Object

Representation ID: 8450

Received: 24/03/2020

Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

Agent: Planning Matters

2.1.2 - Where obligations are discussed, these should be based on a clear policy basis and binding officer advice. This requires a transparent approach to development contributions so all parties can calculate obligations at an early stage and successfully progress development viability thereafter.

2.1.3 - The LPA’s responsibility for securing early third-party involvement should be confirmed within the Developer Contributions SPD’s text, along with clarity on fees. We are of the view that the LPA should take a proactive management role in S106 discussions with these third parties beyond the role as suggested at Paragraph 2.2.3, to help co-ordinate an effective pre-application response.

2.1.4 - Providing a draft viability appraisal may not always be possible at pre-application stage.

2.2.1 - Requirement for clarity and formulaic approach re-iterated.

2.2.2: It may be beneficial for a dedicated Planning Obligations Officer (who has an in depth working knowledge of a proposal) to progress Section 106 contribution requirements.

In the bullet points in this paragraph, it is essential that there is reference to the need to ensure that development remains viable and deliverable.

2.2.3 - See 2.1.3

2.2.4 - The wording of this paragraph is misleading. Where a Section 106 agreement cannot be agreed by all parties and an applicant feels they have a justified case, they should be able to put their application before Committee with a unilateral undertaking in place. Re-iterates formulaic approach to reduce disagreements.

2.2.5 - In cases where these parties make unreasonable requests that effectively prevent development coming forward, the LPA must intervene to ensure that this circumstance is prevented. There should also be service level agreements in place to ensure that third parties act in an appropriate manner.

2.2.6 - Support the provision of Section 106 and Unilateral Undertaking templates, which should be incorporated as an Annex to the Developer Contributions SPD, this may include some example agreements to assist applicants.

2.3.1 - Timing and localised factors (such as proven local housing need, local circumstances) should also inform proposals and thus influence land value. All of these factors are variable and thus have the potential to influence viability. The SPD should promote proactive officer engagement with applicants over issues of viability.

2.4.1 - A viability review mechanism could be an important tool in progressing developments, however it must be capable of being applied promptly to changing external influences, for example market conditions.

2.4.3 - The methodology and triggers for viability review should be clearly defined as a minimum within the Section 106 agreement, but ideally within an annex to the Developer Contributions SPD to ensure it can be applied accurately, reasonably and fairly.

2.5.3 - Policy requirements must be the
principal determinant of developer contributions. All potential funding sources and funding application should be investigated at application stage and agreements reached at this time.

2.7.2 - Whilst monitoring costs will be influenced by the complexity of an agreement/development, monitoring costs should be undertaken at a published standardised
hourly rate, to ensure fairness.

2.7.5 - The report to the Area Committee should include where and when contributions have been spent and unspent contributions.