2. Process, Procedure & Management

Object

Representation ID: 8444

Received: 17/03/2020

Respondent: Hertfordshire Constabulary - Architectural Liaison

2.1.3 ….This may include, but is not limited to, discussions with: Registered Providers, Hertfordshire County Council, the PCC on behalf of Hertfordshire Constabulary, utility providers and the NHS.

It is important that the police service is specifically mentioned. The PCC operates a significant budget on behalf of Hertfordshire communities, involving both direct
operational police infrastructure as required by the Chief Constable; and indirect services with other providers working on crime prevention, victim support, and restorative justice. 2.1.3 does not reasonably reflect the scale of Hertfordshire work for which the PCC is responsible.

Object

Representation ID: 8448

Received: 24/03/2020

Respondent: New Road (Ashbrook) Ltd

Agent: Miss Charlotte Bailey

2.1.2 - LPA should provide figures for draft HoT in pre-app, not developers. The Council should not expect developer to fund every aspect of the Council's operation.

2.1.3 - The Council cannot require pre-application consultation with other parties, in some cases, there is no mechanism to do so.

2.1.4 - Financial viability is not a land use issue.

2.2.3 - Contradicts 2.1.3. District is co-ordinating, should discourage pre-app with other authorities to establish obligations.

2.2.5 - Requirements are likely to prove impractical and will lead to LPA failing to meet its performance targets.

2.3.5 - Question whether viability data should be public.

2.5.4 - On prioritising affordable housing provision, contributions sought by HCC represent priority matters to make development acceptable.

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.

Object

Representation ID: 8457

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

2.3 - Viability assumptions should be realistic and flexible. Changing circumstances since a plan has been introduced can affect viability.

2.4 - Inappropriate to use a review mechanism on small and medium sized developments. It would create uncertainty and endanger site deliverability.

2.5.2 - Developer contribution requirements should be sought in a fair and realistic manner, to take full account of individual site circumstances.

Object

Representation ID: 8463

Received: 25/03/2020

Respondent: Bloor Homes South Midlands

Agent: White Peak Planning

2.2.5 - Delays in S106 from third party signatories.

2.1.2 - Resolve typographical errors and clarify. Remove 'or any other form of development for which an obligation may be expected on a fair reading of this guidance' as it is not specific enough.

2.1.3 - Add 'These discussions will be co-ordinated by the NHDC pre-application case officer' for clarity and consistency.

2.2.2 - Insert 'NHDC' before 'case officer'. Bullet point 3 is a partial replication of bullet point 2, avoid replication by inserting 'applications are dealt with in a fair, balanced and consistent way having regard to all relevant policy requirements'.

Object

Representation ID: 8470

Received: 01/04/2020

Respondent: Hertfordshire County Council - Environment & Infrastructure Department

2.2.8 – this paragraph could be clearer that the solicitor’s undertaking is to cover the County Council’s costs. Please amend as follows inserting the bold text; “Applicants should also be aware that a solicitor’s undertaking to cover the County Council’s legal costs for negotiating and checking of the legal agreement as well as proof of title will be required by HCC where applicable”

2.6.1 – this paragraph is fine in principle but refers to the Councils legal costs being covered. I’m not sure if there is a grammatical error here and it should be “Council’s” and they are referring to NHDC’s costs only or if they’re referring to plural Councils (i.e. the County and the District). For the avoidance of doubt this section should make it clear that the County Council’s legal fees will also be payable.

Object

Representation ID: 8471

Received: 25/03/2020

Respondent: Bellcross Homes and Gallagher Developments Ltd

Agent: Rapleys LLP

2.1.3 - will registered providers be able to provide a meaningful view a this stage?

2.1.4 - In the absence of a fixed scheme, it will not be possible to provide a meaningful viability appraisal.

2.2.5 - Would lead to significant legal and consultant costs ahead of planning committee. Flexibility should be applied in he second sentence of the paragraph.

2.8.1 - Needs to be subject to trigger wording - Commute sums will be indexed linked from exchange to either the payment due date, or if later, when the sum is paid.