Parramatta Council Planning Agreements Policy

Parramatta Council Planning Agreements Policy

The implementation of value recording should in no way have a negative effect on the feasibility of development by denying the developer an appropriate share of the development gains. This is not to say that there is no room for the planning authority for a value recording policy, but rather, as I said, that the policy should respond to individual circumstances and be fair and reasonable. This policy is clearly an improvement over the policy of Parramatta, Ryde and North Sydney, as it uses a residual basis for assessing soil value. However, it does not explicitly recognize the undeserved growth component of the increase in soil value, which does not always correspond to the total increase in land value derived from a residual value analysis. In addition, a fundamental policy difficulty, like Parramatta, is that the contribution to unit value is equal to 50% of the increase in land value. Like Parramatta, this gives the policy a fiscal taste and the potential to work unfairly towards developers in some cases. There is clear room for broad policy guidance and, where appropriate, legislative interventions, to ensure that valuation practices are robust, fair and consistent across the planning system. My previous article examined the concept of value registration, provided a basic agricultural justification, and described how it is typically implemented through voluntary planning agreements (“VPAs”) in accordance with s93F of the Environmental Planning and Assessment Act 1979 (“EPA Act”) in conjunction with planning proposals in the context of urban renewal. A number of Sydney City Councillors have recently introduced, in one way or another, guidelines on the registration of securities. These councils are usually located in regional and subregional centres within the metropolitan area. The guidelines generally apply to the central business district and the surrounding country, where soil values and development pressure are high and where changes to existing planning controls for higher density management would significantly increase the value of soils. This article examines some of the current policies and practices of selected advice in Sydney regarding the use of AOPs for value recording purposes and how they are measured in light of some important value registration issues. Timing is a key factor in implementing value capture.

Developers typically consider renovation costs, including development charges and other payments that are likely required by the planning authority, in the purchase price of land. Therefore, it is generally unfair for the planning authority to impose a value requirement on those renovating existing land acquired at a time when the value recording policy did not exist or was not articulated. Perhaps a better policy approach is that the value requirement applies to land acquired after a proposed date as part of the implementation of the Rehabilitation Directive. The real objective is undoubtedly to identify the undeserved increase in land value resulting from a planning proposal and to decide on the legitimate right of the Community to be part of it. This raises the question of how the increase in land value should be calculated for the purposes of registering the value. An understanding of the fundamentals of sanitation economics suggests that a residual value analysis should apply in general. Such an approach assesses land values by deducting development costs from market value. It can be done after a development is built, but is normally done before a development. Such an analysis is sometimes preceded by a zoning change (i.e.B. at the planning proposal stage) or a remediation obligation to understand the effects of land use regulation, development potential, or both.

Voluntary planning agreements (AOPs) can be accepted as an alternative to development contributions. . . .