Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance PCC 26 08 25
Renfrewshire Council · 26 August 2025
Back to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board — 26 August 2025 and its agenda
Text extracted from the council's PDF. Layout and reading order may differ from the original.
Page 1
___________________________________________________________________ To: Planning and Climate Change Policy Board On: 26 August 2025 ___________________________________________________________________ Report by: Chief Executive ___________________________________________________________________ Heading: Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance ___________________________________________________________________ 1. Summary 1.1 This report sets out finalised planning guidance on developer contributions towards education infrastructure from new housing development in Renfrewshire. 1.2 Following the publication of a draft version of the guidance for consultation purposes, amendments have been made, and the finalised guidance is now presented for approval by Board. ___________________________________________________________________ 2. Recommendations 2.1 It is recommended that the Board approve the finalised Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance set out in Appendix 1. ___________________________________________________________________ 3. Background 3.1 Developer contributions, also known as planning obligations, seek to mitigate the impacts of a proposed development and make it acceptable in planning terms. They can be used to secure financial contributions to, or in-kind provision of, infrastructure which is necessary to support new developments. 3.2 Developer contributions are usually entered into in accordance with Section 75 of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, and are commonly referred to as Section 75 Agreements (S75). They are often used
Page 2
where a planning condition or another form of legal agreement would not be appropriate to address the impact of the development in question. Contributions can also be made under Section 69 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973. 3.3 Scottish Government’s policy on Planning Obligations is expressed in Circular 3/2012 (Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements - Revised 2020). Planning obligations should only be sought where they meet all the following tests: • necessary to make a proposal acceptable in planning terms; • serve a planning purpose and, where it is possible to identify infrastructure provision requirements to advance, should relate to development plans; • relate to the proposed development either as a direct consequence of the development or arising from the cumulative impact of development in the area • fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the proposed development • be reasonable in all other respects 3.4 Policy 18 of NPF4 (Infrastructure first) requires the impact of development proposals on infrastructure to be mitigated. It also restates the tests set out in paragraph 3.3. Policy I8 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) identifies education facilities as a type of infrastructure for which contributions will be sought to address deficits or a shortfall in infrastructure capacity that arise as a direct result of new development. ___________________________________________________________________ 4. Finalised Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance Changes to the draft guidance prior to publication 4.1 The draft Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance was approved for consultation purposes by Board on 19 March 2024, with the recommendation including for the Convenor, in conjunction with the Head of Economy and Development, to make any further incidental changes to the draft document as may be relevant, to account for any changes made by the Board and to ensure that the consultation document is as up to date as possible at the time of publication. Changes made to the draft guidance prior to publication included: • The introduction of an appendix setting out school roll projections • The removal of RAG (red/amber/green) status for each Renfrewshire school based on the likely impact of new housing development on the capacity of the school • More detail of currently planned school investment was introduced • A different pupil product ratio (i.e. the number of pupils generated by each new house) was used based on information received from the
Page 3
Council’s consultants Edge Analytics. The new pupil product ratio did not differentiate between houses and flats • The removal of an exception relating to developments of 9 or less houses not paying a developer contribution • The removal of a flow chart and detail around how the guidance will be applied. • Clarification added that the guidance will apply to applications for affordable/social housing. Changes to the draft guidance following publication and consultation 4.2 The draft guidance was published for consultation on 10 January 2025 for a 6- week consultation period ending on 21 February 2025. Eighteen representations were received. A summary of these and the Council’s proposed response are included as Appendix 2. Changes made to the guidance following publication and consultation on the draft guidance are set out below. 4.3 School roll projections – these have been removed from the guidance document and will be published separately alongside the guidance on the Council website, as this will allow for the most up to date projections to be published without the guidance having to be updated. The school roll projections have also been listed in secondary school clusters with a column added indicating whether school rolls are projected to exceed 85% of the planning capacity of the school during the projection period. Current school roll projections are attached in Appendix 3. 4.4 Currently planned school investment – this section has been removed from the guidance as planned school investment is likely to change over the lifetime of the guidance. 4.5 Explanation of potential mitigation/solutions introduced – the guidance sets out at para 4.6 that if the threshold for seeking a financial contribution is reached, consideration will also be given by the Council to the feasibility of other options to mitigate the impact including operational changes within a school, the implementation of the Council’s Admissions to Schools and Placing Request Policy, and, in limited, circumstances, the consideration of a catchment review to accommodate the application site. 4.6 Developer contribution per pupil – an appendix has been added to the guidance setting out how the calculation of £56,000 per pupil has been calculated. 4.7 Exceptions – additional exceptions to the developer contributions guidance have been added. These are: applications for developments of 1-3 houses; and applications for matters specified in conditions, where no contribution was sought at the planning permission in principle stage. 4.8 Changes in circumstances – a section has been added at 5.7 relating to changes in circumstances such as changes in the number of units to what was originally approved, or when school projections are updated and indicate
Page 4
that an increase in school capacity is no longer required or not required to the same extent. It is also made clearer at 5.9 that a developer contribution that has been made in relation to a development that is no longer going ahead can be returned to the developer if the related planning permission has lapsed and the contribution made has not been spent or committed. 4.9 General –some of the language and terms used in the guidance have been rephrased or reordered and unnecessary sentences/ paragraphs/ sections removed. Next steps 4.10 Once approved, the finalised guidance will be applied with immediate effect, including to extant applications for which the contribution level has not yet been negotiated/approved. ___________________________________________________________________ Implications of the Report 1. Financial – the planning guidance outlines that a contribution of £56,000 per additional pupil space required will be sought from developers where forecast school capacity in the relevant catchment when new housing is proposed is above the Council’s stated threshold for such a contribution All developer contributions received will be held in a separately identifiable ringfenced account until committed/used, when the funds will be transferred to the appropriate Council project. If a developer contribution is not fully expended within 10 years, any unused contribution will be refunded to the applicant, along with relative interest accrued. 2. HR & Organisational Development – None. 3. Community/Council Planning – Renfrewshire Community Plan 2017-2027 - the guidance is considered to align with the Community Plan priority of ‘Our Renfrewshire is thriving’ in relation to making sure infrastructure is in place to support growth in the local economy and population. Renfrewshire Council Plan 2024 – the guidance is considered to align with the Council Plan Place outcome through supporting delivery of the Council’s strategic capital investment programme in the school estate. 4. Legal – the guidance will be non-statutory planning guidance, meaning it will not form part of the development plan. It will be a material consideration in the determination of relevant planning applications. See also ‘Risks’ section. 5. Property/Assets – developer contributions will be used to invest in Renfrewshire education estate in order to increase its capacity as required by new housing development. 6. Information Technology – None.
Page 5
7. Equality & Human Rights – The recommendations contained within this report have been assessed in relation to their impact on equalities and human rights. No negative impacts on equality groups or potential for infringement of individuals’ human rights have been identified arising from the recommendations contained in the report. 8. Health & Safety – None. 9. Procurement – None 10. Risk (i) if the guidance is not applied and developer contributions towards investment to increase school capacity are not collected, there is a risk that the cost of that investment falls on the Council or is not made, potentially meaning insufficient capacity will exist to accommodate pupils in their catchment school. This risk can be mitigated by the application of the guidance and alignment of the Learning Estate Strategy and housing development locations. (ii) consultation responses from the development industry indicate that the draft developer contribution guidance is not considered to meet the tests for planning obligations set out in Circular 3/2012. There is therefore a risk that application of the guidance could be challenged. This has been mitigated by making changes to the guidance to reflect some of the concerns set out in the development industry responses. However, the risk of a challenge to the guidance remains. 11. Privacy Impact – None. 12. Climate Risk – None. 13. Children’s Rights – investment in schools to ensure there is sufficient capacity to accommodate all catchment pupils has some alignment with United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child provision 28 – every child has the right to an education. 14. Cosla Policy Position – None. _______________________________________________________ Appendices Appendix 1 – Finalised Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance, August 2025 Appendix 2 – Summary of responses to draft Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance Appendix 3 – School roll projections List of Background Papers Report to Planning and Climate Change Policy Board, 19 March 2024, ‘Developer Contributions (Education) - new planning guidance’
Page 6
___________________________________________________________________ Authors: Alasdair Morrison, Head of Economy and Development alasdair.morrison@renfrewshire.gov.uk David Love, Chief Planning Officer david.love@renfrewshire.gov.uk Alan Williamson, Strategy & Place Manager, alan.williamson@renfrewshire.gov.uk
Page 7
Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (LDP2) Planning Guidance Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance August 2025
Page 8
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 2 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Contents 1. Introduction………………………………………........................................ 3 2. Background ………………………......................................................... 4 3. Current Context …………………………............................................. 7 4. Calculating the impact of new development …………........... 9 5. Legal Agreements .……………………………...................................... 16 6. Contact .........................................………......................................... 18 AUGUST 2025
Page 9
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 3 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 1. This Developer Contributions (Education) planning guidance is a material consideration in the determination of planning applications. Applicants and other stakeholders should take account of the guidance when preparing development proposals. This guidance details the Council’s approach to securing developer contributions in respect of education provision and will be reflected in all such discussions with applicants in relation to proposals for residential developments. The guidance covers a range of issues related to education impact from new housing development, including current school capacity, proposed housing development by catchment, estimated pupil product ratios from new housing and links to Renfrewshire Council’s Learning Estate Strategy. The guidance requires financial contributions from new housing developments in school catchments which (as a result of all new housing being built or expected to be built) will result in schools operating at or above 85% of the school planning capacity. The 85% threshold will be calculated from the published school planning capacities and projected school rolls. 1.1 1.2 Introduction 1.3 1.4 The principal aim of this guidance is to introduce a degree of certainty for all stakeholders concerned with education capacity in Renfrewshire. Linking with the Council’s Learning Estate Strategy, it clarifies how housing developments and the school pupils they generate will be accommodated within Renfrewshire’s schools. Renfrewshire’s Planning Service actively encourage discussions with prospective applicants for residential development at the earliest opportunity to ensure that they are fully conversant with the implications of this (and other) planning guidance before submitting applications for development. Prospective applicants are encouraged to submit a pre-application enquiry in the first instance to dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk. 1.5 1.6 Aims of the guidance 1.7 Review This data informing this guidance will be reviewed at regular intervals to ensure that the guidance is being applied appropriately and accurately.
Page 10
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 4 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 2. Planning obligations seek to mitigate the impacts of a proposed development and make it acceptable in planning terms. They can be used to secure financial contributions to, or in-kind provision of, necessary new social and community infrastructure to support new developments. Obligations are usually entered into in accordance with Section 75 of Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, and are commonly referred to as Section 75 Agreements (S75). They are often used where a planning condition or another form of legal agreement would not be appropriate to address the impact of the development in question. Planning obligations can be entered into between a person with an interest in the land and the planning authority; or via a unilateral undertaking by a person with an interest in the land. S75 agreements run with the land and the obligation continues to be enforceable against any subsequent owner of the land until such time as the details of the agreement are fully discharged by the local planning authority. 2.1 2.2 Background 2.3 Purpose of planning obligations Scottish Government’s policy on Planning Obligations is expressed in Circular 3/2012 (Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements - Revised 2020). The Circular sets out five tests which must be met when seeking to secure a planning obligation: 2.4 Necessary to make a proposal acceptable in planning terms; Serve a planning purpose and, where it is possible to identify infrastructure provision requirements to advance, should relate to development plans; Related to the proposed development either as a direct consequence of the development or arising from the cumulative impact of development in an area; Fairly and reasonably relate in scale and kind to the proposed development; and Be reasonable in all other respects. A planning authority may utilise an alternative legal mechanism to secure developer contributions in certain circumstances. Section 69 of the Local Government (Scotland) Act 1973 provides the Council with the power to enter into an agreement with the developer with the discharge of any if its functions. Known, more widely, as Section 69 Agreements, they can include payment of financial contributions and is normally used when a one-time payment of a developer contribution is agreed, without the need for this agreement to be binding on subsequent owners of the land. 2.5 2.6
Page 11
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 5 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Section 25 of the Town and Country Planning (Scotland) Act 1997, as amended, requires that planning applications be determined in accordance with the development plan, unless material considerations indicate otherwise. In the case of Renfrewshire, the development plan currently consists of: National Planning Framework 4 (NPF4; 2023); and Renfrewshire Local Development Plan 2 (2021) Policy 18 of NPF4 (Infrastructure First) seeks to encourage, promote and facilitate an infrastructure first approach to land use planning, which puts infrastructure considerations at the heart of placemaking. The policy notes that developments will be supported where they provide or contribute to infrastructure in line with that identified as necessary in Local Development and Delivery Programmes. In addition, Policy 18 notes that the impacts of development proposal on infrastructure should be mitigated. The policy states that: Development proposals will only be supported where it can be demonstrated that provision is made to address the impacts on infrastructure. Where planning conditions, planning obligations, or other legal agreements are to be used, the relevant tests will apply. 2.7 2.8 Renfrewshire’s Planning Policy Context 2.9 Policy I8 of the Renfrewshire Local Development Plan (Developer Contributions) sets the policy context for the outlined framework: Contributions will be sought for the following items to address infrastructure deficits and/ or a shortfall in infrastructure capacity that arise as a direct result of new development. Any contribution sought will be appropriate, proportionate, necessary and relevant to the nature of the development, its scale and its location: 2.10 Education – additional classrooms and associated school facilities required to support the operation of a school, related to the number of pupils generated by the development; Healthcare Services and Facilities – where investment is required to provide healthcare infrastructure to address increased demand generated by the development; Traffic Management and Active Travel – traffic signals, crossings, measures required in relation to road safety and providing safer routes to school, active travel connections and improvements to the road network required to support the development; Public Transport Infrastructure – where investment is required to address increased demand associated with the development; Open Space – where a contribution is required to enhance open space provision off-site to support the development; Blue/Green Infrastructure – where a contribution is required in relation to the sustainable management of water and where mitigation including on-site or offsite habitat creation or enhancements to watercourses are required.
Page 12
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 6 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Renfrewshire has been the subject of significant levels of housebuilding in recent years. The development of sites at Renfrew Riverside, Dargavel, Hawkhead Road in Paisley and Johnstone South West (amongst others) have kept completions at a relatively high level. The table below illustrates the annual total new build completions by year since 2012. Full analysis of Renfrewshire’s housing land supply on a site-by-site basis is available in the annually published Housing Land Audit. 2.11 2.12 Recent housing development in Renfrewshire YEAR OWNER OCCUPIED PRIVATE RENTED COMBINED LA/SOCIAL HOUSING ANNUAL TOTAL NEW HOUSING COMPLETIONS 2012-13 251 0 173 424 2013-14 313 0 219 532 2014-15 517 0 26 543 2015-16 577 0 101 678 2016-17 643 0 167 810 2017-18 601 0 107 708 2018-19 784 0 175 959 2019-21 1,383 0 324 1,707 2021-22 572 0 222 794 2022-23 422 0 195 617 2023-24 504 0 158 662 Total 6,567 0 1,867 8,434 Annual average (12 years) 547 0 156 703 Table 1 – Annual New Housing Completions in Renfrewshire
Page 13
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 7 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 3. Current school rolls and school roll projections at each of Renfrewshire’s 61 mainstream primary and secondary schools are published by Renfrewshire Council on a regular basis. [School roll projections are not prepared for Renfrewshire’s two Additional Support Needs schools]. School rolls projections are regularly updated by the Council and published online to allow for this policy to reflect the latest circumstances in the assessment of planning applications. Calculations of developer contributions will be based on the latest published information on school rolls projections and school planning capacity. Each residential property within Renfrewshire sits within a ‘catchment area’ for denominational and non-denominational primary and secondary schools. It should be noted that school catchments are not permanent and may need to be revised based on pupil demand, new housing development and factors such as the location of new or enlarged schools. Although the Council aims to provide enough places for all children at the preferred catchment primary and secondary school, living within the delineated catchment area of a school does not guarantee a child a place at a catchment school. 3.3 Current Context 3.2 Renfrewshire school capacity 3.1 3.5 Each school in Renfrewshire has a planning capacity which is a physical, theoretical measure of the total number of pupils which could be accommodated in a school, based on the total number of teaching spaces, the size of those spaces and the class size maxima. Renfrewshire Council will consider the requirement for developer contributions when school roll projections indicate that school capacity will reach or exceed 85% of the school’s planning capacity. The rationale for 85% in the Renfrewshire context is that flexibility is required in each school to plan accommodation across all year groups and allow for sufficient communal and circulation space. At the time of publication of this Guidance, Renfrewshire Council has prepared school roll projections covering the period to 2033/34 for the number of pupils expected at each of its primary and secondary schools. This is based upon a cohort progression model of anticipated pupil journeys through the school estate and also the range of planned housebuilding expected to take place across Renfrewshire in this time period based on the finalised 2023 housing land audit. School roll projections will be updated and published regularly to inform this guidance, and to ensure they are based on updated housing development projections set out in a finalised housing land audit. 3.4
Page 14
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 8 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE In applying this guidance, the Council will take account of all housing sites within Renfrewshire that are programmed for development during the period under consideration including sites which are allocated within the Local Development Plan, benefit from planning permission or appear in the Council’s published annual Housing Land Audit. More details of each are included in the listed documents which are available on the Council’s website. Housing Land Audit - Renfrewshire Website Renfrewshire Development Plan - Renfrewshire Website The Council’s forecast school rolls do not account for any “windfall” housing sites (see definition below) that may emerge during the period. These are sites which have been granted planning permission or otherwise identified as suitable for housing, which previously were not identified in the Local Development Plan or Housing Land Audit. Such sites are normally included in the next update of the Housing Land Audit. The Council reserve the opportunity to update capacity projections for individual schools and seek developer contributions from windfall sites and other sites in the catchment if a windfall site is likely to result in any school capacity reaching or exceeding 85% of its planning capacity. 3.6 Currently planned housing 3.7
Page 15
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 9 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 4. The pupil product ratio (PPR) is a commonly used calculation to demonstrate the number of pupils likely to be generated by new housing. Most local authorities in Scotland use a PPR in determining the level of education development contribution for policies of this type. Renfrewshire Council has based its PPR (see below) on advice from Edge Analytics and their methodology for such calculations. Calculating the impact of new development on school rolls and any financial contribution required 4.2 Pupil Product Ratio 4.1 Age group Type of school Pupils per house/ flat Primary schools Denominational 0.07 Non-Denominational 0.20 Total 0.27 Secondary schools Denominational 0.04 Non-Denominational 0.09 Total 0.13 Impact will be measured across all 4 principal school types for each proposed residential development. This will occur at the time of a planning application being considered by the Council. In any instances where the pupils generated by the new housing, and other housing proposed in the catchment, would cause the planning capacity threshold (85%) to be met or exceeded, a developer contribution may be sought in relation to that application. A contribution may be required in relation to more than one school type if the 85% threshold of planning capacity is breached by the proposed level of planned housing. The PPR values will be reviewed by the Council (and updated if necessary) regularly following the adoption of this guidance. Based on school roll projections at the time of assessing a planning application for residential development, the Council will determine whether a financial contribution is likely to be required toward school infrastructure investment, and the level of financial contribution it will seek to negotiate from the applicant. The financial contribution being sought will be directly related to the impact on school capacity resulting from the pupils expected to be generated from the development. 4.3 4.4 Table 2 – Pupil Product Ratio in Renfrewshire housing development 4.5
Page 16
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 10 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE During the consideration of the planning application (prior to the application being determined) and its potential impact on school capacity in the relevant catchments (primary, secondary, non-denominational and denominational), the Council will assess if there are other options available for accommodating the estimated capacity impact. It should be noted that this will be assessed based on the particular circumstances at that point in time which will include the latest school roll projections and all identified housing land supply in the relevant catchments. These other options could include: Pupil Product Ratio 4.6 Consideration of any proposed mitigation measures for major planning applications (50 or more new homes) will be taken by the Council’s Learning Estate Delivery Board. In the event that any financial contribution paid to the Council is not spent or committed for the purposes of increasing education within 10 years of being received, the contribution will be returned to the applicant in line with the terms of the associated legal agreement. 4.7 Reasonable operational changes that can be made at the school to accommodate the additional pupils that will be generated by the new development(s); The implementation of the Council’s Admissions to Schools and Placing Request Policy with regard to the catchments of that planning application site; Consideration of a catchment review to accommodate the application site which would assist in helping to meet all or some of the capacity impact. It should be borne in mind that such instances will be limited and any changes would be subject to formal consultation in line with the terms of the Schools (Consultation)y(Scotland) Act 2010. It should be noted that catchment reviews will normally be aligned with the preparation of a new Local Development Plan. 4.8
Page 17
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 11 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 4.10 Cumulative effect of multiple applications for housing in the same catchment 4.9 Each planning application will be assessed individually and on its own merits against the development plan and other material considerations in effect at the time of its assessment. In considering any planning application submitted, school capacity projections and any required contributions will be based on all new homes included in the latest Housing Land Audit which are programmed to deliver completions in the relevant catchment in time period under consideration. The Council will assume that all homes programmed in the Housing Land Audit will be built as projected in the timescales estimated. Council officers responsible for monitoring housing land supply will be involved in assessing cumulative impact, as will colleagues in Children’s Services in terms of real time changes in school enrolments. The practical implication of this is that the school roll projections will be updated regularly by the Council, and this will affect planning applications not yet determined. Those making planning applications for residential development are therefore encouraged to engage at an early stage in the process. The Council will be able to discuss the implications of this cumulative effect for the calculation of an individual developer contribution with any prospective applicant. 4.12 4.13 4.11
Page 18
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 12 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE New school required because of new housing development The approach set out in this guidance does not preclude specific contexts where large scale housing allocations may require new school provision as part of the future community facilities planning for that location. If this is the case this will be set out clearly in the Council’s Local Development Plan and its Learning Estate Strategy in advance of any planning application being considered for that site. The situation may arise in terms of future housing development, where a new school needs to be provided to meet the demand from additional pupils resulting from new housing being built. The size of site required for a new school is very much dependent on the proposed capacity of that school and therefore cannot be determined in advance. The context for this, the policy approach and the expectations from the developers involved (including land requirements and the respective values attributed to that) will be set out in full in the Renfrewshire LDP and its associated documents when they are published. 4.14 4.15 4.16
Page 19
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 13 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Renfrewshire Council has taken the approach to negotiate for requisite developer contributions on a per additional pupil basis. The Council believe this is fairest way to calculate any contribution, as it allows the Council to monitor contributions and estimates of capacity impact against the number of pupils which eventually transpire for the relevant schools. The Council has based contribution levels on the costs of recent school developments within Renfrewshire, the details of which are set out in Appendix 1. 4.17 Developer Contribution per pupil 4.18 4.19 The developer contributions which Renfrewshire Council will be seeking from all new housing development (that meet the terms of this guidance) and which trigger the capacity thresholds in the relevant school catchments is as follows: In terms of the level of contribution it should be noted by applicants this contribution level is stated as at August 2025 and any required changes to this amount will be indexed linked in line with BCIS costs at Q3 2025. The Council reserve the ability, depending on the scale of the residential development proposed, to seek phased payments of the required contribution linked to thresholds reached in terms of new housing units built over time. This will be negotiated with the applicant at the time of the S75 being agreed. 4.20 4.21 School type Primary school Secondary school Level of contribution per pupil £56,000 £56,000 Table 3 – Developer contribution per additional pupil from new housing development (where applicable)
Page 20
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 14 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Exceptions to this policy Developer contributions associated with this policy will be utilised to overcome the impact in the specific school(s) affected by the increased number of primary and secondary school pupils generated by new housing development. There may be school specific factors, such as space, and quality of ancillary accommodation, which mean increasing capacity is not a practical solution. If it is technically impossible to provide extra capacity, the Council may resolve the issue using suspensive conditions to control the phasing of development or may refuse planning permission. Developer contributions will be held by the Council until either committed/used or returned to the applicant. 4.22 4.23 Exceptions to the policy will be applied as follows:4.25 Proposals for extending or altering existing residential dwellings; Developments of less than 4 houses; Proposals for one-bedroom dwellings; Proposals for student accommodation; Proposals for specific needs housing that are unlikely to be occupied by residents attending mainstream schools e.g. care homes or housing designated for older age groups; Proposals where a Viability Assessment has been submitted and independently verified and where the Council accept the justification offered by the applicant; and Applications for matters specified in conditions, where no contribution has been sought at the planning permission in principle stage. For the avoidance of doubt the policy will apply to applications for affordable/ social housing, including where such provision is a requirement associated with an application for private tenure homes. 4.26 How developer contributions will be used 4.24
Page 21
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 15 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Exceptions to this policy Circular 3/2012 notes that the economic viability of proposals should be taken into consideration when applying developer obligations and alternative solutions should be considered including options of phasing or staging payments. The Council’s requirements from a viability assessment submitted by an applicant for planning permission for residential is set out in Appendix 2. Please note this will only be applicable for planning applicants who wish to make the case that the payment of a developer contribution would impact the financial viability of the development in question. The applicant should bring this matter to the attention of the Council’s Planning Team at the earliest opportunity. In all circumstances where a viability assessment has been undertaken, determination of the application will be the responsibility of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board (or equivalent). 4.27 4.28 Viability Assessments 4.29 4.30
Page 22
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 16 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE 5. Developer contributions generally require applicants to enter into legally binding contracts, or obligations with the local authority. In line with this guidance, planning permission will not be granted until the relevant legal agreement has been concluded. The development should not commence until the decision notice has been released for the relevant planning application by Renfrewshire Council. Legal Agreements 5.2 5.1 Following the Council’s decision to grant planning permission, planning officers, together with legal colleagues, will finalise discussions in relation to seeking to agree the terms of a S75 legal agreement. It is anticipated that the broad terms of any agreement will have been discussed with the applicant before a decision is reached. The S75 legal agreement requires to either be registered in the Land Register, or acknowledgement has been received from the Keeper of the Register, prior to the release of the Council’s application decision notice. In cases where the planning application relates to planning permission in principle, depending on circumstances, the following process will be followed: Section 75 (S75) Agreements 5.3 5.4 Where the planning permission in principle application outlines the number of residential units, the application will be assessed, and any contributions determined on the stated number of units. The S.75 agreement will thereafter secure the identified contribution noting the number of units approved. In circumstances where the planning permission in principle application does not outline the number of residential units, the S.75 agreement will set out the principles that will be applied to calculate the level of applicable contribution in line with this guidance.
Page 23
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 17 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE In certain circumstances it may be appropriate for development contributions to be secured via a Section 69 (S69) agreement. This would be paid in full in one instalment prior to planning permission being issued. There is no need to register a S69 agreement as a burden against the land title. If a contribution has been paid in respect of a S69 agreement, and the proposed development does not go ahead, the Council will not return the contribution if it has already been spent or committed for the purposes collected within the timeframes set out in the legal agreement. 5.5 5.6 Section 69 Agreements Changes in circumstances It is recognised that the circumstances associated with any proposed development can change. Changes may range from alterations to layouts to developments no longer proceeding. Legal agreements will be drafted to accommodate changes in circumstances. Where the layout of a proposed development is revised to change the number of homes being developed, the contribution will be recalculated based on the most current metrics available, and a change to the legal agreement will be sought. Where updated school roll projections indicate that investment to increase school capacity is no longer required, or that the same level of investment is no longer required, then the legal agreement will be amended and any financial contribution that has been paid and has not been spent or committed for the purposes collected will be returned in full or in part to the applicant or their nominee along with relative interest accrued. 5.7 5.8 5.9
Page 24
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 18 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE Return of unused contributions All legal agreements entered into in conjunction with this guidance will be in favour of the Council on the expectation of having ten (10) years to expend the contribution received. Thereafter should contribution remain unspent, the contribution will be returned to the applicant following a request from the applicant. This timescale reflects the timescale taken to deliver larger housing sites and the resultant impacts on school capacity that may transpire. For developments involving phased payment of developer obligations the 10-year period for spending contributions shall commence on the date that the final phased payment is made to the Council. In the event of the contribution, or part of it, not being spent within this time period, the contribution, or part of it, will be refunded to the applicant or their nominee along with relative interest accrued. If a developer decides not to proceed with a development that a contribution has been made in relation to, there may be scope for that contribution to be returned if it has not already been spent or committed to a school project that was considered necessary as a result of the proposed development. A contribution would not be returned if the related planning permission has been implemented or is still extant. 5.10 5.11 5.12 6. For further information or to arrange a discussion in relation to developer contributions, in the first instance please email dc@renfrewshire.gov.uk. Contact 6.1 5.13
Page 25
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 19 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE APPENDIX 1 Calculation of per pupil contribution level The per pupil contribution level is based on an average cost of different types of current school projects in Renfrewshire. These are set out in the table below. Costs are based on construction costs only with preliminaries, fees etc excluded from these costs Project Project type Construction cost (£) Pupil capacity Cost per pupil (£) Paisley Grammar New build secondary school 69,516,626 1,380 50,374.37 Thistle Primary New build primary school 40,000,000 800 50,000 Park Mains Secondary school extension 27,829,860 400 69,574.65 Average cost per pupil 56,649.67
Page 26
LDP Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance | 20 DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) PLANNING GUIDANCE DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS (EDUCATION) SUPPLEMENTARY GUIDANCE Circular 3/2012 notes that the economic viability of proposals should be taken into consideration when applying developer obligations and alternative solutions should be considered alongside options of phasing or staging payments. The Planning Authority will give consideration to altering the levels or payment structure of any planning obligations as part of financial contributions in the interests of maintaining overall development viability. In the event that the applicant considers that the payment of a developer contribution would impact the financial viability of the development in question, the applicant should bring this matter to the attention of the Planning Authority at the earliest opportunity. In such circumstances, the applicant will require to submit a viability assessment including ‘open book accounting’ of the proposed development. The submitted viability assessment will be evaluated and assessed by the District Valuer, or other suitably qualified consultant, in order to provide an independent view of the viability of the proposed development. APPENDIX 2 Viability Assessments The evaluation and assessment of any submitted viability assessment will be instructed by the Planning Authority; however, it should be noted that any costs associated with undertaking the evaluation will be recovered in full from the applicant. Thereafter the opinion of the District Valuer or appointed consultant will form a material consideration in the processing and determination of the planning application in question. It should be noted that while viability assessments will be treated as confidential, full details of contributions, including an indication of the scale of any agreed reductions will be reported to members of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board via the Report of Handling. In all circumstances where a viability assessments has been undertaken, determination of the application will be the responsibility of the Planning and Climate Change Policy Board.
Page 27
Appendix 2 – summary of responses to draft Developer Contributions (Education) Planning Guidance Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response McInally Associates The published guidance does not align with what was approved at 19th March 2024 Planning and Climate Change Policy Board. Specifically, the approved guidance made a difference between houses and flats, and the published guidance doesn’t. Future amendments to this guidance should be submitted for approval by Board before being released for public consultation. The finalised guidance will be reported to Board incorporating changes made prior to publication and following consultation. It is not reasonable to apply the same pupil ratio for housing and flatted developments, as the demographic profiles for these two types of development are significantly different. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different house types and sizes would not be practical, and the application of a standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. Scottish Water Scottish Water supports an infrastructure first approach to enable development and ensure that education provision is in place. Noted Springfield Group The guidance should contain sufficient “hook” to the local development plan (LDP2) to give it statutory weight. The guidance cannot be adopted as part of the development plan and issues such as developer contributions should be covered in the next LDP. Circular 6/2013 (Development Planning) states that matters that should not be included in Supplementary Guidance but included in the development plan include ‘items for which financial or other contributions…will be sought, and the circumstances (locations, types of development) where they will be sought. The guidance is not being published as statutory supplementary guidance (therefore not part of the development plan). It is non statutory planning guidance associated with LDP2. Policy I8 (Developer Contributions) of LDP2 does state that contributions will be sought for education facilities to address infrastructure deficits and/or a shortfall in infrastructure capacity that arise as a direct result of new development.
Page 28
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response The methodologies for the calculation on contribution levels are not based upon costed solutions to address site specific impacts and do not meet the test of fairly and reasonable set out in Circular 3/2012 (planning obligations and good neighbour agreements). Costed solutions have not been identified for all schools requiring investment to accommodate increased school roll. A contribution rate based on recent projects has been utilised. The terms ‘notional capacity’ or ‘operational capacity’ are not recognised in the 2014 Scottish Government Guidance ‘Determining Primary School Capacity’. These terms are not used in the finalised planning guidance. The guidance suggests the use of an 85% operating capacity as a threshold for seeking contributions, however other authorities operate higher thresholds e.g. 90%. Using any capacity threshold below 100% as a trigger for requiring mitigation is unnecessary. Heads of Planning Scotland (HoPS) research (from 2021) suggests that a trigger of 90% is generally applied elsewhere. The trigger should be amended to 90%. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. The guidance is not considered to be consistent with the tests set out in Circular 3/2012 (planning obligations and good neighbour agreements). The Circular emphasises the need to establish a clear link between the development and any mitigation offered as part of the developer’s contribution. Any mitigation needs to be related to the direct impacts from the proposal or the cumulative impact of development within the area. Contributions are based on the number of pupils expected to be generated from new developments. The requirement for solutions will therefore be based on the direct or cumulative impacts of developments. Pupil product ratio – experience in the Lothians has shown that using data only from new homes The Pupil Product Ratio calculated by Edge Analytics is based on several factors, not just new homes.
Page 29
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response will produce an unreasonably high and unsustainable pupil product. Only live and effective planning consents should be taken into account in the determination of impacts arising from development proposals. Applicants should not be asked to address the impacts of others or indeed address impacts which are likely to occur arising from allocated but unconsented sites. School roll projections, which show the need for mitigation and contributions within certain schools, are based on finalised housing land audits. This will include sites without planning permission that are expected to deliver housing within the projection period. Assessing the impacts from windfall sites should not prejudice contribution levels from committed sites Within a catchment area where a contribution is required, windfall sites will also be expected to contribute towards education infrastructure provision required as a result of new development. It is not anticipated that this would impact on the contribution level required from committed sites. Reliance on the Housing Land Audit is likely to result in an overestimate of the infrastructure required. Review clauses should be built into agreements to allow a reconsideration of the impacts arising from new development. It is considered reasonable that changes in circumstances are built into agreements and the guidance has been changed to reflect this at paragraph 5.7. The physical capacity of school buildings is just one factor that determines the overall capacity of a school. School capacity is a measure of how many pupils can be taught in a school based on the number and size of teaching spaces available. It is not a measure of the size of a school building. The application of an arbitrary figure of 85% capacity, defined as the original design capacity, takes no account of the local and individual circumstances applying to each primary school. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement.
Page 30
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response Examples cited in the 2014 Guidance demonstrate that the working capacity is between 91-96% of the planning capacity. There is no basis for the use of 85% as an operational or working capacity. The planning capacity upon which the working capacity is based should not be based on the original design capacity. The application of a £56,000 per pupil contribution is not justified in the draft Guidance. The key metrics do not justify rejecting the SFT metrics of £30,000 per pupil in favour of £56,000 per pupil based upon an estimated gross cost for a proposed new secondary school in Renfrewshire. The draft Guidance does not explain the use of a similar per pupil rate for primary schools. In absence of justifiable exact levels, the contributions cannot be justified in terms of the scale and kind test of Circular 3/2012. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Developer contributions should be returned if not utilised within 5 years of receipt. If a contribution cannot be spent within this timescale, it is questionable whether it was appropriate in the first place. The contribution return period has been changed to 10 years. Renfrewshire resident (Kimberley Nealis) There is no indication of another special educational need school in Renfrewshire. The two current special needs schools are at capacity. Renfrewshire Council Children’s Services have not identified a requirement for developer contributions towards special educational needs schools. Persimmon Homes West Scotland How is the requirement for any contribution considered in re-mix of plot type applications where additional units may be proposed e.g. full Contributions would be renegotiated in these circumstances. The guidance has been amended at paragraph 5.8 to reflect this.
Page 31
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response further consultation by Education and additional contribution sought? What land is available for new build schools in future LDPs to avoid refusal of potential applications when there is currently a housing shortage? Will catchments be reconsidered in such circumstances? The preparation of LDP3 will be aligned with the preparation and implementation of the Council’s Learning Estate Strategy with land identified for new schools where required. What are the timescales for independent verification of viability assessments where no or reduced contributions are proposed? The guidance does not specify timescales for this. Each case will be different. What is the written mechanism for a S69 agreement in the interests of transparency if monies are not to be refunded if being utilised for the purpose intended, even if consent not being implemented? If funds have not already been committed to a school project that is necessary as a result of additional capacity required due to a new residential development, then there will be scope to return those funds to a developer if the residential development is not to be implemented. The guidance has been amended at paragraph 5.9 to reflect this Renfrewshire resident (Catherine Noble) It is an error not to include single bed properties in the calculation for what a developer should contribute. It is considered unlikely that single bedroom properties would accommodate children of school age. The amount of money required for secondary school provision is underestimated and should be higher than the requirement for primary schools. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Better use should be made of derelict and uninhabited properties and there should be a reduction in short term let properties with hotels promoted. Whilst valid suggestions, this comment is not considered relevant to the guidance.
Page 32
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response Zander Planning The Supplementary Guidance requires to be clear that contributions cannot be made to Applications for the Approval of Matters Specified in Conditions. A statement to this effect has been added to the guidance at paragraph 4.25. Iceni Projects for Hallam Land Management Not supportive of the introduction of the extent of the contributions sought in relation to new housing delivery and believe there could be consequences from a viability perspective and the realistic delivery of housing. The proposed education developer contributions may disproportionately affect projects, particularly in less economically robust areas where land values are significantly lower. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Renfrewshire Council should detail how it arrived at a contribution figure of £56,000, providing more detail than currently set out in the guidance. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. The imposition of costly contributions may result in landowners deciding not to sell their land for development, discouraging the development of much needed homes in Renfrewshire, or may result in creating an unaffordable housing market. The guidance will introduce greater certainty over the cost of developer contributions that can be considered by landowners and developers when agreeing land prices. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. The guidance should acknowledge that contributions should be negotiable and assessed on a site-by-site basis rather than a blanket contribution sought for all new housing development. The publication of a standard contribution level provides certainty for developers and landowners. There will be an opportunity to discuss and challenge the contribution sought for any development. Clarification is requested as to how the Council has arrived at the pupil/product ratio for both primary and secondary schools in the guidance and whether it is an accurate reflection of the actual number of pupils generated by different types of housing developments. Suggest the Council allow The pupil product ration was calculated by Edge Analytics based on a range of factors. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different house types and sizes would not be practical, and the application of a
Page 33
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response flexibility that accounts for fluctuations in local demographics and housing types. standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. Private development is a key route in facilitating the delivery of much needed affordable housing. Whilst it is acknowledged affordable housing may generate additional pupil(s) per household, a viability perspective should be considered in applying such costly contributions to private development which facilitate 25% or more affordable housing delivery. Applying such contributions to affordable housing could reduce the ability for developers to meet affordable housing targets and complicate negotiations under Section 75 agreements. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Further justification is requested on how the Scottish Future Trust’s evidence has been applied in setting Renfrewshire Council’s contribution level. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Attention should be given as to whether the proposed obligations are reasonable in relation to the scale and kind of the proposed development. Strongly advise that contributions should be based on property sizes. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different house types and sizes would not be practical, and the application of a standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. Renfrewshire Council are proposing a standard contribution of £56,000 per primary and secondary school pupil, despite the scale of identified education ’need’. Other Council’s figures are considerably lower. The developer contributions associated with a development should reflect the extent of works required to address the need for either new build or extensions to education infrastructure. The draft guidance does not portray The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance.
Page 34
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response how Renfrewshire Council have arrived at the same costs for new build and extensions. Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements Circular 3/2012 (Revised November 2020) states: “Planning obligations should not be used to resolve existing deficiencies in infrastructure provision or to secure contributions to the achievement of wider planning objectives which are not strictly necessary to allow permission to be granted for the proposed development. Where the need to improve, upgrade or replace that infrastructure does not arise directly from the proposed development then planning authorities should not seek to address this through a planning obligation.” The contribution return period propose (15 years) should be shortened to 5 or 10 years as this would allow for more timely expenditure of contributions, better aligning with actual demand and contribute to unlocking housing delivery. The contribution return period has been changed to 10 years. Suggest the Council should consider increasing the 85% threshold for contributions as this could create unnecessary financial burdens for developers without an immediate need for school expansions. Other authorities have higher thresholds. RC should explain how it has arrived at a blanket capacity of 85% for primary and secondary schools and should adopt a capacity on a per school basis. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement.
Page 35
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response RC should consider variations in land values when applying developer contributions and the viability of new housing delivery. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. These can take account of land values. It is expected that land valuation should take into account developer contributions associated with the development of the land. Homes for Scotland Research suggests a contributions threshold of over 90% school capacity is generally applied by other Councils. Schools can and do routinely operate above the arbitrary 85% capacity threshold proposed by RC. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Publishing up to date school rolls will ensure that pupils from past completions are all accounted for. The guidance advises that school rolls and school roll projections will be updated regularly. The tests for planning obligations now form part of NPF4/development plan. The Council is aware of this. When seeking a contribution, RC should understand and clarify why some existing schools exceed the capacity trigger requiring a contribution, for example are there pupils from new homes, school closures/mergers, or smaller replacement schools. Detailing this will have implications as to whether the contribution sought is reasonable. A contribution will only be sought when new development contributes to capacity issues. A sequential approach to addressing school capacity is proposed: 1. Consider whether the mitigation required is only temporary and an interim solution over a short period (3 to 5 years) is possible, such as temporary classrooms or internal reconfiguration. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered.
Page 36
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response 2. Consider whether an extension to the existing catchment schools is feasible. 3. Consider whether it is possible to undertake a catchment review to realise available capacity in a nearby school subject to statutory consultation on this procedure. 4. Consider whether a new school is required. Such an approach will ensure mitigation complies with the ‘scale and kind’ test and will have less impact on development viability. Updated school rolls, housing land audit programming and a clear summary of potential developer contributions should be set out in the Delivery Programme so that all stakeholders are aware of the potential need for mitigation and can plan for it accordingly. The Council will consider this suggestion in relation to the Delivery Programme to be prepared for LDP3. RC should commit to an annual update of the 10- year forecast of the number of pupils expected at each primary and secondary school, including known and forecast rolls based on housing land audit programming. The Delivery Programme should be updated annually to reflect any change in mitigation requirements. The guidance advises that school roll projections will be updated regularly. The principle of applying a Pupil Product Ratio (PPR) is supported. RC should clarify if the cohort progression model or alternative, cumulative approach is used to forecast school rolls. The cohort model is the most robust and accurate and has been endorsed at appeal. The cumulative model overestimates demand. The Edge Analytics methodology is based on cohort progression.
Page 37
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response The Pupil Product Ratio for existing housing in Renfrewshire should be used (0.15 for primary schools, 0.135 for secondary schools based on 2022 Census). This demonstrates that whilst there might be an initial spike in PPR associated with new homes, it will settle to a lower figure over time. The Pupil Product Ratio calculated by Edge Analytics is based on several factors, not just new homes. Between the 2011 and 2022 Census, the number of school age children in Renfrewshire has fallen from 25,226 to 24,984. The need for contributions may therefore be questioned where the school operated previously with a higher roll. School roll projections are based on up-to-date demographic data. It is requested that RC share the PPR for new homes to ascertain if it is consistent across the RC area. If there is a variation, consideration should be given to applying different PPRs to different catchments to ensure the PPRs meets the fair and reasonable tests. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different catchments would not be practical, and the application of a standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. There are some instances when housing sites may collectively generate new pupils that may require mitigation at one school. An equitable approach to considering this cumulative approach is required. The guidance recognises that there may be a cumulative effect on school rolls from several housing sites and in circumstances where a contribution is required, this will be discussed with relevant applicants. Sites in the housing land audit disputed by Homes for Scotland should not be factored into future school rolls unless granted consent. The most recent housing land audit (2024) is undisputed. The Council work closely with Homes for Scotland to have an agreed housing land audit. More detail on how the contribution level per pupil (£56,000) was arrived at is requested. Industry standard for school infrastructure cost is the SFT metric. Unless any variation is both clarified and justified it is likely that any future education contribution is challenged. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance.
Page 38
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response RC should clarify if the per pupil cost for an extension is different to a new school and detail the cost of an extension. Extension costs should only include the works essential to address the capacity constraint and not any other elements. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. Where a contribution is likely to be sought for new homes, it is important that the calculation is based on the proportion of new pupils generated by the development and not any existing capacity breach. RC will be liable for the mitigation associated with existing pupils above capacity. On this basis where a school is close to or already exceeds capacity RC should consider declining placing requests from outwith the catchment. Contributions will be based on the number of pupils associated with new development, as the cost of the solution will be impacted by these pupils. Affordable housing developments operate off much lower land values and profit margins and therefore it isn’t equitable, or realistic, to expect them to carry the same education contribution as private homes. Imposing an education contribution will likely render the majority of new affordable projects unviable. Affordable housing developments generate pupils which will impact on school capacity and any solution required. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. RC is seeking a 15-year period in which to implement mitigation funded by developer contributions. Such a long period is considered unreasonable given that pupils generated by the new housing development may have left both primary and secondary education by the time the mitigation is implemented. The timescale for implementing appropriate mitigation should reflect the nature of the potential intervention and suggested sequential approach. The contribution return period has been changed to 10 years.
Page 39
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response The period for implementing Options 1-3 set out above should be less than Option 4. It is suggested that the period of mitigation to be implemented is 5 years for options 1-3 and 10 years where a new school is required. Census figures suggest that the overall school estate could accommodate all children of school age. It is therefore questionable as to why any secondary school would require an extension at this point when there has been a reduction in the number of secondary school pupils. Appendix 1 of the guidance indicates that the majority of school rolls will decline. It is not appropriate to look at the accumulative capacity of all secondary schools across Renfrewshire as schools operate on a catchment basis. The guidance is silent on the threshold for seeking education contributions. Where relevant, HFS suggest that the requirement applies to all housing within a catchment, including proposals for single homes. The contribution requirement is applicable to housing development of 4 or more houses, with developments of less than 4 houses exempt. It is requested that an additional column is added to the school roll projections detailing which schools are likely to require a developer contribution. It is suggested that this is based on a RAG rating where red will require mitigation, amber may require mitigation and green where no mitigation is likely to be sought. This column should also include detail of the potential mitigation based on the options set out above and this information should be detailed in the Delivery Programme against sites within the relevant school catchment. A column has been added to school roll projections table highlighting which schools are projected to exceed the 85% threshold. Rather than listing the schools alphabetically, it is suggested that primary schools are grouped by School roll information and projections will be set out based on secondary schools and associated
Page 40
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response catchment. This will aid developers and the council in considering whether alternative mitigation, such as a catchment review, is appropriate or another temporary measure. primaries. As the intention is to update school roll data regularly, it will be removed from the Guidance document and published separately to avoid the data included in the Guidance becoming dated. If a Viability Statement is required to be reviewed it is suggested that there is an option for this to be assessed by either the District Valuer or a mutually agreed and suitably qualified consultant. HFS is aware of scenarios where, due to a lack of surveyor resource, there have been delays in obtaining District Valuer assessments. Having the ability to potentially appoint a consultant will ensure that the assessment of viability is not unduly delayed. The guidance has been amended to indicate that a suitable qualified consultant can also evaluate viability assessments. Geddes Consulting for CALA Homes (West) and Miller Homes The draft planning guidance should have been brought forward as statutory planning guidance. There is a clear policy hook in LDP2 that supplementary guidance could have been linked to, and there is an expectation at the national level that matters relating to planning obligations should be subject to scrutiny either through LDP examination or Scottish Ministers approval as statutory supplementary guidance. There was time for the guidance to be prepared as statutory supplementary guidance, and this would have increased confidence in the document. As non- statutory planning guidance, the document will remain diminished in weight. The guidance is being brought forward as non- statutory planning guidance linked to LDP2.
Page 41
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response It would be more logical to use school roll projections to assess the need for future mitigation, rather than the current school rolls. If this is the intention, then the Council needs to update text to refer to school roll projections, rather than school rolls. School roll projections are being used to assess the need for future mitigation. The Guidance has been amended to make this clear. The Respondent considers that applying an 85% occupancy limit on the actual school capacity is not in accordance with the tests of NPF 4 Policy 18 Infrastructure first and Circular 3/2012 Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements (Circular 3/2012). Specifically, it fails the relationship, planning purpose and scale and kind tests. In circumstances where the school roll is expected to peak at over 85%, but then decline, the financial contribution would be entirely redundant. There is no need for mitigation in the example above. The Council should not apply a percentage threshold for planning obligations as it is doing in this circumstance. The long-term trend needs to be taken into account as well. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Where the school roll is expected to exceed the threshold for only a short time before declining again, this would be taken into account in the requirement for, and calculation of, any contribution. Planning obligations should only be sought where it can be demonstrated that the school roll will exceed the physical capacity of the school. This needs to be considered on a class organisation basis, rather than applying a percentage threshold. The example at St Fergus RC Primary School demonstrates that a school roll 12% higher than the Council’s arbitrary 85% threshold can be accommodated. In this example, a school is at 97% occupancy, but the entire school roll can be An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered.
Page 42
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response accommodated within the space available. In such a circumstance, taking financial contributions would be contrary to the tests of NPF 4 Policy 18 and Circular 3/2012. There is therefore a need for the Council to demonstrate that any financial contribution sought is actually required on a case-by-case basis. The application of a threshold does not do this. The percentage threshold at secondary level is even less reasonable. It is usual practice to apply an efficiency factor on the maximum physical capacity of a secondary school to allow for timetable flexibility and course choice. Applying a threshold capacity onto a secondary school would reduce the capacity even further than the Strathclyde efficiency factor (76%). An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. The Council therefore needs to demonstrate through evidence such as a class organisation that a school roll cannot be accommodated in the space currently available before seeking a financial contribution. Applying a percentage threshold alone does not meet the relationship, planning purpose, scale and kind and reasonableness tests of NPF 4 Policy 18 and Circular 3/2012. Further consideration needs to be given by the Council regarding the circumstances in which it is appropriate to seek a financial contribution, and the Draft PG amended accordingly. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. It appears that the Council will base its financial contribution on the basis of the number of pupils calculated by the PPR, rather than the mitigation Costed solutions have not been identified for all schools requiring investment to accommodate
Page 43
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response required. It will then apply a charge based on a charging mechanism, regardless of the mitigation required. This does not meet the scale and kind and reasonableness tests of NPF 4 Policy 18 and Circular 3/2012. Evidence suggests this will lead to significant overcharges, as the Council approach effectively disregards any existing capacity in schools. increased school roll. A contribution rate based on recent projects has been utilised. The Council’s approach fails to take pupil transitioning into account. The phased development of a site means pupils will only enter into a school once homes have been constructed and occupied and will be spread across year groups. The school roll forecasts are based on the programme of house completions set out in the housing land audit. Concerns around the removal of assessment criteria that were included in the approved Committee version, which was better than what was included in the published version. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. The Council’s approach to charging financial contribution based on the total number of pupils generated has no regard to existing capacity in schools, or pupil transitioning that will occur. The approach should be changed to base financial contributions on the size of mitigation required. Costed solutions have not been identified for all schools requiring investment to accommodate increased school roll. A contribution rate based on recent projects has been utilised.
Page 44
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response The Council has ignored evidence from other sources when calculating the cost per pupil and applied a cost per pupil based on the rebuild of a secondary school (Paisley Grammar), with this cost applied to all types of mitigation including refurbishment, extensions and new builds, and to primary schools. SFT metrics evidence that primary school costs per pupil are lower than secondary school costs. The costs of Paisley Grammar new build may include costs that should not be applied to the cost of an extension. The approach taken by West Lothian Council that sets out a hierarchy of choices for how costs will be calculated is recommended as a more reasonable approach. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. The guidance should include a more appropriate mitigation hierarchy which considers managing placement requests, school catchment reviews, and capping P1/S1 intakes before seeking financial contributions or phasing of development. There should be very few circumstances where refusal of planning permission due to an education constraint is necessary. The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. With regard to land for new schools, the Council should be able to provide certainty around the size of school expected and therefore the size of site. Although the provision of new schools is covered by the guidance, any new schools to be developed under the Council’s Learning Estate Strategy will be aligned with housing allocations set out in LDP3, providing more certainty around location and scale. Taylor Wimpey Contribution of £56,000 per pupil could impact viability of some sites. Clarity on how this figure The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted.
Page 45
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response was calculated should be provided. Variation in land values should be a consideration. Reduction in number of school children evidenced by 2022 census should be considered. School roll projections are based on up-to-date demographic data. Sequential approach to addressing school capacity is suggested: 1. Consider whether mitigation is only required for short period and use temporary classrooms or internal reconfiguration 2. Consider extension to existing catchment schools 3. Consider whether a new school is required The guidance sets out that options that would not require physical changes to the school and therefore would not require a financial contribution will be considered. Where a physical intervention is required, a range of solutions will be considered. The blanket 85% capacity contribution requirement threshold for both primary and secondary schools should be explained. A threshold capacity per school basis should be adopted. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Appendix 1 roll projections show 13 primary schools and 5 high schools already programmed to be over the 85% threshold at 2028/29. How will these be addressed before new sites come forward in LDP3? The planning guidance is associated with LDP2 and sites allocated for housing development within it. Homes for Scotland review suggest a 90% threshold is applied elsewhere. The guidance should reflect this. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. Appendix 1 roll projections show trend of declining school rolls from 2029 onwards. While the projections show the rolls of some schools declining, the rolls of other schools are projected to increase. Contributions will only be sought in relation to schools whose roll is projected to be at 85% or above of planning capacity. The guidance should include how standard charges have been calculated, how monies will be These matters are covered by the Guidance and associated documents.
Page 46
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response held, how they will be used, and how they will be returned. An unused contribution return period of 15 years is unreasonable. Many of the children generated by new housing may have left primary and or secondary schools within this time. The contribution return period has been changed to 10 years. If Renfrewshire Council are to maintain and improve school estates, new housing allocations will be required. Renfrewshire Council’s new local development plan will set out a housing land requirement in excess of the MATHLR set out in NPF4. The Evidence Report gatecheck process will determine the quantity of new housing land allocations required. Education capacity will inform the location of LDP3 housing sites. Without additional clarity and changes suggested by Homes for Scotland, the guidance will be contrary to the tests set out within NPF4 Policy 18 Infrastructure First and Planning Circular 3/2012 Planning Obligations and Good Neighbour Agreements. Changes have been made to the Guidance to reflect consultation responses. Wheatley Group (WHG) Continuous monitoring of the methodology used to calculate the Pupil Product Ratio should be undertaken to ensure that the level of developer contribution sought is appropriate. The Pupil Product Ration will be kept under review. The Council should consider aligning the percentage of capacity that triggers the need for developer contributions to 90% in line with many other Council areas. An 85% threshold has been identified as the appropriate trigger for consideration of a potential developer contribution requirement. The Pupil Product Ratio should allow distinction between different types of housing e.g. houses and flats. The calculation and application of separate pupil product ratios for different house types and sizes would not be practical, and the application of a
Page 47
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response standard pupil product ratio is considered proportionate. Exceptions on a case-by-case basis for house types such as studio and one-bedroomed apartments, and special needs housing that is unlikely to generate school pupils should be considered. Exceptions to the contributions policy are set out in paragraph 4.25 and include one-bedroom dwellings and housing for specified needs e.g student and sheltered accommodation. The level of contribution sought by Renfrewshire would appear to be significantly higher than other local authorities. Further clarity on the basis of this calculation should be provided along with benchmarking with other Scottish LAs. The justification for the £56,000 per pupil contribution is now included in the Guidance. The approach should allow for a case-by-case basis to ensure that contributions are fair and proportionate to the actual costs of infrastructure requirements, with opportunity for review and clawback where payments are made ahead of delivery. A paragraph has been added at 5.9 indicating that contributions can be reviewed and returned in full or in part if they have not been spent or committed. The approach to costs needs to be subject to regular review and benchmarking to ensure it remains proportionate, accurate and appropriate. The guidance should include details of how the review of contribution amounts is to be undertaken. The Guidance indicates that the costs of contributions will be linked to the BCIS index. Disproportionate levels of contribution are likely to have an impact on the attractiveness of Renfrewshire to developers of all tenures. The guidance will provide certainty around contribution levels that can be built into land value discussions. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. There needs to be acknowledgement on the delivery and viability pressures placed on proposals designed to meet 100% meet a specific housing need. A balance should be sought The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted.
Page 48
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response between the importance of delivering affordable housing, and the need to collect developer contributions potentially making affordable housing developments unviable. Request that the draft guidance be amended to reflect the scope for consideration of the appropriateness of contributions associated with affordable, social and housing for specific needs, and to allow developments to be considered on a case-by-case basis. The requirement to provide developer contributions towards education from affordable housing developments has the potential to make Wheatley Housing group developments in Renfrewshire unviable. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Linstone Housing Association Housing associations are not private developers and are not-for-profit. Housing associations fund new build housing through Scottish Government grant funding and the balance of costs from loans or reserves, which are paid by tenants’ rent. Applying an education contribution to affordable housing will reduce the ability of housing associations in Renfrewshire to provide new homes. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Linstone HA has planning approval granted in 2023 for affordable housing development at Stirling Drive, Linwood subject to a S75 agreement requiring an education contribution; question how this can apply when planning guidance was not in existence The Linstone HA contribution will be calculated based on the finalised guidance.
Page 49
Respondent Summary of comment(s) Council response Paisley HA Imposition of this new development cost, at a time when construction costs are at an all-time high, can only act as a barrier to providing new affordable homes. Social housing cannot pass additional costs onto end users via increase in sales price. Education contribution costs are not grant eligible, meaning these costs will have to be added to the private finance element and will mean that some projects would become financially unviable to community-based housing associations. The guidance allows for viability assessments to be submitted. Responses from SEPA, NatureScot, Historic Environment Scotland and the Coal Authority indicated that they had no comments to offer on the guidance
Page 50
Appendix 3 - school roll projections School Planning capacity 2024/25 Census 2024/25 % 2025/26 2025/26 % 2026/27 2026/27 % 2027/28 2027/28 % 2028/29 2028/29% 2029/30 2029/30 % 2030/31 2030/31 % 2031/32 2031/32 % 2032/33 2032/33 % 2033/34 2033/34 % Is school roll projected to be above 85% of planning capacity during projection period? Castlehead HS 1230 737 60 757 62 748 61 760 62 771 63 778 63 787 64 805 65 809 66 808 66 Glencoats 352 179 51 182 52 185 53 178 51 176 50 163 46 157 45 155 44 156 44 159 45 Wallace 434 360 83 339 78 352 81 348 80 354 82 370 85 369 85 373 86 377 87 379 87 Yes West 761 396 52 429 56 437 57 443 58 449 59 461 61 468 61 466 61 473 62 477 63 Gleniffer HS 1425 1123 79 1126 79 1121 79 1115 78 1129 79 1111 78 1085 76 1083 76 1057 74 1045 73 Brediland 377 205 54 171 45 170 45 164 44 156 41 159 42 157 42 152 40 151 40 147 39 Bushes 489 312 64 290 59 277 57 263 54 240 49 230 47 216 44 210 43 206 42 199 41 Heriot 434 212 49 205 47 201 46 205 47 214 49 204 47 203 47 201 46 202 47 201 46 Langcraigs 434 279 64 273 63 261 60 262 60 256 59 254 59 251 58 247 57 253 58 259 60 Lochfield 459 262 57 259 56 261 57 260 57 264 58 263 57 259 56 250 54 247 54 241 53 Gryffe HS 960 960 100 962 100 976 102 988 103 956 100 956 100 916 95 900 94 914 95 897 93 Yes Bridge of Weir 489 421 86 464 95 450 92 444 91 454 93 448 92 451 92 449 92 430 88 426 87 Yes Houston 569 510 90 537 94 528 93 536 94 549 96 546 96 560 98 564 99 550 97 559 98 Yes Johnstone HS 1380 872 63 865 63 877 64 907 66 903 65 908 66 895 65 893 65 860 62 849 62 Auchenlodment PS 302 210 70 194 64 208 69 202 67 196 65 186 62 184 61 176 58 177 59 172 57 Cochrane Castle 242 113 47 95 39 90 37 92 38 83 34 87 36 89 37 88 36 89 37 90 37 Fordbank 327 257 79 251 77 248 76 246 75 237 72 234 72 226 69 220 67 224 69 219 67 Howwood 184 104 57 105 57 108 59 103 56 101 55 87 47 88 48 92 50 90 49 87 47 Kilbarchan 352 203 58 193 55 192 55 177 50 171 49 173 49 169 48 161 46 160 45 157 45 Lochwinnoch 327 189 58 218 67 202 62 205 63 215 66 232 71 231 71 213 65 205 63 195 60 Thorn 242 136 56 126 52 119 49 122 50 121 50 119 49 114 47 111 46 113 47 117 48 Linwood HS 576 431 75 452 78 457 79 450 78 444 77 450 78 430 75 420 73 408 71 411 71 East Fulton 377 228 60 235 62 252 67 260 69 267 71 272 72 276 73 276 73 282 75 278 74 Woodlands 459 199 43 202 44 195 42 192 42 194 42 177 39 181 39 181 39 182 40 179 39 Paisley Grammar 1329 1096 82 1092 82 1086 82 1094 82 1100 83 1101 83 1121 84 1153 87 1164 88 1190 90 Yes Gallowhill 352 207 59 207 59 215 61 212 60 213 61 207 59 196 56 189 54 182 52 175 50 Mossvale 272 203 75 196 72 198 73 201 74 212 78 212 78 206 76 209 77 215 79 214 79 Ralston 459 382 83 401 87 409 89 413 90 419 91 431 94 431 94 427 93 420 92 415 90 Yes Todholm 434 396 91 364 84 373 86 361 83 349 80 351 81 348 80 341 79 341 79 329 76 Yes Williamsburgh 594 325 55 363 61 389 65 396 67 407 69 411 69 417 70 418 70 429 72 428 72 Park Mains HS 1756 1517 86 1578 90 1626 93 Park Mains HS 2000 1669 83 1730 87 1805 90 1890 95 1985 99 2080 104 2169 108 Yes Bargarran PS 272 219 81 237 87 233 86 224 82 220 81 209 77 196 72 190 70 169 62 167 61 Yes Barsail 401 310 77 305 76 290 72 274 68 259 65 235 59 222 55 215 54 206 51 198 49 Bishopton 519 397 76 335 65 342 66 333 64 334 64 331 64 330 64 333 64 341 66 342 66 Dargavel 698 620 89 866 124 1000 143 1147 164 1261 181 1354 194 1406 201 1414 203 1423 204 1429 205 Yes Inchinnan 217 124 57 111 51 100 46 103 47 113 52 109 50 109 50 109 50 110 51 113 52 Langbank 100 73 73 79 79 85 85 93 93 93 93 97 97 98 98 101 101 103 103 100 100 Yes Rashielea 434 152 35 152 35 148 34 152 35 155 36 150 35 146 34 145 33 143 33 142 33 Renfrew HS 1267 881 70 854 67 872 69 879 69 884 70 894 71 899 71 927 73 949 75 962 76 Arkleston PS 352 282 80 315 89 322 91 334 95 346 98 336 95 330 94 326 93 323 92 323 92 Yes Kirklandneuk 619 436 70 445 72 447 72 448 72 428 69 423 68 420 68 420 68 422 68 430 69 Newmains 459 410 89 406 88 396 86 381 83 357 78 347 76 342 75 334 73 326 71 316 69 Yes
Page 51
St Andrew’s Academy 1250 1492 119 1488 119 1487 119 1489 119 1499 120 1499 120 1508 121 1532 123 1518 121 1531 122 Yes St Catherine’s 272 238 88 238 88 254 93 264 97 244 90 242 89 236 87 230 85 224 82 218 80 Yes St Charles’ 459 401 87 388 85 398 87 392 85 388 85 385 84 383 83 371 81 370 81 360 78 Yes St Fergus’ 175 151 86 176 101 178 102 163 93 156 89 149 85 140 80 138 79 139 79 141 81 Yes St James’ (Paisley) 217 161 74 145 67 143 66 146 67 147 68 151 70 144 66 147 68 151 70 150 69 St John Ogilvie 272 242 89 291 107 310 114 320 118 321 118 329 121 334 123 334 123 340 125 338 124 Yes St Mary’s 327 298 91 313 96 314 96 309 94 321 98 329 101 332 102 329 101 335 102 336 103 Yes St Paul’s 217 167 77 153 71 143 66 135 62 129 59 132 61 130 60 128 59 128 59 126 58 St Peter's 352 216 61 225 64 226 64 217 62 219 62 205 58 202 57 199 57 201 57 202 57 St Benedict's HS 850 783 92 824 97 837 98 853 100 858 101 853 100 831 98 820 96 794 93 786 92 Yes Our Lady of Peace 352 241 68 227 64 219 62 217 62 215 61 214 61 216 61 215 61 219 62 216 61 St Anthony’s 302 274 91 245 81 236 78 242 80 235 78 230 76 226 75 222 74 225 75 221 73 Yes St David’s 184 88 48 84 46 83 45 88 48 88 48 86 47 89 48 88 48 90 49 89 48 St Fillan's 184 97 53 89 48 79 43 83 45 91 49 94 51 93 51 93 51 91 49 92 50 St Margaret’s 272 173 64 154 57 144 53 143 53 138 51 141 52 136 50 133 49 135 50 136 50 Trinity HS 1032 977 95 1026 99 1052 102 1070 104 1097 106 1110 108 1121 109 1154 112 1187 115 1204 117 Yes St Anne’s 242 139 57 132 55 125 52 127 52 123 51 118 49 115 48 113 47 110 45 109 45 St Catherine’s 272 238 88 238 88 254 93 264 97 244 90 242 89 236 87 230 85 224 82 218 80 Yes St James’ (Renfrew) 676 553 82 583 86 593 88 610 90 601 89 589 87 573 85 569 84 568 84 571 84 Yes St John Bosco 272 242 89 264 97 264 97 260 96 252 93 254 93 258 95 256 94 249 92 248 91 Yes