1. Introduction

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Support

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8359

Received: 20/03/2020

Respondent: Sport England - East Region

Representation:

Support is offered for the approach to cross boundary developer contributions which is considered pertinent in North Hertfordshire in view of some of the emerging Local Plan’s strategic residential site allocations being located in close proximity to the boundary of other local authorities which may place greater pressure on infrastructure in the adjoining local authority than in North Hertfordshire.

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8360

Received: 20/03/2020

Respondent: Sport England - East Region

Representation:

This section should provide clarity on what the approach will be where the eventual recipient of a financial contribution will be a community body such as a school or a sports club. There is also a potential concern about setting a limit of £150,000 for financial contributions as this could potentially result in community bodies and town/parish councils having to regularly be engaged in the preparation of section 106 agreements which may not be desirable for such bodies and may not be consistent with the objective of efficiently completing section 106 agreements.

Support

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8425

Received: 26/03/2020

Respondent: Historic England

Representation:

Thank you for consulting us on the Strategic Environmental Assessment Screening Determination Statement for the North Hertfordshire District Council Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document. Whilst we do not have any specific comments at this stage, we thank you for making us aware of the document, and can advise that we will be interested in receiving subsequent consultations on this matter.

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8426

Received: 24/03/2020

Respondent: Barkway Parish Council

Representation:

1.11.1 - BK3 is omitted from strategic sites for which there are detailed policies

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8427

Received: 17/03/2020

Respondent: Hertfordshire Constabulary - Architectural Liaison

Representation:

1.9.1 …..Hertfordshire County Council, the NHS, The Police and Crime Commissioner for Hertfordshire, and local Parish….

The PCC is the only other body able to seek a precept from the Council Tax. The reason for this is the cost and coverage of the service. The role of the PCC’s activities are fundamental to the well – being of communities. It is essential that developers realise that additional development comes at a cost, which may be significant. By not making reference to the PCC in this paragraph, the ability to recover necessary costs through developer contributions, may be open to legal challenge.

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8428

Received: 25/03/2020

Respondent: Countryside Properties (UK) Ltd

Agent: Barker Parry Town Planning

Representation:

The Draft SPD provides little clarity regardng the nature of developer contributions that may be sought. This may affect viability and delivery as unforeseen and unjustified contributions are sought.

Paragraph 1.3.4 - The lack of formulaic approach is unjustified considering figures arising from the viability evidence.

PPG states "Policies for planning obligations should be set out in plans and examined in public. Policy requirements should be clear so that they can be accurately accounted for in the price paid for land."

Suggestion made that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan provides an evidence base for infrastructure need and cost. If the plan is adopted, no reason for SPD could not adopt a basic formulaic approach. Other SPDs set out thresholds and methods of calculating contributions.

References to 'correct at the time of writing' need clarification.

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8429

Received: 24/03/2020

Respondent: New Road (Ashbrook) Ltd

Agent: Miss Charlotte Bailey

Representation:

1.9 - Greater clarity required on relationship with other authority programmes, such as HCC toolkit.

1.9.2 - Why £150,000? Why is the figure greater for NHS in 7.4.4.

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8430

Received: 24/03/2020

Respondent: Letchworth Garden City Heritage Foundation

Agent: Planning Matters

Representation:

1.3.4 - The document fails to address the relationship of developer contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and request that greater clarity is given on the Council’s approach concerning CIL and whether this will be introduced.

We suggest that as the Developer Contributions SPD is subject to public consultation there is an opportunity to include formulaic calculations.

In its current form, the Developer Contributions SPD presents possible future inconsistency, which takes away a degree of certainty.

1.3.5 - Where this complies with the fairness requirements stated at Paragraph 1.3.3 and we recommend that a reference or definition should be provided within the text for the need to ensure pooling contributions is fair.

1.9.2 - NHDC should be the central body charged with administering S106 monies to third parties and should be responsible for ensuring compliance with S106 clauses stating when and how the funds will be used by and secure for their return, after an agreed period of time,
where they are not (in accordance with Planning Policy Guidance Planning Obligations, Paragraph 021).

There is no reference in the document to the requirement for parties to payback unspent planning obligations (Planning Policy Guidance: Planning Obligations, Paragraph 021).

Furthermore, we would expect that the Heritage Foundation to be one of the organisations who could be a party to S106.

1.10.1 - We request that there should be greater clarity when the Infrastructure Development Plan will be updated, with a timetable.

1.11.2 - The text is misleading and requires better explanation. It is essential that there is clarity for planning obligations on strategic sites, such as LG1, without this these sites will be delayed or not come forward.

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8431

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Representation:

1.5.4 - The SPD should only be adopted upon or after adoption of ELP.

1.6.4 - We would emphasise that there is no scope for developers with existing S106 agreements being asked to make CIL payments as well.

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8432

Received: 25/03/2020

Respondent: The Crown Estate

Agent: Savills

Representation:

Concur with Bloor Homes representation

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8433

Received: 25/03/2020

Respondent: Bloor Homes South Midlands

Agent: White Peak Planning

Representation:

1.9.2 - Third party signatories for contributions in excess of £150,000 will cause delays to permissions. Suggests deletion of paragraph.

1.11 - Add subject to Reg 122(2) of CIL regs to guide and moderate requests for contributions. Remove final paragraph as not specific enough to add value.

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8437

Received: 01/04/2020

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council - Environment & Infrastructure Department

Representation:

1 - Please change the URL in footnote to HCC Developer Infrastructure Contributions.

1.6.4 - Welcomes CIL.

1.9.2 - Highways & HCC wish to be signatories to all S106 agreements.

Flowchart on the final page – the penultimate box isn’t quite right and needs amending. It says “positive recommendations will be presented to the Planning Control Committee only following the completion of an agreed S106 Obligation document by all parties (not signed)…”. In legal terms, a completed document means the document has been dated. This can’t be done until after Committee (for obvious reasons). I think this is perhaps meant to refer to an agreed form s106 rather than a completed s106. Please therefore amend this to reflect.

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 8438

Received: 25/03/2020

Respondent: Bellcross Homes and Gallagher Developments Ltd

Agent: Rapleys LLP

Representation:

1.5.4 - SPD should not be considered for adoption ahead of the ELP. Substantial delay should be clarified. SPD should confirm a case by case basis is adopted to the applicability of the current SPD and any HCC documents as and when they are adopted.

1.9.2 - S106 is not a contractual agreement between the applicants and third parites. No statutory basis for third parties, such as the NHS, to be signatories to a S106 agreement. Suggests deletion

1.11.2 - Re-wording suggested to 'The strategic sites will need to address any specific contribution requirements set out in their individual policies, other relevant policies in the plan, and in this document.