Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

Search Representations

Results for Osprey Homes Ltd search

New search New search

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

1. Introduction

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

2. Process, Procedure & Management

Representation ID: 8457

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Representation:

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

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

3. Economy and Town Centres

Representation ID: 8458

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Representation:

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

Object

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

4. Transport

Representation ID: 8459

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Representation:

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

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

5. Housing

Representation ID: 8460

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Representation:

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

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

6. Design

Representation ID: 8461

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Representation:

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

Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document

7. Healthy Communities

Representation ID: 8462

Received: 23/03/2020

Respondent: Osprey Homes Ltd

Agent: JB Planning Associates

Representation:

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.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.