Infrastructure contributions: Using a ‘roof tax’ approach

On 18 November 2025, a Planning Inspector allowed an appeal (reference APP/C3430/W/25/3368369) by Bloor Homes Ltd against South Staffordshire District Council and granted planning permission for 135 houses within a larger housing site allocation in Staffordshire. The main issues in the appeal were (i) whether the proposal would be in a suitable location for housing with regard to development plan policy and national planning policy; (ii) whether the proposal would make adequate provision for any additional need for associated infrastructure arising from the development; and (iii) if harm arises, whether this would be outweighed by the benefits of the proposal. 

South Staffordshire District Council Planning Committee recommended granting planning permission, subject to conditions, a section 106 agreement and a unilateral undertaking under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.  The draft section 106 agreement included two approaches to contributions which were mutually exclusive and the Inspector considered which method should be adopted:

• Solus Method: Infrastructure contributions should be limited to the proposal on its own, without regard to emerging policy or the broader housing site allocation.
• Roof Tax Method: Infrastructure contributions should be considered across the entire allocation. 

The draft section 106 agreement adopted the ‘roof tax’ method as the default position. However, the appellant contended that the site should be consented based on its own merits, so the ‘solus’ approach should be taken and consequently the obligations to financially contribute to safer routes for schools and bus services were not necessary or justified. Under the ‘roof tax’ approach, the developer would have an obligation to contribute to a new or expanded school as the overall housing allocation would increase demand for school places, and towards a riverside park as this park formed part of the masterplan for the greater proposed allocation.

The Planning Inspector concluded that, if the proposed wider allocation proceeded, the ‘solus’ method would fail to provide the required infrastructure which was necessary and justified, directly related to the development, and reasonable in scale and kind. The Inspector was particularly concerned about a scenario where the proposed larger site allocation came forward and was not properly accommodated within the section 106 agreement. Accordingly the Inspector’s view was that the ‘solus’ method would not meet the legal requirements for a planning obligation pursuant to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010; adopting the ‘solus’ method would mean that the infrastructure contributions would fall short of the statutory tests. 

Balancing the economic, social, and environmental benefits of the housing scheme, the Planning Inspector found that the ‘roof tax’ approach was the best way to make the development acceptable in planning terms. It also provided for a coordinated approach to the provision of the entirety of the proposed allocation, aligned with a master planning approach.  The Inspector acknowledged that it can be difficult for a planning agreement to futureproof every different scenario and that there was the option to pursue a variation if needed. The Inspector ultimately concluded that the ‘roof tax’ approach was “justified and necessary” in the circumstances. Overall, the appeal succeeded as the proposal complied with the development plan when considered as a whole. 

We have seen an increase in the roof tax approach being taken in planning agreements relating to sites within wider allocations so this appeal decision provides useful guidance for supporting that approach as well as considerations developers may need to bear in mind if they are arguing for a solus approach. Please contact Matthew Tucker or I if you have any queries.