2.  To define ‘future proofing’ in relation to affordable housing secured through the planning system  To outline the options for future proofing and discuss their relative strengths and weaknesses  This workshop will help disseminate the recommendations in Ark’s report

3.  HCA – Investment and Planning Obligations – Responding to the Downturn  Atlas Guide Topic Papers  T.1.1.1 Developing a Strategy for Addressing Stalled Schemes  T.1.2.3 Financial Appraisal and Viability in the Planning Process  T.1.3.1 Reviewing Section 106 Agreements  T.1.3.2 Contingent Deferred Obligations

4. A1FIXED CONTRIBUTION [A2Fixed with deferred contribution] B1OPEN BOOK REVIEW [B2Open book with overage agreement] C1AUTOMATED REVIEW (CLAWBACK) [C2Automated with escalator provision]

5. STRENGTHS  Balances provision across the scheme  Easy to define external subsidy  Clear cut obligations where sites sold on by land promoters WEAKNESSES  Heavily reliant on quality of initial negotiations  One party could suffer dependent on changes in market conditions  Re-plans or value engineering only benefit developer Fixes the contribution of affordable housing at a level below policy but above what is viable currently.

6. STRENGTHS  Helps promote delivery in short term  Possible to reach compliant levels eventually WEAKNESSES  Imbalance in distribution of affordable housing As A1 but contribution steps up to agreed levels over time.

7. STRENGTHS  Transparency  Partnership approach  Responsive to market conditions  Can reduce intensity of initial ‘haggling’ WEAKNESSES  Most developers will resist open book approach  For LPA could result in affordable % going down  Review is time consuming and provokes argument  Is there sufficient incentive for developer? Open book review of relevant data at appropriate intervals to determine affordable housing provision by phase.

8. STRENGTHS  More incentive for developer to optimise outturns and co- operate WEAKNESSES  Does not maximise affordable housing provision  Usually links to an agreed minimum level of contribution As per B1 but any ‘super profit’ is shared by both parties

9. STRENGTHS  Simplified review  Reliance on verifiable data  Lower costs than open book review WEAKNESSES  Difficult to agree formula  Indices may not relate to scheme characteristics  Tends to ignore impact of infrastructure and abnormals Bases review on movements in agreed indices. Clawback is usually overage based.

10. STRENGTHS  Improves clarity on what will be provided assuming certain changes  Simplifies review process even further WEAKNESSES  Even more complexity in initial negotiations As for Clawback but with additional affordable contribution stepped dependent on changes in indices.

11. Delivering Positive change on behalf of our clients for the benefit of their customers