New-residential development in Old Oak & Park Royal area
Freedom of information request reference no: 01.FOI.25.045494
I note you seek access to the following information:
I write to seek formal clarification regarding the Metropolitan Police’s current and future obligations on developer funding in connection with new-build residential and mixed use developments—particularly within the OPDC (Old Oak & Park Royal) area and more broadly across London. This enquiry is prompted by the recent objection, issued via OPDC, to the Asda/Barratt Park Royal redevelopment, where the Met demanded circa £310,000 under Section 106 to offset the unacceptable pressure on police resources from a projected increase of some 4,000 residents .
In addition to understanding whether this represents a new standard policy for policing contributions, we seek clarity on how it aligns with evolving sustainability and housing policy, such as Passive House (Passivhaus) standards. Passive House is an internationally recognised energy-efficiency benchmark, requiring super insulation, airtightness, mechanical ventilation with heat recovery, and resulting in ultra low operational energy demands . The Greater London Authority advocates for progressive carbon-reduction standards in new developments, consistent with the Passive House approach.
Accordingly, please advise on the following:
- Policy Basis & Scope
a. Is the Met now routinely requiring developer funding for all major schemes within Park Royal and the OPDC area under Section 106 or CIL.
b. Does this extend across Greater London, and if so, under what statutory or policy framework is this being pursued. - Calculation & Use of Contributions
a. What published methodology or criteria delineate when financial contributions are required, the amount requested, and how the funds will be used (e.g., extra officers, equipment, secured-by-design initiatives).
b. How does this align with national planning obligations, particularly given other public benefits such as affordable housing, sustainable transport, and Passive House energy performance. - Integration with Passive House Standards
a. Has the Met considered whether Passive House’s safer, well-ventilated, secure design principles can offset or reduce policing needs (for example, through Secured by Design, which complements Passive House to reduce crime).
b. Will the Met apply any discount or adjustment to developer contributions when a development achieves Passive House certification, given its lower energy demand, community health benefits, and crime prevention credentials.
It is imperative that funding requests from the Met are proportionate, evidence-based, and consistent with other public-sector demands on development viability and infrastructure planning. The lack of clarity on policy application, methodology, and integration with sustainability standards jeopardises the successful delivery of urban regeneration, decarbonisation targets, and vital social infrastructure.
We therefore request your formal response to the above. Furthermore, we would welcome the opportunity for a meeting to discuss how the objectives of increased policing capacity, enhanced community safety, Passive House energy efficiency, and affordable housing can be aligned coherently in new developments.
Decision
I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full. Please find below information pursuant to your request above.
Q1 - Policy Basis & Scope
a - Is the Met routinely requiring developer funding for major schemes in Park Royal and OPDC under Section 106 or CIL.
Yes. The MPS seeks developer contributions to ensure policing needs generated by new development are met. Core funding does not cover capital infrastructure for growth, and there are no dedicated national programmes for police facilities. Capital investment is limited and typically used for urgent needs. As a result, the MPS actively engages in planning processes to secure contributions, similar to other public services.
b - Does this apply across Greater London, and under what framework.
Yes, the MPS submits Section 106 requests for most major applications citywide, working with all London Planning Authorities and the GLA. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) supports this approach, emphasizing the need for adequate services and safe environments (NPPF Sections 3 and 8, para 20 and 92b).
Q - 2. Calculation and Use of Contributions
a - What methodology determines when and how much is requested, and how funds are used.
The 02.MPS S106 Charging Supplemental Note outlines the methodology and is submitted with each request. It is typically available via the relevant planning portal.
b - How does this align with other planning obligations like affordable housing or sustainability.
The MPS approach follows NPCC best practice and complies with CIL Regulation 122, confirmed by multiple legal and planning decisions (12 Secretary of State and 24 Inspectorate rulings). Contributions are based on local policing demand and are directly tied to the development’s impact. The methodology meets statutory tests: necessity, direct relation, and proportionality. The MPS negotiates contributions case-by-case to reflect viability concerns.
Q3 - Integration with Passive House Standards
a - Can Passive House design reduce policing needs, e.g., via Secured by Design.
There is no independent academic research to show that the Passivhaus standard can reduce crime and anti-social behaviour. The Passivhaus standard does not complement the Secured by Design scheme in terms of crime reduction.
b - Will Passive House certification reduce developer contributions
Whilst we expect to see design measures incorporated into the scheme to help safety and security, these do not, however, reduce the need for police service deployment and consequently by extension, associated infrastructure requirements.