Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Object

Representation ID: 8429

Received: 24/03/2020

Respondent: New Road (Ashbrook) Ltd

Agent: Miss Charlotte Bailey

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

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: 8449

Received: 24/03/2020

Respondent: New Road (Ashbrook) Ltd

Agent: Miss Charlotte Bailey

7.7.4 - Why are contributions sought by NHS. No clear evidence base for the calculation of contributions referred to at 7.4.2 which are not services provided for by local government or administered by local authorities.