Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Object

Representation ID: 8431

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

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

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: 8458

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

3.2 - Clarity should be provided in relation to the definition of 'larger sites'. Suggestion of 500+.

Object

Representation ID: 8459

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

4.2 - HCC Guide to Developer Contributions not yet final. Both County and District contributions to be considered when assessing development viability. Transition period suggested as cost not yet known to factor into land costs for schemes already well into the development pipeline.

4.2.2 - HCC should identify transport schemes for financial contributions, not developers.

Object

Representation ID: 8460

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

5.2 - A transitional approach should be had for smaller sites affordable housing provision to stop underdevelopment and sites of 9 units with low densities. There is no justification for rounding up to the nearest whole figure.

5.2.8-5.2.11 - No precise policy justification for higher affordable housing provision required where provided off-site.

5.2.35 - No reference in Local Plan to it being necessary to introduce rental caps below 80%.

5.2.42-5.2.44 - 65:35 split for affordable housing is a starting point for negotiation in the policy, wording of the SPD should reflect this.

5.2.65 - Affordable provision must be based on the actual development scheme, not an earlier 'up-to' figure.

Object

Representation ID: 8461

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

6.3.1 - Consider the content of conditions and obligations to ensure they are reasonable and enforceable, taking into account new properties will be sold on by developers.

Object

Representation ID: 8462

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

7.41-7.4.2 - What is meant by 'largest developments'? How will existing provision be factored into the calculation?Occupiers may be already be resident within the Health Authority area, so no additional burden. Contributions should not be sought absent of direct need for new provision arising from a development.

7.4.3 - Emphasising the tests of obligations.