Threshold for Contributions

Object

Representation ID: 71728

Received: 20/02/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore (now Stantec)

.The text of the SPD should replicate the assumptions made / indicated on the CIL and Section 106 elements of the Council’s website that that set out the financial assumption for infrastructure contributions per dwelling on sites of various thresholds

Support

Representation ID: 71729

Received: 20/02/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore (now Stantec)

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: 71730

Received: 20/02/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore (now Stantec)

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.

Object

Representation ID: 71753

Received: 17/02/2020

Respondent: William Davis Ltd

Threshold for Contributions
Threshold for contributions for residential development should omit reference to 1000sqm in line with annexe 2 of the NPPF

Object

Representation ID: 71770

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: 71781

Received: 21/02/2020

Respondent: Barton Willmore

Standardised metrics and worked examples should be used in the SPD to give an indication of contributions required for developments of various capacities.