Examination of Witnesses (QUESTIONS
320-325)
MR KEITH
MITCHELL, MR
NICK SKELLET
AND MR
BILL BRISBANE
12 DECEMBER 2005
Q320 Chair: When the local authorities
agreed planning permissions for these sites which are not developed,
why did they not extract money through the section 106 to go towards
the infrastructure required for the sites to be developed?
Mr Mitchell: They probably did.
Q321 Chair: So what have they done with
the money?
Mr Skellett: A couple of years
ago we were asked to look at why the housebuilding rates in the
region were less than the RPG9 and there were various issues.
In some cases there were planning problems. There was also a lot
of consents which were not being pursued by the industry and,
depending on which company you are talking about, each story was
different. There was also a huge amount that was dependent on
infrastructure in transport and there were several local plans,
particularly in Sussex along the coast, where the numbers could
not be agreed until that infrastructure was put in place. Although
in certain areas of the South East the rate of building was more
than RPG9, particularly in my own county, in others there were
these other reasons. Clearly companies involved in housebuilding
do have obligations to their shareholders and they will probably
release according to what suits them commercially as well as coming
under pressure from ourselves. We do sit with them on the Regional
Housing Board, Keith is a member of that Regional Housing Board,
so we do share objectives and information, but our objectives
are not always identical to theirs at any particular time.
Q322 Mr Lancaster: You hinted that—forgive
me, I call it roof tax, which seems to be the name for it in Milton
Keynes—the new system announced by John Prescott may stop
developers releasing land. Would you rather see the US system
where land that is earmarked for development then attracts a levy
each year if it is not developed?
Mr Mitchell: I was not aware of
it, but I think anything is worth trying. This is the fourth development
land tax we have had since the war. The other three lasted a very
short time and they failed but I have heard from reliable sources
there is hope that this one will not. It is a very delicate balance
between the quantum that you take to meet infrastructure need
and killing the golden goose if you take too much. Some sort of
penalty or some incentivisation for councils to progress the release
of land, perhaps being able to retain some of the penalty you
charge the developers for local infrastructure investment, might
be an exciting one. I would be willing to look at that.
Mr Skellett: I have one point.
There was one issue in the Kate Barker report which we do agree
with.
Q323 Chair: I am glad.
Mr Skellett: That is the local
authority loses every time a house is built in their area.
Q324 Chair: Because?
Mr Skellett: The on-costs of servicing,
providing the infrastructure and education, social connectivity,
is never made up. That point was made in her report. It would
be very useful to have a strategic understanding with the Government,
not just in our region but across the country. It would also be
very useful to have an understanding with the Government on a
PSA for the supply of infrastructure allied with development so
that local authorities do not lose as they do in the present process,
and Miss Barker made that point.
Q325 Chair: Of course, if people are
already living there but in overcrowded accommodation you may
save on the costs of social services by them moving to more suitable
accommodation, which also needs to be factored in.
Mr Skellett: I am just reinforcing
the point that she made.
Chair: Can I thank the three of you,
I am afraid we have to move on to the next witnesses. Thank you
very much.
| 
