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

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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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