|
The Planning Officers Society welcomes the Government’s decision to consult on alternative options to Planning Gain Supplement. It shares many of the Government’s objectives and believes they can be better achieved through options A, C, or D of the alternatives published for consultation. However it considers that Option C best meets the Government's objectives of:
· ensuring that there is more money for the provision of infrastructure and that all development pays proportionately towards infrastructure;
· ensuring that development is not held up because of the lack of infrastructure; and
· simplifying the planning process, especially in relation to s106 obligations
The Society is of the view that option C has the following particular advantages:
- it is a simple construction and avoids the complications in valuation attributed to PGS;
- it maintains the link between the development and the locality in which it is to take place;
- if developed through the LDF process it will be subject to scrutiny and challenge through an accepted process;
- it could be introduced without primary legislation;
- the cost of collection is likely to be less than collecting the PGS;
- many local authorities have already developed standard charging mechanisms from which experience can be developed
Geoff Cross, for POS, stated “Whilst Approach C appears to hold all the aces, Government could always move to Approach D if unforeseen difficulties in freeing local authorities to better champion their development needs did not raise the planning gain contributions the Government seeks.”
 |
to view the release in full (48.128Kb) - DOWNLOAD | |
Feature