Local Conservatives say that recently-released figures which show that Haringey has netted 4+ millions from Section 106 agreements with developers since 1998 give rise to fears that 'planning consent may be up for sale'. Agreements yet to be signed amount to a further 1+ million.

Conservatives say that the value of the agreements shows the need for more openness and transparency...currently, S106 agreements can be concluded in private. A recently-revealed 20,000 S106 agreement (ref: money to be spent on "recreation") relating to the redevelopment of the Builder Center [correct spelling] in Archway Road has given rise to particular concern that the 'planning obligation' had nothing to do with the proposed retail development and was tantamount to planning consent having been 'purchased'.

The figures, presented to the Planning Applications Sub-Committee on 2 September 2003 (paper 7) reveal that since 1998 Haringey Council has entered into 36 S106 agreements (worth 4,033,904) and that a further 17 agreements (worth 1,075,724) have yet to be signed.

Comments Peter Forrest, Conservative GLA Candidate for Enfield-Haringey:

"I am worried by the scale of these payments and by the lack of openness and transparency. The Section 106 process puts developers over a barrel: they cannot appeal against the imposition of a S106 'planning obligation' and if they refuse to have their arm twisted and go to appeal over the refusal of planning permission itself then their chances of winning are often slim.

This gives Councils all of the cards. It is only right that developers building large-scale housing developments should make a financial contribution to the extra costs of education but the worry is that greedy Councils are [unlawfully] demanding large payments for unrelated purposes. The 20,000 S106 agreement relating to the Builder Center in Archway Road is a case in point and gives rise to the justifiable fear that planning consent may be up for sale".

ENDS.

Notes:

THE CURRENT SYSTEM

Section 106 of the Town and Planning Act 1990 (as amended) allows local planning to negotiate arrangements whereby the developer makes some undertaking if he obtains planning permission.

If a planning obligation is demanded, the applicant cannot appeal against the obligation, and if he appeals against the refusal of planning permission (having refused the obligation) he is less well placed to reach a compromise satisfactory to all parties. A related concern is that some councils have been greedy and demanded large payments for unrelated purposes. The developer may make the payment rather than face the delay of an appeal. The worst possible result is a developer paying over the odds to gain planning approval for a project that should have been refused on planning grounds.

The Conservative Government issued a Circular on planning obligation in early 1997 (DOE Circular 97/1). It reaffirmed the principles and imposed slightly stricter rules. The broad principles inter-alia were stated:

6. To retain public confidence, such arrangements must be operated in accordance with the fundamental principle that planning permission may not be bought or sold. This principle is best served when negotiations are conducted in a way which is seen to be fair, open and reasonable; in this way, and properly used, planning obligations may enhance the quality of development and enable proposals to go ahead which might otherwise be refused

7. Among other factors, the Secretary of State's policy requires planning obligations to be sought only where they meet the following tests:

(i) necessary;
(ii) relevant to planning;
(iii) directly related to the proposed development;
(iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development;
(v) reasonable in all other respects.

The Encyclopaedia of Planning Law and Practice commented on a House of Lords ruling involving planning gain, in the Tesco case, which predated the 1997 Circular.

"The rule that their Lordships propounded is simple and clear: (1) a planning obligation that has nothing to do with the proposed development, apart from the fact that it is offered by the developer, would plainly not be a material consideration, and could only be regarded as an attempt to buy planning permission; (2) if a planning obligation has some connection which is not de minimis, then regard must be had to it. But the extent, if any, to which it should affect the decision is a matter entirely within the discretion of the decision maker and in exercising that discretion he is entitled to have regard to his established policy".

CONSERVATIVES' POLICY POSITION (2001)

Transparent Planning Gain

"There should be greater public scrutiny of planning gain agreements.

When planning permission is approved but made subject to planning gain , deals can be done in private with no opportunity for councillors or the public to comment on agreements before they are signed. We will reform Section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act (1990) to increase public scrutiny and prevent abuse of agreements between developers and councils.

We will also give more guidance on the drafting of Section 106 agreements, such as providing model clauses, to ensure a more consistent implementation."