sites of 2 or more units, although sites of 5 houses or less will be expected to make a commuted payment. |
5.20 These authorities have established a need for affordable housing provisions and have formulated policies to address the matter. However, other authorities have an abundance of affordable stock and therefore do not have affordable housing policies at all.
In-kind contributions for affordable housing
5.21 There are generally two main methods of delivery of in-kind affordable housing contributions. These are the provision of affordable housing units either on site or on an alternative site; or the provision of service of land for the purpose of providing affordable housing units. In-kind contributions for affordable housing have been valued on a market value basis, as explained in Appendix 2.
5.22 The most common occurrences reported are on/off site provision, with a total of 10 contributions.
On-Site Provision of Units
5.23 The majority of the instances of this type of in-kind provision reported are in Aberdeenshire, where 4 contributions secured 33 units which were provided on site and a further 9 serviced plots provided in-kind. This is a result of Aberdeenshire's policy approach which aims to secure provision on site from developers wherever possible. Other authorities that secured on site provision of units were East Lothian and Stirling Councils. The largest in-kind contribution of units was recorded by East Lothian Council with 39 units secured on site from a development of a total of 266 houses.
5.24 Using the methodology explained in Appendix 2, the value of contributions involving on-site provision of affordable housing units is £19.25m, 120 units were secured from 10 contributions, an average of 12 units per contribution.
Transfer of land
5.25 There were 7 contributions reported over the last three years that involved the transfer of land to a RSL. The total number of plots secured was 79, an average of just over 11 plots per contribution. The majority of these contributions were secured by Midlothian Council, with 4 separate contributions securing the provision of land for a total of 54 plots.
5.26 The estimated value of land transfers is £3.83m with an average therefore of £547,000 per contribution. It has not been possible to establish a value per hectare as insufficient information was reported by the authorities.
Other
5.27 One other type of contribution for affordable housing purposes was recorded. The contribution required was calculated at 20% of the selling price of each residential unit, with the development comprising 77 flats and 5 houses. The value of this affordable housing contribution is calculated as £1,951,400.
In-Kind vs Commuted Payment
5.28 From the data provided by the authorities it is clear that by far the majority of affordable housing contributions are received as direct financial contributions. 123 of the total of 150 contributions were delivered as a direct contribution. 76 of these contributions were secured by the Scottish Borders with the total value of direct contributions at £234,623. Reflecting the Scottish Borders affordable housing policy that captures contributions from small scale developments, 72 of these contributions were linked to developments of 5 or less houses.
5.29 The total value of direct payments in respect of affordable housing is £6,938,197. Over the three years there were a total of 123 separate contributions with an average value of £56,408. East Dunbartonshire recorded one single direct contribution of £3m towards affordable housing from a large development at Kirkintilloch. Otherwise' the largest average direct contributions were secured by Midlothian Council, with an average of £247,500 per contribution.
5.30 The total value of in-kind affordable housing provision has been estimated at £25.33m. There were 27 instances of in-kind provision reported, giving an average of £938,000 per contribution. On site provision of units accounts for £19.25m of the total valuation of in-kind affordable housing contributions.
5.31 The total value of affordable housing contributions is£32.27m, which is around 34% of the total of all contributions received. The majority of the total value was received by East Lothian Council with a total of £6.728m in direct and in-kind contributions, which is 21% of the total value of affordable housing contributions.
B Education
5.32 A total of 139 separate education contributions were made within the study period, all by direct payment. Table 5.4 shows how this total is divided among the different types of agreement. The total value of the education contributions is £18.8m. North Lanarkshire Council secured contributions of £8.9m, the highest of any authority. North Lanarkshire's total includes a contribution of £8.51m generated by the Ravenscraig development. Otherwise, the highest average contribution was received by Dundee City Council, with an average of £436,000 for their 5 contributions.
5.33 The information provided by planning authorities with respect to the type of application is not clear in many cases, however it is apparent that the majority of education contributions are linked to housing applications.
Table 5.5: Summary of Education Contributions
Type of Contribution | Number or Value Secured |
|---|
Total contributions | 139 |
|---|
Agreements under s69 | 35 |
|---|
Agreements under s75 | 90 |
|---|
Agreements under s69/s75 | 1 |
|---|
Agreement type unknown | 13 |
|---|
Financial Value | £18.8m |
|---|
Notes to table
(Source: Analysis of Stage 1 returns from the 28 local authorities who responded to the study team and Stage 2 Assessment.)
Policy Approaches
5.34 The case study of selected authorities has provided evidence that there are many apparent differences between the ways in which different authorities design their policies to secure the provision of education contributions. The major differences are in the contribution per housing unit sought, and the threshold of when a contribution is required. The following examples illustrate the different approaches taken.
City of Dundee 5.35 In Dundee City in 2004/05 a figure of £3500 was charged per residential unit as a contribution towards new educational facilities within the catchment of the development. The figure is established by the education department and is index linked, and the charge had increased to £3678 per unit by the end of the study period. Education contributions were linked to large developments of more than 80 units. However, there is no Supplementary Planning Guidance to advise developers of these requirements, or thresholds when contributions will be required, it is only at pre-application stage that the need for a contribution is established. |
West Lothian 5.36 West Lothian Council has produced a range of SPG's with four alone concerned with education contributions as follows: - High School - establishes developer contributions for new or improved high schools at £1767 per house and £1015 per flat
- Armadale Academy - Contributions for the replacement Armadale Academy set at £1653 per house and £620 per flat
- Primary School - Contributions assessed by Education Department depending on impact of individual development
- School commissioning costs - provides a framework for contributions necessary to deliver a turn key project and make the school building/campus operational
5.37 West Lothian's approach is applied to smaller scale developments than those in Dundee, which could explain the lower cost per unit. It should also be noted that some of these policies, and in particular policy regarding school commissioning costs were heavily criticised by housebuilders concerned that the policy went beyond the parameters of Circular 12/96. |
Scottish Borders - Policy in the Scottish Borders for education contributions is explained in the Council's Supplementary Planning Guidance on Developer Contributions. With regard to new education provision the SPG sets out a list of schools where contributions will be sought in the period 2005-2010, and the cost per unit of the relative contribution. Justification is provided in respect of the required contributions. Table 5.6 below summarises the contributions sought per unit:
Table 5.6: Scottish Borders Council Education Contribution Policy | New secondary | Extend secondary | New primary | Extend primary |
|---|
| Per house | £4,180 | £1,282 | £9,100 | £2,973 |
|---|
| Per flat | £627 | £192 | £1,365 | £446 |
|---|
Notes to table
(Source: Stage 2 Assessment) 5.39 The contributions will be generally be required for all housing developments within the catchment area of the school that has an identified capacity requirement. In all other cases the impact of the housing development will be assessed case by case. |
Conclusions on Education Contributions
5.40 Over the study period Dundee City Council secured contributions of £2.18m from 5 contributions, giving an average of over £436,000 per contribution.
5.41 In West Lothian, £756,751 was secured in Education contributions, an average around £75,675 per contribution. The policy was introduced in 2005.
5.42 The Scottish Borders received an average contribution of £7,960, with 15 contributions received in the study period.
5.43 The differences in policy and the scale of development experienced in these areas reflect the different values received by these Authorities.
C Public Transport
5.44 One of the important emerging trends established in the case studies was the increase in frequency and value of contributions towards public transport facilities. Improving public transport facilities and services is key to improving the sustainability of our transport systems. At the moment there are major public transport infrastructure improvements in the pipeline such as the Edinburgh Trams and the re-establishment of railway lines - in particular the Waverley Line from Edinburgh, through Midlothian to the Scottish Borders. Glasgow City Council has introduced a draft policy similar to the Edinburgh Trams policy aiming to secure developer contributions to the Clyde "Fastlink" public transport service.
5.45 A total of 168 contributions towards public transport were made during the 3 year study period. The number of public transport contributions increased sharply between the end of 04/05 and 05/06 and continued to rise.
5.46 Only 9 of the public transport contributions were provided in-kind, including 4 travel plans. The previous research into the value of planning obligations in England and Wales has established that there is no value attributable to a green travel plan, and that approach has also been used in this study, as explained in appendix 2.
5.47 The total value of contributions received is £6,229,808, an average of just over £37,000 per agreement.
Trends
5.48 The majority of public transport contributions were secured by the Scottish Borders (81 separate contributions) and Edinburgh (48 contributions). All of the Scottish Borders public transport contributions were associated with the Waverley Line construction, and 89% of Edinburgh's were linked to the construction of the new Tram line. These two projects account for 77% of all public transport contributions in Scotland over the last three years.
5.49 The Edinburgh Tram construction has received contributions of some £4,919,785, while the Scottish Borders' Waverley contributions account for £339,000. The total contributions towards these two major infrastructure projects accounts for 86% of the value of all public transport contributions across Scotland in the last three years (£6.23m)
5.50 Other types of public transport contribution received were otherwise related to improving public transport facilities, mainly bus services.
5.51 Examples of other types of public transport contribution are:
- Fund new bus service - 2 contributions with a total value £102,000
- Park and Ride - 2 contributions, worth a total of £22,000
- Provision of bus stops, bus shelters, tracking information - 6 contributions (including 2 in- kind) worth a total of £98,000.
Policy
5.52 Both Edinburgh City Council and the Scottish Borders have developed formulaic based policies to be used for the purpose of contributions towards the Tram and the Waverley Line respectively from developments within specific distances of the intended route of each project.
5.53 It is interesting to note that although the Waverley Line will pass through their administrative area, Midlothian Council has no policy or procedure to capture contributions from developments within the catchment of the Waverley Line. However, it is expected that significant contributions from the Shawfair new settlement will be sought towards the construction of the Waverley Line.
5.54 The Waverley Line is scheduled to open in 2011 and it is therefore anticipated that the Scottish Borders will continue to receive contributions in the near future.
5.55 Glasgow City Council is devising a new policy for developer contributions to be used towards the Clyde 'Fastlink' - a "state of the art" public transport system running a six minute interval service from the city centre along the northern bank of the River Clyde, via the International Financial Services District, SECC, and the new Transport Museum, terminating at the west end of Glasgow Harbour. The Finalised Draft City Plan 2, published in May 2007 sets out a framework for securing developer contributions towards the Fastlink system, that is based on the same principles as the formula used by Edinburgh City Council's policy for developer contributions towards the Tram line. Development types are given a scale factor and the contribution will be calculated based on its proximity to the Fastlink route.
5.56 It is expected that the growth in the frequency and value of public transport contributions will continue to rise, with the 2 current major projects - and the Clyde Fastlink - likely to have a significant influence on future trends.
D Community Facilities
5.57 Seven Authorities recorded a total 59 separate contributions towards new or improved community facilities in the last three years, just 4.7% of all contributions. Three of these contributions were provided in-kind.
5.58 The 56 direct contributions generated a total of £5,435,173 (an average of £97,056 per contribution). The total value of community facilities including in-kind contributions is just over £5.46m. These contributions account for around 4.7% of all contributions received throughout the study period.
5.59 Twenty two of the community facility contributions were received in Aberdeenshire, with an average of £23,340 per contribution.
5.60 Contributions totalling £1.1m (£73,300 per contribution) were received in Midlothian, representing 20% of the total.
5.61 The largest contributions received in respect of community facilities were £500,000 from a 921 house development in East Dunbartonshire, and a contribution valued at £2.49m in North Lanarkshire from the Ravenscraig development, to go towards Motherwell and Wishaw town centre improvements.
5.62 The majority of contributions were related to housing applications, with a small number linked to retail developments. Information provided by some Authorities does not specify development types however, and the gaps in information are significant enough to make establishing a trend very difficult.
E Open Space / Environment
5.63 The number of contributions towards open space and the environment almost doubled from 15 in 2004/05 to 29 in 2005/06 and then steadied out at 30 contributions in 2006/07. With a further contribution where the year is unknown, the total number of separate open space and environment contributions is 75 (around 5.9% of all contributions).
5.64 Fourteen of the contributions were received in-kind, including provision of land for public open space, and public open space improvements. The in-kind contributions whereby a value can be attached have been valued at £156,000. An explanation of the methodology adopted for valuing such in-kind contributions is given in appendix 2.
5.65 Direct contributions totalled £4.27m. Generally the contributions were very small, although a large development in North Lanarkshire produced a contribution of £2.5m towards open space and the environment.
5.66 The total value of around £4.426m for open space and the environment is 3.8% of all contributions over the last three years.
5.67 The vast majority of contributions are related to major housing developments, although again the data supplied by authorities includes sufficient blanks to render it unreliable. Two contributions were linked to a minerals development.
F Recreation
5.68 Recreation contributions account for the greatest proportion of all contributions. 286 separate contributions (22.6% of the total) were received over the last three years. Eighteen authorities recorded recreation contributions, with Glasgow accounting for 115 (40%) of them.
5.69 This is linked to a formula based policy Glasgow operates to secure a contribution based on the size of a new house to be put towards the provision of new recreation facilities.
5.70 A total of 258 contributions were direct financial contributions. The total value of direct recreation contributions is £13.31m, an average of £50,801 per contribution. Glasgow City Council's recreational greenspace contributions accounted for 47.8% of all financial recreation contributions at £6.36m.
5.71 The most common contributions were towards new sports pitches, provision of equipped play areas, and improved play facilities.
5.72 Whilst Glasgow and Stirling are two examples of authorities using a formula based policy to calculate contributions, different practice is used at East Ayrshire where 1% of the developments construction cost is to be contributed towards a Sport, Leisure and Recreation fund which the Council will use to provide new and enhanced facilities.
5.73 Twenty eight in-kind contributions were received and have been valued at £1.2m. Examples of in-kind contributions include provision of equipped play areas, provision of football pitch and pavilion, improvements to existing sports facilities and provision of play equipment.
5.74 The total value of recreation contributions is £14,511,000, which is 12.4% of the total value of all contributions over the last three years.
G Roads Infrastructure
5.75 Contributions towards roads infrastructure are the most valuable of all contributions received. Direct contributions amounted to £28,424,504 over the last three years, with in-kind contributions valued at more than £2,126,500. The total value of £30.55m represents 26.1% of the value of all contributions. The contributions concerned related entirely to schemes to be carried out by councils who are both planning authority and local roads authority. Accordingly, they do not involve schemes relating to trunk roads or motorways for which separate arrangements exist (see paragraph 2.2).
5.76 However, there is one major contribution that enormously influences this outcome. The legal agreement linked to one major development in North Lanarkshire of 921 houses included a contribution for the developer to fund a link road at Kirkintilloch. The financial value of this contribution is £20m, 65% of all roads infrastructure contributions.
5.77 The frequency of roads/infrastructure contributions has closely reflected the trends in planning application numbers over the last three years, with a slow decline in both evident.
5.78 Taking the Kirkintilloch link road out of the equation shows a yearly fluctuation in the value of contributions received, rising sharply from 2004/05 to 2005/06 and then falling significantly in 2006/07. The data received from authorities does not help in established a trend as there are more than £1.5m worth of contributions where no financial year can be identified.
5.79 A total of 191 separate roads and infrastructure contributions were recorded by 17 different authorities, 15.1% of all contributions. Roads and infrastructure contributions were related mainly to housing applications, although a small mix of other development types such as retail, minerals, classes 4, 5 and 6 have been linked with contributions. Roads and infrastructure contributions are linked with a greater mix of development types than any other contribution.
5.80 The value of roads and infrastructure contributions should increase steadily in coming years. Emerging Local Plan policy is becoming more effective and there are many examples where developers will be required to provide all necessary infrastructure to support large developments in Stirling, East Lothian, Fife, West Lothian, Midlothian and Edinburgh for example.
H Public Realm
5.81 Public realm contributions are the least frequent and also the least valuable type of contribution. Only 19 separate contributions (1.5%) have been recorded over the last three years. Twelve contributions were direct, with a value of £706,674. The in-kind contributions have been given a total value of £37,100.
5.82 The total value of public realm contributions of £747,000 accounts for just 0.64% of all contributions received.
5.83 The types of public realm contribution include:
- The restoration of listed buildings
- Provision of public art
- Provision of interpretation boards
- Town centre public realm improvements
5.84 The provision of public art is the most frequent type of contribution with 8 in total, valued at £132,000.
5.85 The most valuable contribution was required to restore a listed bridge, with a direct contribution of £390,000.
I Miscellaneous Contributions
5.86 One of the key aspects of the case study was to look in detail at the types of contribution described as "other" or "miscellaneous", to establish what types of contribution were being secured, and the value attributable to them.
The Different types of Miscellaneous Contributions
5.87 As would be expected, there are numerous types of miscellaneous contribution, ranging from small scale bins, to large scale provision of land.
5.88 In all, 14 Authorities provided information of miscellaneous contributions received. A total of 110 miscellaneous contributions were recorded. Examples of some of the types of miscellaneous contribution reported are listed below.
5.89 Examples of miscellaneous contributions:
- Provision of dog foul bins
- Provide land for Economic Development purposes
- City Car Club memberships, cars and reserved parking bays
- Correcting interference with radio/television reception
- Economic development initiatives
- Recycling facilities
5.90 The majority of miscellaneous contributions were received in Edinburgh, with a total of 44 separate contributions. Of these, 28 were related to the City Car Club scheme, which were all direct contributions with an average value of around £8,450. These funds are put towards the provision of new cars and parking spaces for the sole use of the City's shared car user scheme.
5.91 Aberdeenshire was the next most active with a total of 34 miscellaneous contributions. The most common types of miscellaneous contribution were Town Centre Improvements, Dog Bins, Recycling and Civic Amenity. Contributions were generally very small in scale with the exception of town centre improvements, of which 4 contributions provided £304,539 (66% of the total miscellaneous contribution of £463,055 in Aberdeenshire). A summary of all miscellaneous values is given in Table 5.7.
Table 5.7: Summary of Miscellaneous Contributions
Category | Number or Value |
|---|
Total miscellaneous | 110 contributions |
|---|
Total Value | £2.719m (£152,450 in-kind) |
|---|
Average contribution | £24,727 |
|---|
Largest single contribution | £588,514 for the provision of Economic Development land and ground stabilisation (Midlothian) |
|---|
Smallest single contribution | £69 towards civic amenity (Aberdeenshire) |
|---|
Notes to table
(Source: Analysis of Stage 1 returns from the 28 local authorities who responded to the study team and Stage 2 Assessment.)
Policy to set out Developer Requirements
5.92 In general the practice of Authorities varies significantly. The Aberdeenshire Local Plan sets out specific developer contribution policy requirements within settlement statements, and has policies within the plan relative to developer contributions.
5.93 However, in most cases there is no specific policy on miscellaneous contributions, as by their nature they tend to be required on a case by case basis.
In-Kind vs Direct Provision
5.94 A total of 89 of the miscellaneous contributions involved a direct payment. Only 21 were received in-kind.
5.95 The value of the direct contributions is £2.566m. This gives an average of £28,831 per direct contribution.
5.96 There were 21 in-kind contributions. The majority of in-kind miscellaneous contributions involve provisions that do not have a value attributable to them as explained in appendix 2.
5.97 It has been possible to put a value against just 4 in-kind public realm contributions. The total value of the in-kind contributions is £152,550, and £150,000 of this total was put against a single contribution for the phased upgrade of a street and provision of street furniture.
5.98 Overall, miscellaneous contributions accounted for around 8.7% of all contribution received, but only around 2.33% of the total value of contributions.
Conclusion
5.99 This chapter has provided valuable detail on the scope for securing contributions from developers towards a wide range of infrastructure and public services requirements which stem from new development. It has also provided evidence that an equally wide range of practices exist among planning authorities and the following chapter will examine some of the reasons for this.
« Previous | Contents | Next »