Developer Insurance/Developer Levy

[drpeterwardle]

Troll said on the interesting precedent thread.

"Developer "heritage" Insurance.Developer pays yearly premiums based upon the potential within their catchment areas,recent building record etc. All developers required by law to carry this insurance.

Sorry Troll this will not work. I set up said policy at Lloyds of London 17 years ago and it is now not operating. What you are suggesting is actually a levy or tax system not a private sector insurance.

Peter

[mercenary]

What about the imminent [u]Planning Gain Supplement </u>that the govt is about to levy on developers to claw back some of the increase in value when a site gets planning permission. The proceeds are slated for infrastructure projects. Seems like archaeology could be a beneficiary if the right people lobby the right people, if you know what I mean.

[1man1desk]

To apply the planning gain supplement to archaeology, I think you would first have to establish that there is a planning gain in excavating an archaeological site that is going to be damaged by development. However, the whole of development control policy in relation to archaeology is based on the principle that there is a net planning loss, which is why preservation in situ is the preferred option.

1man1desk

to let, fully furnished

[Digger]

Pardon my ignorance, but are we talking about a general levy on developers that would make up the financial research shortfalls not covered by PPG16?

[historic building]

My understanding of the planning gain is that developers would have to pay a contribution to local councils when they gain planning permission for a site as this increases the value of the land or building from its previous state. The money received from this contribution or tax however it is to be decided would then be invested in the planning section of the local council. Whether their advisors would see any of this is another matter. As always archaeology is only one of many advisors calling on this pot of cash.

[the invisible man]

I can see an objection to that, as that would give councils a financial incentive to grant planning consent. Not exactly democratic but that never seems to worry anyone these days!

Presumably by "developer" here we mean "applicant"? Most planning applications are not submitted by commmercial developers - I suppose there would be a lower limit before the tax kicked in?

Of course theoretically there could be a planning loss.......

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.

[historic building]

I think one of the main targets is, and this is a big issue here, are people or organisations who simply obtain planning permission for a site and then either sit on it or sell the land on. I think the objective behind the planning gain payment is to try and ensure that permissions are actually carried out.

[drpeterwardle]

I think concepts are being mixed here.

A tax on devlopment called a betterment tax existed in 1960s and was abolished. At present there is an unofficial tax via section 106 agreements which i think the government is trying to regularise.

There are already capital gains and coperation tax. This is very different to an insurance based scheme run by the private sector.

Peter Wardle

[mercenary]

The planning gain supplement has not yet been implemented. The value of the tax has not yet been set (possibly as high as 20% of land value), but it will be administered by central govt rather than the local authority. In theory the local authority will then get the proceeds, but there are worries that the revenue will simply enter general tax revenue, or worse, that it will go to the LA to replace current infrastructure funding much as the congestion charge in London has.

Otherwise Historic Building has it right.

[the invisible man]

Planning consents invariably have a condition requiring that the work commences within a given period, usually five years.

If the main objective is simply to encourage applicants to proceed with projects for which consent has been obtained, I'd have thought it would be easier to reduce that the say three years, depending on the circumstances. I do see the obvious drawback - all you have to do is start, i.e. put one spade in the ground. I have seen conditions requiring various facilities to be complete within set periods though.

The other thing is where multiple applications for the same site are made. There are usually reasons for it, it's not always nasty evil sharp suited developers trying to put one over. Will you have pay tax on each one?

We owe the dead nothing but the truth.