Local Labour and training obligations - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Ouvert
|
En cours - juillet 2012
|
Dernière modification - May
Local Labour and training obligations
Is anyone else confused or is it just me!! Regulation 122 of the CIL regs (which come into force on 6 April 2010) puts three obligations tests on a statutory footing rather than just being guidance. The first of these is that the obligation must be necessary to make development acceptable in planning terms. To my mind, whilst desirable I cannot see how local labour and training initiatives are absolutely essential to make a development acceptable in planning terms, and therefore assume that they would no longer be allowed. However, the Planning Minister (on 25 March 2010) is now referring to good practice examples (identified on the PAS website) of local authorities securing Local Labour and Training obligations, and encouraging other authorities to do the same. Does anyone else have a view on the legality of requiring Local Labour and Training obligations after 6 April. Any thoughts most appreciated.
It will depend on what your policies/strategy say - that is what determines what is necessary. So look at your strategies and see what you can achieve or not
Can anyone point me towards Healey's reference to local labour and training obligations on 25 March?
Mark Here is a link to the announcement made by Healey on 25th March and the reference to local labour and training obligations http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/corporate/1520643
Debbie Thanks for this important link. Is it possible, please, that colleagues in Greenwich, Barking and Dagenham can kindly let us have further details? Look forward to hearing from you. Many thanks and best wishes Les Huckfield
You can read more about the case study examples on our website at: http://www.pas.gov.uk/pas/core/page.do?pageId=470448
Alice Thanks. That's great. It's important that in current difficulties we don't lose sight of using Section 106 contributions as match funding towards community benefit etc under other programmes. Les
Helpful though the above replies are I don't think they or John Healey's statement answer Jim's original question! And it is not just skills training that with the new draft policy that could be questionable. Test ii states that planning obs should be so directly related to proposed developments that the development ought not be permitted without them. It's unlikely you can say that for skills type contributions in most cases. Regarding pooling of traditional types of contributions - Although of course we should have a good idea where contributions will be spent this test would indicate that we should know exactly where the contribution will be spent and therefore how it relates back to the development.
I don't think it's quite as bad as that. Test (b) is just that the obligation must be directly related to the development. Also, I can see it being argued that test (a) - necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms - could be met even if the matter isn't covered in the policies. I'd be interested to know what steps people are intending to take in response to this issue.
It should be bourne in mind that 'planning terms' could be defined from a wide range of inputs in combination i.e. national and regional policies as well as the local authority's own policies. I'm not an expert on policy covering these sorts of employment and economy issues, but I think the South East Plan, for example, has some strong policies on economic development that might inform and support these sorts of agreements. In our own Core Strategy, we're developing policies in a similar vien, looking for ways to use the planning system to support and increase certain kinds of skills and business activies in the area. s106 might turn out to be a good vehicle to deliver this.