Impact fees between the States and Nations Prof Tony Crook, Pro-Vice Chancellor (Senior Vice President) The University of Sheffield, UK

Impact fees between the States and Nations Differences Similarities 15/01/2019 © The University of Sheffield / Department of Marketing and Communications

Impact fees between the States and Nations What’s different about the UK? UK Parliament is sovereign Local authorities’ powers derive from national legislation (including planning powers) Local planning authorities obliged to take account of national policy guidance and regional spatial strategies when drawing up local development frameworks When deciding on planning applications (all development needs permission) 15/01/2019 © The University of Sheffield / Department of Marketing and Communications

Impact fees between the States and Nations What’s different about the UK? But LPAs may also take account of other material considerations when deciding on applications Hence a system with much discretionary decision making and scope for negotiating with developers Those refused consents can appeal to central government and to the High Court on points of law No impact fees as such (and currently no betterment tax) BUT LPAs have powers to enter into legal agreements with developers during negotiations over planning permission 15/01/2019 © The University of Sheffield / Department of Marketing and Communications

Impact fees between the States and Nations What’s different about the UK? Development values are high (especially SE England) Agricultural land: £10k per hectare ($18k per ha.) Land with planning permission for housing £2.5m per hectare ($4.7m per ha) National planning policy drivers Address housing need and demand Strong containment policies Urban regeneration, environmental sustainability, social inclusion and economic competitiveness 15/01/2019 © The University of Sheffield / Department of Marketing and Communications

Impact fees between the States and Nations What’s similar? Legal agreements (S106 agreements) provide basis for negotiating developer contributions towards infrastructure community needs substantial increase in use (now almost all large sites) Concerns about uncertainty, costs, and transparency have led to increasing formalisation of S106 policy agreements In local planning policy Tariffs and ‘roof’ taxes as alternatives to negotiation 15/01/2019 © The University of Sheffield / Department of Marketing and Communications

Impact fees between the States and Nations What’s likely to be different in the future? A new national betterment tax running alongside a restricted system of planning agreements – more at lunch! Conclusions In UK planning agreements represent a de facto system of betterment tax which is now widely accepted by most locally negotiated site by site hypothecated for local use landowner (mainly) pays 15/01/2019 © The University of Sheffield / Department of Marketing and Communications