Developer Contributions

Object

Representation ID: 71706

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: St Joseph Homes

We request some wording is added to understand the Council’s position on ‘double dipping’ and provide certainty to developers over the size of the contribution that will be expected.

Object

Representation ID: 71741

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Contribution requests should be made as soon as possible in the planning process and should be evidenced/ made in accordance with paragraph 56 of the NPPF.

Object

Representation ID: 71742

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Gladman Developments

In terms of delivery of infrastructure and monies collected from a development Gladman request that information regarding how and where this is delivered is shared with the applicant.

Object

Representation ID: 71749

Received: 12/02/2020

Respondent: Ms Maxine Kennedy

The SPD should clearly state that the County and District Council’s will adopt a flexible approach with regard to phasing of the payments of contributions so as to ensure viability / deliverability of development is not threatened.

Object

Representation ID: 71752

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Viability
SPD makes reference to developer profits typically being 17.5-22.5%. Argued that it should be assessed as 20% of GDV (as per the council’s CIL Viability Study 2016).

Comment

Representation ID: 71757

Received: 05/05/2020

Respondent: Natural England

No comments

Comment

Representation ID: 71758

Received: 14/01/2020

Respondent: Highways England

No comments

Comment

Representation ID: 71759

Received: 16/12/2019

Respondent: High Speed Two (HS2) Ltd

No comments to register

Comment

Representation ID: 71762

Received: 15/01/2020

Respondent: Place Partnership Limited (PPL)

Procedures/ Process: General Approach
Warwickshire Police endorse the inclusion of Community safety / policing being included within the list of infrastructure sought from planning obligations. This is wholly in accordance with the Local Plan and the NPPF.

Support

Representation ID: 71766

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Pegasus Group

Northern Trust welcome the production of the SPD and offer their support for it.

Support

Representation ID: 71767

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Pegasus Group

Viability – support the recognition that some developments may be unable to meet all of the relevant policy and planning obligation requirements whilst remaining viable and deliverable. Supports the identification of a return of between 17.5% and 22.5% as being a reasonable developer return.

Support

Representation ID: 71768

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Pegasus Group

Northern Trust support the recognition that some development proposals may be unable to meet all of the relevant requirements whilst remaining viable and deliverable. Northern Trust support the requirement to submit a viability assessment where this is the case. Text should be added to indicate what particular contributions would be prioritised.

Object

Representation ID: 71769

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Pegasus Group

It is important that flexibility is provided to ensure that sustainable development opportunities are delivered. Including phased payments/ infrastructure delivery so as to ensure sites come forward to fruition.

Object

Representation ID: 71773

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Legislative Context
SPD should be expanded to make reference to the Community Infrastructure Regulations and relevant sections of the NPPF and PPG ,particularly the standard approach to viability assessments.

Object

Representation ID: 71774

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Legislative Context
SPD needs to make specific reference to the relationship between CIL, and S106 with regard to Infrastructure funding (including the requirement for Local Authorities to set out an Annual Infrastructure Statement).

Support

Representation ID: 71778

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Support for the site viability section. The SPD includes reference to the Council’s acceptance that in cases where a scheme is unable to meet the required S106 contributions the cumulative benefit of the scheme will be a material consideration

Object

Representation ID: 71779

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Monitoring and Enforcement
It is accepted that a ‘monitoring fee’ is appropriate , however consideration of a ‘cap’ to ensure that these fees are not an excessive burden on development should be considered.