Sadiq's "Poor Doors" Bung! a Westferry Printers/ Friary Park Saucy Comparison

realrld

To unravel the hysterics lets just go back to basics.
Planning consents for developments over 100 square meters attract Community Infrastructure levy’s , Tower hamlets had released a revised charging rate up from 2015’s £200 per sqm to £280 per sq m, the charge is not a new thing and the potential increase is also effected by planning guidance on application of the charges weighed against the Affordable housing and other social and commercial benefits any particular Scheme offers to the community in which it is proposed.

The Great west ferry Print works exaggeration.

p.9 4.2

““Past problems of valuation complexity could well be resolved with Big

Data and Artificial Intelligence – Zoopla probably sets local property prices

more efficiently and more accurately than the estate agency industry does!”


The Great west ferry Print works exaggeration.

Two households, both alike in dignity,

In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes

A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;

Whose misadventur'd piteous overthrows

Doth with their death bury their parents' strife.

Romeo And Juliet Prologue, 1–8

As a free market property developer my Company Real Estate Land and

developments Limited is interested in the framework within which we

bid for Land and seek planning consent. Our mission is to provide

Affordable Homes to Purchase for Londoners on average incomes, at a

Budget price point, to an acceptable Standard with timely delivery and

offering a best in class Value proposition for our customers.

It is of great interest for my Shareholders then that the Planning risks

associated with the Community Infrastructure Levy and the Mayoral

Infrastructure levy is both predictable and consistent both within

specific Boroughs where we wish to serve our customers and across the

Capital generally.


Breathless headlines appeared after questions in the Houses of

Parliament about a month ago.

Heres a Flavour of this very peculiar furore.

Henry McDonald

Wed 27 May 2020 19.10 BST

Former Tory donor's housing project 'unlawfully approved to

avoid £40m hit'

Ministry denies claims of bias in approval of Richard

Desmond’s development one day before levy kicked in

Heather Stewart Political editor

Sun 21 Jun 2020 14.18 BST

Jenrick under growing pressure after fresh Desmond

revelation

Minister viewed video of £1bn property development before

overruling officials to approve it

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/may/27/richard-desmond-housing-projectunlawfully-approved-robert-jenrick-isle-dogs-london-avoid-40m-hit

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2020/jun/21/jenrick-under-growing-pressure-afterfresh-desmond-revelation

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/robert-jenrick-watched-housing-promo-video-on-richarddesmonds-phone-bqb0s8kz2

https://www.mpsontwitter.co.uk/search/%23Westferry?

offset=0&min_date=1576191600&tweets=1&order=timestamp


Gabriel Pogrund, Emanuele Midolo, Tom Calver and George Greenwood

The Sunday Times

INVESTIGATION

Robert Jenrick watched housing promo video on Richard Desmond’s phone

‘I followed the rules,’ said minister — then admitted he didn’t

On January 14, eight weeks after the dinner, Jenrick overruled a planning

inspector and approved the plan to redevelop Westferry Printworks into

luxury flats. It is the only time he has rejected official advice to back a

scheme. It later emerged that he acted less than 24 hours before a local levy

would have come into force, requiring Desmond to pay £40m. He also

waived affordable housing rules, a decision estimated to have saved the

former Daily Express owner a further £106m.


The claims fluctuate widely from a favour to the tune of £30 millions up

to a particularly fanciful £106m in the Sunday Times of 21 st June.

To unravel the hysterics lets just go back to basics.

Planning consents for developments over 100 square meters attract

Community Infrastructure levy’s , Tower hamlets had released a revised

charging rate up from 2015’s £200 per sqm to £280 per sq m, the charge

is not a new thing and the potential increase is also effected by planning

guidance on application of the charges weighed against the Affordable

housing and other social and commercial benefits any particular

Scheme offers to the community in which it is proposed.

https://www.saffronforintermediaries.co.uk/section-106-cil-explained/

Section 106 and CIL

explained

Posted on June 30, 2017

When I talk to developers I’m often asked for information about a range of technical issues such as

Section 106 agreements, brownfield site development and issues relating to planning gain.

I thought it may be helpful, therefore, to produce a series of short blogs which provide

background information about these issues. This first blog aims to explain section 106 legal

agreements and the Community Infrastructure Levy. If you would like further information about

these subjects, you’ll find some useful links at the end of this blog.


What is a Section 106 Agreement?

Section 106 (S106) agreements, which are also known as planning obligations, are legal

agreements made between local authorities and developers.

S106 agreements are designed to address issues that new developments may place on local

infrastructure. The agreement will vary depending on the nature of a development, but will

typically address issues such as:

• Affordable housing

• Highways

• Education

• Public open space

• Town centre improvements

The content of a S106 agreement is agreed during the consultation period of the planning

application and the agreement is prepared by the council’s solicitor. Smaller developments have

the option of completing a Unilateral Undertaking instead of a full S106 agreement.

What is a Community Infrastructure Levy?

A Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a new planning charge introduced by the government via

the Planning Act 2008. It provides a means of ensuring that a new development contributes to the

cost of the infrastructure that the development will rely on, such as schools and roads.

The levy applies to most new buildings and charges are based on the size and type of the floor

space being created. The idea behind the CIL is that it’s fairer, faster and more certain than the

system of S106 planning obligations, which are negotiated on a case-by-case basis.

Under the system of S106 planning obligations only 6 per cent of all planning permissions

nationally made any contribution to the cost of supporting infrastructure. With CIL, all but the

smallest building projects will make a contribution towards infrastructure costs.

S106 or CIL?

All local authorities in England & Wales are empowered, but not required, to charge a CIL on new

developments in their area. Although S106 planning obligations will continue with some

developments, reforms have been introduced to restrict their use.

It’s worth bearing in mind that the CIL is intended to provide infrastructure to support a

development, rather than make an application acceptable in planning terms. There may therefore

be some site-specific impact mitigation requirements without which a site won’t be granted

planning permission. A S106 planning obligation may therefore be imposed to ensure that the

consequences of a development can be mitigated.

What is and is not liable for CIL?

A development will be liable for CIL if it involves:

• new build of at least 100m2 gross internal area (GIA) floor space or,

• the creation of one or more dwellings.

A development is not liable for CIL if it:

• involves only a change of use, conversion or extension.

• is for structures such as wind turbines, pylons or buildings into which people don’t normally go

(e.g. for housing plant or machinery).

• is permitted by a ‘general consent’ or is for a use which benefits from zero charges set out in the

CIL charging structure.


Further information

You can find further information about S106 and CIL charges at:

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/planning-obligations

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy

http://www.planningofficers.org.uk/downloads/pdf/

POS_Advice_Note_S106_and_CIL_final_version_Apr2011.pdf

You may also find further information in the planning section of your local authority’s website.

National Planning Policy Framework.

3.11 With regards to the Council’s consideration of planning obligations in relation to viability

– including the assessment of affordable housing provision, PPG states:

“In making decisions, the local planning authority will need to understand the

impact of planning obligations on the proposal. Where an applicant is able to

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the local planning authority that the planning

obligation would cause the development to be unviable, the local planning authority

should be flexible in seeking planning obligations.

This is particularly relevant for affordable housing contributions which are often the

largest single item sought on housing developments. These contributions should not be

sought without regard to individual scheme viability. The financial viability of the

individual scheme should be carefully considered in line with the principles in this

guidance.”

3.8 The NPPF also recognises that development should not be subject to such a scale

of obligation and policy burdens that its viability is threatened. This reinforces the need forviability

testing in order to allow willing landowners and developers to receivecompetitive returns which in

turn enable the delivery of development.


3.9 In the context of achieving sustainable development the NPPF refers to ensuring viability

and deliverability and states:

“To ensure viability, the costs of any requirement likely to be applied to development,

such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or

other requirements should, when taking into account of the normal cost of development

and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer

to enable the development to be deliverable”.

© copyright reserved 2018 Gerald Eve LLP Page 72

Appendix 11 – Affordable housing statement

Former Westferry Printworks, London E14

Affordable Housing Statement

https://drive.google.com/file/d/123EW7vazvWZx7BPLun4WHqCfWo0mveK7/view?usp=sharing

Prepared by

DS2 LLP

On behalf of

Northern & Shell Investments No. 2 Ltd

August 2015

AFFORDABLE HOUSING STATEMENT

Westferry Printworks, London E14

24

7 Approach to Financial Viability

7.1 In accordance with planning policy the amount of affordable housing that can be supported

by the proposals will be determined by scheme viability. A Financial Viability Assessment

(FVA) will be submitted by DS2 and made available for the council’s independent

reviewer, however due to the highly commercially sensitive nature of its content it is to be

provided on a strictly private and confidential basis.


7.2 The methodology underpinning a residual valuation is a relatively simple concept. In

short, the gross value of the completed development is assessed, including, amongst others,

the aggregated value of any residential properties, commercial income, car parking income

and ground rents. Secondly, the cost of building the development is deducted along with

professional fees, finance costs and developer’s profit. This is illustrated below in Table 3.

Table 5 – Residual valuation methodology

7.3 The output is the Residual Land Value (RLV). Simply, if the RLV produced by a scheme is

lower than the benchmark land value, then the scheme is deemed to be unviable and is

therefore unlikely to come forward for development, unless the level of affordable housing

and /or planning obligations can be reduced. If the RLV is higher than the benchmark then

the scheme can, in theory, provide additional affordable housing and /or other planning

obligations.

7.4 Alternatively, the benchmark land value can be inserted into the appraisal as a fixed cost

and the level of profit generated by the scheme becomes the output by which viability is

measured. If a sufficient level of developer’s profit is generated the scheme is deemed to be

viable. This is the approach that has been adopted within the FVA.

7.5 The topic of what is an appropriate benchmark is covered in more detail within the FVA,

but in summary it is a benchmark land value that incentivises the site to come forward for

development whilst optimising the maximum reasonable amount of affordable housing and

other planning obligations. The approach is in accordance with the NPPF and London Plan

in that it seeks to encourage rather than restrain development.


7.6 The DS2 FVA will be subject to independent verification by the

council’s viability advisor.


The Planning obligations on westferry Printers are secured in a s.106

deed for the Planning permission Granted in 2016.

Robert Jenrick’s decision makes it quite clear that the 2016 s.106 is a fall

back position and those obligations endure on the developer, additional

obligations are admitted in and contained in the decision and the

refereed to supporting documentation particularly the Financial Viability

calculation which specify contributions as follows,


Financial Viability Assessment in support of the Planning

Application

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1tSolSiVGMg7g0099VRKUmGqwkkTidoWA/view?

usp=sharing

Planning Obligations Package £11,490,732 DP9

Planning Obligations/Payments

Mayoral CIL 5,517,565 Oct-18 Oct-18

S106 5,973,167 Oct-18 Oct-18

£11,490,732 1.3%

17 Jan

2020

Correspondence

SECRETARY OF STATE APPEAL DECISION - ALLOWED -

PERMISSION GRANTED.

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 – SECTION 78 APPEAL MADE BY

WESTFERRY DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED LAND AT FORMER WESTFERRY

PRINTWORKS SITE, 235 WESTFERRY ROAD, LONDON E14 3QS APPLICATION REF:

PA/18/01877/A1

Main issues The fallback position

16.The Secretary of State has considered the Inspector’s assessment of the fallback position at

IR417-419. He is satisfied that the site benefits from an existing permission for 722 residential units

(20% affordable), a secondary school and other uses (‘the consented scheme’). The Secretary of

State agrees with the Inspector that the consented scheme represents a realistic fallback position and

there is a reasonable 4 prospect this would continue to be implemented if this proposal were to be

dismissed. He agrees with the Inspector at IR596 that many of the public benefits of the appeal

scheme would be delivered by the consented scheme. However, the Secretary of State considers that

there are significant benefits that the proposed scheme would deliver in comparison with the

consented scheme, as set out below.

34.The Secretary of State considers, however, that while not in line with the policy

requirements for affordable housing, an increase in affordable units from 140 to 282

(IR583) provided by the appeal scheme as against the consented scheme is a benefit of

the scheme. In the judgment of the Secretary of State, contrary to the finding of the

Inspector, the delivery of an additional 142 affordable homes attracts significant weight in

the planning balance, notwithstanding the conflict with LonP Policy 3.12, CS Policy SP02

and THLP Policy S.H1. Further, notwithstanding the Secretary of State’s findings above

as to the housing mix, the Secretary of State considers that the additional housing which

the proposal would deliver is of itself a benefit to the scheme. While the Council can

demonstrate a 5-year supply of housing sites, the Secretary of State considers, for the

reasons given by the Appellant as recorded by the Inspector at IR191-194, that

significant weight can be accorded to this benefit, contrary to the arguments of the other

parties. Overall the Secretary of State concludes that the benefits of increased provision

of affordable housing and open market housing should attract substantial weight in favour

of the proposals.


Planning obligations

39.Having had regard to the Inspector’s analysis at IR404-616, the Unilateral Undertaking dated 6th

September 2019, paragraph 56 of the Framework, the Guidance and the Community Infrastructure

Levy Regulations 2010, as amended, the Secretary of State 9 agrees with the Inspector’s conclusion

for the reasons given in IR533-537 that the obligation at clause 3.8(b) with regards to the Late Stage

Review would meet the tests contained in Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations. He agrees,

however, that the obligation fails with regards to Schedule 8 and Schedule 15 to comply with

Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations and the tests at paragraph 56 of the Framework. He agrees

that the other elements of the Undertaking would comply with the CIL Regulations and paragraph

56 of the Framework. 40.The Secretary of State agrees with the Inspector at IR565-568 that while

the appeal scheme would not itself provide a secondary school, the planning obligation given in

connection with the consented scheme would be carried forward. He agrees with the Inspector’s

conclusions at IR568 and considers for the reasons given that the undertaking in relation to a school

is neutral in the planning balance. He has taken those obligations set out at IR564-569 into account

in reaching his decision. He further agrees with the Inspector at IR591 that the contributions to

employment and training, affordable workspace, local employment/procurement and

apprenticeships would be greater than the consented scheme and should attract moderate weight in

favour of the proposals.

Formal decision

42.As set out above, the Secretary of State considers the consented scheme to be a realistic fallback

position. As such, his assessment of the planning balance is carried out by comparison with the

consented scheme.

43.The Secretary of State considers that the proposal would provide a significantly greater

amount of market and affordable housing than the consented scheme. He considers that,

even though the scheme would not deliver the maximum reasonable amount of

affordable housing and might reasonably provide up to 35% affordable housing so as to

comply with the minimum target in CS Policy SP02, would not deliver the balance of

market housing types sought and would not maximise the provision of family homes,

there is no evidence before the Secretary of State of any other scheme which might

come forward or what level of affordable (or market) housing such a scheme might

deliver and the provision of an additional 142 affordable units and 660 market units are

nonetheless significant benefits to the proposed scheme in comparison with the

consented scheme. Overall, he gives substantial weight to the housing benefits of the

scheme. He considers there would be additional employment benefits during

construction by reference to the consented scheme, to which the Secretary of State

48.Accordingly, for the reasons given above, the Secretary of State disagrees with the Inspector’s

recommendation. He hereby allows your client’s appeal and grants planning permission subject to

the conditions set out at Annex B to this letter, for a comprehensive mixed-use redevelopment

comprising 1,524 residential units (Class C3), shops, offices, flexible workspaces, financial and

professional services, restaurants and cafes, drinking establishments (Classes B1/A1/A2/A3/A4),

community uses (Class D1), car and cycle basement parking, associated landscaping, new public

realm and all other necessary enabling works in accordance with application ref: PA/18/01877/A1.

49.This letter does not convey any approval or consent which may be required under any

enactment, bye-law, order or regulation other than section 57 of the Town and Country Planning Act

1990. Right to challenge the decision


50.A separate note is attached setting out the circumstances in which the validity of the Secretary of

State’s decision may be challenged. This must be done by making an application to the High Court

within 6 weeks from the day after the date of this letter for leave to bring a statutory review under

section 288 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990. 11 51.A copy of this letter has been sent to

London Borough of Tower Hamlets and Greater London Authority, and notification has been sent to

others who asked to be informed of the decision. Yours faithfully

Phil Barber Authorised by the Secretary of State to sign in that behalf

Meanwhile in Ealing another substantial housing development has had a

much smoother ride.

SUBMITTED VIA PLANNING PORTAL REF: PP-07933406

Ealing Council Regeneration and Planning Perceval House 14-16

Uxbridge Road London W5 2HL

FAO CHRIS MALTBY 26 July 2019

Dear Mr Maltby,

TOWN AND COUNTRY PLANNING ACT 1990 (AS AMENDED) TOWN AND

COUNTRY PLANNING (ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT ASSESSMENT)

REGULATIONS 2017 (AS AMENDED) FRIARY PARK ESTATE, ACTON,

LONDON, W3 - HYBRID PLANNING APPLICATION

On behalf of our client, Friary Park 1 LLP (a Partnership between Catalyst

Housing and Mount Anvil) (“the Applicant”), we hereby submit an

application for planning permission at the above site (hereafter referred

to as “the Application Site”). The application seeks part outline and part

detailed planning permission for:

https://pam.ealing.gov.uk/online-applications/applicationDetails.do?

activeTab=documents&keyVal=PVLSE9JM0GW00

http://www.actonw3.com/default.asp?

section=info&page=actfriarypark007.htm

Allegations of Duplicity Over True Scale of Friary Park Redevelopment

Opponents say both Catalyst and Council withheld full picture during consultation


CGI of development produced by opponents of the scheme

The 1980s estate next to Acton Mainline station currently consists of 225 social rented homes

described by planning consultants Barton Willmore as 'undersized', in a site that 'lacks

permeability, encourages anti-social behaviour and has ' inadequate green space.'

It's proposd that all the current buildings on the Friary Park Estate and its surrounding roads will be

demolished, and replaced with new homes of mixed type. The scheme has been worked on since

2014 and the plans are expected to deliver 372 'affordable' homes and 618 for private sale.

Opponents of the recently approved scheme to redevelop the

Friary Park Estate in Acton are claiming the developer and

Ealing Council misled them over the real size of the project.

Planning permission was granted to Catalyst to demolish the

estate replacing the homes with around 930 new ones in tower

blocks.

Catalyst say, ''Our proposals will dramatically improve the

housing conditions on the estate by providing high quality new

homes. There will be an increased number of family-sized

homes for social rent to meet the needs of the families currently

living on the estate.''

Subscription expired

RSSbox powered by rssinclude.com

Participate

Private Developer Brought

in to Friary Park Project

Tower Blocks For Friary Park

Sign up for our Acton

newsletter

Comment on this story on

the forum

However, in the documentation submitted by the developer as

part of their application and the associated consultation

process, no images were provided which gave an indication of

the true scale of the development.This has been a feature of many of the developments in the

area including the Council's own scheme in central Ealing and residents who are uncomfortable

with the height of buildings being proposed across the borough are producing red block CGIs

themselves in an attempt to make clear what the impact will be.


23 Apr 2020 Decision DRAFT DECISION NOTICE

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hTaS9FoqNnfKhz6a2vYUEt_Zjk-LDzaX/

view?usp=sharing


https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bGSYDX1LRwSHLz4PPmxmTPGTPTILBAML/

view?usp=sharing


The Ealing scheme is on land already owned by and occupied as

affordable housing association homes, it was developed in the 1980’s as

private sector housing and acquired by Catalyst in a very bad housing

market.

Catalyst along with Mount Anvil have secured a very dense consent to

demolish and replace the affordable housing with a huge uplift in

Private housing for sale, the scheme also features notorious “Poor

Doors”!

The Planning Contributions are less than half those at Westferry

printers even though the site is 45 metres from a new Crossrail station

and there are many architectural merit concerns raised by local

residents almost 300 objections were registered on the application

compare with less than 30 on westferry printers.

To cap it all Mount Anvil announce earlier this month that the GLA had

made a £50 Million pound loan to the company,

So to the Introductory quote after taking some “Bleedin Liberties”

Two Schemes alike in wealth

both un alike in infamy,

In fair London, where we lay our scene,

From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,

Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.

From forth the fatal loins of these two foes

A pair of star-cross'd developers Lay their suit.

Whose misadventur'd piteous overthrows

Doth with their Consents bury their Political strife


Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Collection and Reporting.

https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/planning_and_building_control/

Infrastructure_planning/community_infrastructure_levy.aspx

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1m98ykqjLvDx2aluZ5roOk3zBpeLX_rMP/

view?usp=sharing

Expenditure Report

For Financial Year 2015/16

4(a) Total CIL receipts in the reported

year £6,774,441.64

4(b) Total CIL Expenditure in the

reported year £0

4(d) CIL receipts retained for expenditure in future years

4(d)(i) Total amount of CIL receipts

for the reported year retained at the

end of the reported year excluding the

neighbourhood proportion £5,080,831.23


Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Collection and

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xoLueBPaU1wzICFzyw_BFmJI5E_XuEKW/

view?usp=sharing

Expenditure Report

For Financial Year 2016/17

4(a) Total CIL receipts in the reported

year £18,338,813.16

4(b) Total CIL Expenditure in the

reported year £0

4(c)(iv) The amount of CIL applied to

administrative expenses pursuant to

regulation 61 and that amount

expressed as a percentage of CIL

collected in that year in accordance

with that regulation £916,940.66 (5%)

4(ca)(ii) The amount of CIL passed to

any person for that person to apply to

funding the provision, improvement,

replacement, operation or

maintenance of infrastructure

N/A

4 (cb) CIL Neighbourhood Portion / ‘Local Infrastructure Fund’

4(cb)(i) Total amount of the

neighbourhood portion of CIL

receipts in the reported year


Area 1: £174,205.45

Area 2: £111,041.18

Area 3: £2,630,490.57

Area 4: £1,668,966.10

Total: £4,584,703.30

Please refer to the report referred to

the Council’s Cabinet meeting on the

6th December 2016 for an overview of

the Council’s approach including the

4(d)(i) Total amount of CIL receipts

for the reported year retained at the

end of the reported year excluding the

neighbourhood portion £13,754,109.86

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Collection and

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Nmjc2To_AriFHlvmgzwZKRdTLLKw7z9-/

view?usp=sharing

Expenditure Report

For Financial Year 2017/18

CIL Regulation 62 Amount/Description

4(a) Total CIL receipts in the reported

year £13,991,577.67

4(b) Total CIL Expenditure in the

reported year £42,220.91

4 (cb) CIL Neighbourhood Portion / ‘Local Infrastructure Fund’


4(cb)(i) Total amount of the

neighbourhood portion of CIL

receipts in the reported year

Area 1: £691,648.75

Area 2: £92,392.05

Area 3: £2,610,313.01

Area 4: £103,540.61

Total: £3,497,894.42

Please refer to the report referred to

the Council’s Cabinet meeting on the

6th December 2016 for an overview of

the Council’s approach including the

proposed boundaries.

4(d) CIL receipts retained for expenditure in future years

4(d)(i) Total amount of CIL receipts for £10,493,683.25

4(d)(ii) Total amount of CIL receipts

from previous years retained at the

end of the reported year excluding the

neighbourhood portion £29,401,215.07

4(d)(iii) Total amount of neighbourhood

portion CIL receipts for the reported

year retained at the end of the reported

year

Area 1: £691,648.75

Area 2: £92,392.05


Area 3: £2,610,313.01

Area 4: £103,540.61

Total: £3,497,894.42

4(d)(iv)Total amount of neighbourhood

portion CIL receipts from previous years

retained at the end of the reported year

£9,800,405.02

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Collection and

https://drive.google.com/file/d/147wv4W_FDVdIYWFdt8s_Dii9TBbBzUS2/

view?usp=sharing

Expenditure Report

For Financial Year 2018/19

4(a) Total CIL receipts in the reported

year £7,412,333.97

4(b) Total CIL Expenditure in the

reported year £124,781.68

4(d)(iv)Total amount of neighbourhood

portion CIL receipts from previous years

retained at the end of the reported year £11,417,215.86

(excl. surcharges as per Reg 88(3a))

p.9 4.2

““Past problems of valuation complexity could well be resolved with Big

Data and Artificial Intelligence – Zoopla probably sets local property prices

more efficiently and more accurately than the estate agency industry does!”


How should developer contributions be reported?

For the financial year 2018/19, charging authorities must report on

CIL it has collected, or any CIL collected on its behalf. The report

must be published on the authority‘s website no later than 31

December 2019 and include

• the total CIL receipts for the reported year;

• the total CIL expenditure for the reported year;

• summary details of CIL expenditure during the reported year including:

• the items of infrastructure to which CIL has been applied;

• the amount of CIL expenditure on each item;

• the amount of CIL applied to repay money borrowed, including interest,

with details of the infrastructure items which that money was used to

provide;

• the amount of CIL applied to administrative expenses and that amount

expressed as a percentage of CIL collected in that year; and

• the total amount of CIL receipts retained at the end of the reported year.

For the financial year 2019/2020 onwards, any local authority that

has received developer contributions (section 106 planning

obligations or Community Infrastructure Levy) must publish online

an infrastructure funding statement by 31 December 2020 and by

the 31 December each year thereafter. Infrastructure funding

statements must cover the previous financial year from 1 April to

31 March (note this is different to the tax year which runs from 6

April to 5 April).

Local authorities can publish updated data and infrastructure

funding statements more frequently if they wish. More frequent

reporting would help to further increase transparency and

accountability and improve the quality of data available.

Infrastructure funding statements can be a useful tool for wider

engagement, for example with infrastructure providers, and can

inform Statements of Common Ground.


Local authorities can also report this information in authority

monitoring reports but the authority monitoring report is not a

substitute for the infrastructure funding statement.

For information on what an infrastructure funding statement must

contain see ‘What data should be in an infrastructure funding

statement?’.

Paragraph: 025 Reference ID: 10-025-20190901

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/3-

plan-making#para34

Development contributions

34. Plans should set out the contributions expected from

development. This should include setting out the levels and types

of affordable housing provision required, along with other

infrastructure (such as that needed for education, health,

transport, flood and water management, green and digital

infrastructure). Such policies should not undermine the

deliverability of the plan.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability#para002

How should plan makers and site promoters ensure that

policy requirements for contributions from development

are deliverable?

The role for viability assessment is primarily at the plan making

stage. Viability assessment should not compromise sustainable

development but should be used to ensure that policies are

realistic, and that the total cumulative cost of all relevant policies

will not undermine deliverability of the plan.


57. Where up-to-date policies have set out the contributions

expected from development, planning applications that comply

with them should be assumed to be viable. It is up to the applicant

to demonstrate whether particular circumstances justify the need

for a viability assessment at the application stage. The weight to

be given to a viability assessment is a matter for the decision

maker, having regard to all the circumstances in the case,

including whether the plan and the viability evidence underpinning

it is up to date, and any change in site circumstances since the

plan was brought into force. All viability assessments, including

any undertaken at the plan-making stage, should reflect the

recommended approach in national planning guidance, including

standardised inputs, and should be made publicly available.

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/national-planning-policy-framework/

4-decision-making#para57

https://github.com/digital-land/digital-land/issues

https://github.com/digital-land/digital-land-tiddlywiki#readme

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/viability#Should-a-viabilityassessment-be-publicly-available

https://www.gov.uk/guidance/publish-your-developer-contributionsdata


https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/delivering-schools-tosupport-housing-growth

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/

uploads/attachment_data/file/843957/

Developer_Contributions_Guidance_update_Nov2019.pdf

Mechanisms for securing developer contributions 1. Developer

contributions for education are secured by means of conditions

attached to planning permission, a planning obligation under Section

106 of The Town and Country Planning Act 1990, or the Community

Infrastructure Levy (CIL). CIL revenues are intended to help fund the

supporting infrastructure needed to address the cumulative impact of

development across a local authority area. CIL can be used to fund the

provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of a

wide range of infrastructure, including education. Alternatively, a Section

106 planning obligation secures a contribution directly payable to the

local authority for education (or direct provision of a school ‘in kind’),

though a planning obligation must comply with the following tests set

out in the CIL Regulations1, requiring it to be: • Necessary to make the

development acceptable in planning terms • Directly related to the

development • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the

development 2. The CIL Regulations (as amended in September 2019) no

longer impose a ‘pooling restriction’ on the use of planning obligations

to fund the same type of infrastructure or infrastructure project, and an

infrastructure project may receive funding 1 Regulation 122 of The

Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. 6 from both CIL and

Section 106. We advise you to work with local planning authorities in

devising their approaches to securing developer contributions, to

consider the most appropriate mechanism (Section 106 planning

obligations and/or CIL) to secure contributions from developers towards

education alongside other infrastructure funding priorities. Also, when

CIL charging schedules are prepared, this engagement with local

planning authorities should ensure that school developments are


among those D1 uses that are viability tested. A nil rate can be applied if

the viability evidence indicates this is appropriate. Local planning

authorities should be made aware of the considerable public investment

in community infrastructure that a school represents.

https://viability-comparison-tool.netlify.app/

Approved by Mayor

https://planning.southwark.

https://planning.southwark.

https://planning.southwark.


7) Informatives: 1. S106 agreement It should be noted that there is a separate

legal agreement which relates to the development for which this permission

is granted.

6. CIL phasing - this planning permission is as a ‘Phased Planning Permission’

for the purposes of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). ‘Phased Planning

Permission’ has the meaning defined in the interpretation section of the

Regulations at 2(1). Regulation 9(4) of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as

amended) states that in the case of a grant of Phased Planning Permission,

each CIL Phase of the development is a separate chargeable 33 development

and will in turn attract its own CIL Liability. Notwithstanding the Phasing

Plans referred to in Condition 52, The CIL Phases are to be defined by a

separate CIL Phasing Plan submitted to the Local Planning Authority.

This is a build to rent scheme owned by Grosvenor,

What is intriguing is this Alpha software being developed by the local

authorities,

Bermondsey Project

Local Authority: Southwark

Date submitted: 2019-01-10

Application reference: VA 17/AP/4088

Habitable rooms: 2705

Residential units: 1343

Affordable housing: 32%

Commercial Area: 19,579m²

Developer profit (% of GDV): 13%

Max number of storeys: 36

GDV: £936,705,001

Construction Costs: £455,301,516

Professional Fees (% of construction costs): 11%

Marketing and letting Fees (% of construction costs): 1%

Finance: £81,474,151


Financial planning obligations: £67,807,148

https://viability-comparison-

This is the problem with Bureaucracy on a Stalinist scale the Process number

crunches will descend into a mire of what aboutery and nothing ever gets

done.

I have not studied this scheme in depth I do know the fact that this one has

been granted consent without comment and a lowish contribution and the

furore on the Westferry Printers point to another Agenda in respect of the

whole Farago.

http://realrld.com/

Real-Estate Land and Developments Limited

email: rlddevelopments@gmail.

(0046)+702273052

skype: rogerglewis

Grasloksvagen 21, 26697, Hjarnarp, Sweden

https://www.linkedin.com/in/

Roger Lewis

about.me/rogerlewis

REAL-ESTATE LAND AND DEVELOPMENTS LIMITED

Company number: 12600616

More magazines by this user