Draft Charging Schedule - Jan 2017
Support
Draft Charging Schedule - Jan 2017
Representation ID: 70410
Received: 03/02/2017
Respondent: Network Rail
1) Where there is an adverse impact on the operation of the railway Network Rail will require appropriate mitigation measures as part of the planning process.
2) Transport Assessments should take into account their impact upon footfall at railway stations.
Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the proposed policy.
Network Rail is the public owner and operator of Britain's railway infrastructure, which includes the tracks, signals, tunnels, bridges, viaducts, level crossings and stations - the largest of which we also manage. All profits made by the company, including from commercial development, are reinvested directly back into the network.
Network Rail is looking at how we can work smarter to help enable development near to the railway.
(1)
It has come to our attention that where applications have an impact on the railway network, in particular on level crossings, the application is delayed or is objectionable because negotiations with developers are not agreed before a Planning Application is submitted.
I am sure you are aware that Network Rail is a statutory consultee for any planning applications within 10 metres of relevant railway land (as the Rail Infrastructure Managers for the railway, set out in Article 16 of the Development Management Procedure Order) and for any development likely to result in a material increase in the volume or a material change in the character of traffic using a level crossing over a railway (as the Rail Network Operators, set out in Schedule 4 (J) of the Development Management Procedure Order); in addition you are required to consult the Office of Rail and Road (ORR).
Where there is an adverse impact on the operation of the railway, Network Rail will require appropriate mitigation measures to be delivered as part of the planning application process. By this stage in the process our request for further information such as a Transport Assessment (to provide detail of the suspected impact) and where necessary, the provision of planning obligations can cause significant delay. This can be highly frustrating for any developer who has undertaken pre-application advice, and invested time and money, in working through mitigation measures including Heads of Terms for Section 106 agreements.
To help alleviate this problem it is requested that you add a standard paragraph to any pre- application response you provide. I have put together a paragraph which if included as general advice, may help avoid any disruption further along the process.
Should your development be likely to increase the level of pedestrian and / or vehicular usage at a level crossing any future planning application should be supported by a full Transport Assessment assessing such impact. Any required qualitative improvements to the level crossing as a direct result of the development proposed should be included within the Heads of Terms.
(2)
Within Transport Assessment's there is a review of local needs regarding public transport; this usually focuses on buses. However, Transport Assessments should also take into account their impact upon footfall at railway stations. Developers are encouraged to consider including within Transport Assessments trip generation data at railway stations. Location of the proposal, accessibility and density of the development should be considered in relation to the relevant railway station in the area.
Where proposals are likely to increase footfall at railway stations the Local Planning Authority should consider a developer contribution (either via CIL, S106 or unilateral undertaking) to provide funding for enhancements as stations as a result of increased numbers of customers.
Should you wish to discuss the impact of your proposal on the railway network you are advised to contact Network Rail via TownPlanningLNW@networkrail.co.uk
Object
Draft Charging Schedule - Jan 2017
Representation ID: 70412
Received: 20/02/2017
Respondent: Persimmon Homes Central
Viability should be amended to reflect the cost that house builders and developers are expected to pay. We recommend that BNP adopt a minimum value of £310,000 per gross hectare (£125,000 per acre) rather than £247,000 per gross hectare (£100,000 per acre)
Where possible achieved net sales prices should be referred to in the first instance as opposed to marketing/guide prices. The assumed 5% deductions for negotiations on guide prices could vary greatly, and suggest that BNP undertake a more thorough search of achieved sales values.
The minimum acceptable profit margin is 20% on GDV blended across the private and affordable dwellings. This is supported by the Manor appeal decision in Shinfield (APP/X0360/A/12/2179141, 8 Jan 2013)
There are no site typologies of sites between 100 and 300 units, but sites of this size amount to nearly 2000 dwellings
Onsite infrastructure costs should be assumed at between £17,000-£23,000 as suggested in the Harman Report. We would suggest that £20,000 per dwelling is an appropriate amount.
Charge for Zone A has increased even though conclusion in 6.19 is that such sites are unable to make much of a contribution as well as a meaningful affordable housing contribution. This would impact on developers bringing forward sites when considering CIL and full affordable housing obligation.
For Residential (strategic sites) in Zones A, C and D all CIL rates have increased even though they are unjustifiable by BNP's own analysis
The proportion of levy paid upon or shortly after commencement should be minimised (e.g. 10-15%) as this is the point at which schemes are absorbing a lot of cost and are likely to be cash-negative. It would also be more reasonable to expect payments of over £2m to made over a period of 2 years or more.
See attached