Deferred Planning Obligations/Overage Agreements - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

I would be very cautious about how you approach and word any ‘flexible’ s106, you might want to focus on looking at when payments are made, pushing back payment dates, as this often has a significant impact on viability or giving a temporary discount now to be paid at a later date. Always bear in mind the circular: "B7. Similarly, planning obligations should never be used purely as a means of securing for the local community a share in the profits of development, i.e. as a means of securing a "betterment levy"."

I believe that Thurrock use such these agreements which have been widely considered round the Thames Gateway, which is where Ashford got the idea. I suggest you enquire directly. The issue of cash flow is certainly significant for developers at present - probably more than is widely appreciated. On the question of the Circular I would have thought that this you can show that a certain level of contribution is supported both by policy and need; then you are at liberty to defer any contribution on the basis that the public sector would shoulder the additional burden. Section B10 refers. Beyond that I agree with Gilian that it would be illegitimate to use S106 for betterment. Mick Beaman

Hi, I recommend you also look at the discussion at "Home.>Networking>Discussion forums>s106 Agreements>Affordable Housing Escalators/Overage " - several Councils are mentioned. This is also something that my Council would be interested in seeing examples of given current market conditions and the prospect that schemes may not be delivered totally (or at all) before the market improves. Gerard

At Plymouth City we regularly use flexible S106 agreements that hinge on the future profitability of development to fund infrastructure and planning gain. The typical process of developer engagement begins with an analysis of project viability. Ideally this is an open book process. While making an assessment of viability, we also establish a consensus within the Service as to the specific infrastructure and planning gain required to make the development acceptable in planning terms. The agreements usually require the developer to pay a sum upon commencement and the remaining obligations subject to a future viability appraisal. Sometimes we will ask for two appraisals, depending on the scale and timing of the development. We have used these agreements to deliver affordable housing (up to our 30% policy) as well as tariff-related obligations (also firmly based in policy). I agree with Gillian’s comments and so we take extra caution in establishing the rationale for the obligations sought. The tests in the CIL regs have raised our caution even further! I’d be happy to discuss how we structure these agreements and the issues that typically arise.