Planning Obligations SPD

Search Representations

Results for Gladman Developments search

New search New search

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 12: Do you have any other comments about Making an Application?

Representation ID: 621

Received: 24/09/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

It would be beneficial if the SPD contained an Appendix that set out a model legal agreement in template form that could be used as a guide to preparing suitable S106 agreements. This would likely save time and resources later on in the planning process.

Full text:

It would be beneficial if the SPD contained an Appendix that set out a model legal agreement in template form that could be used as a guide to preparing suitable S106 agreements. This would likely save time and resources later on in the planning process.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 15: Do you have any comments to make about Finalising the S106 Agreement?

Representation ID: 622

Received: 24/09/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

It should also be recognised that many developers can prepare S106 agreements to support sites in a more timely and efficient manner which may assist the Local Planning Authority (LPA) in terms cost and resource savings. This would of course be done in conjunction with the Council

Full text:

It should also be recognised that many developers can prepare S106 agreements to support sites in a more timely and efficient manner which may assist the Local Planning Authority (LPA) in terms cost and resource savings. This would of course be done in conjunction with the Council

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 21: Do you have any comments on thresholds for viability contributions

Representation ID: 623

Received: 24/09/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

In terms of thresholds for planning obligations, it is important to consider development viability and development finance and cash flow across the whole development cycle of site delivery.

Full text:

In terms of thresholds for planning obligations, it is important to consider development viability and development finance and cash flow across the whole development cycle of site delivery. Significant requirements for up-front payment upon commencement or upon completion of the first dwelling can often cause significant problems for site delivery, sometimes making a site unviable and likely to stall. It is essential to allow the developer some return from dwelling sales before large contributions are requested. Subsequent payments should be spread equally across the development phases to allow flexibility in development finance and cash flow. This will ensure that developments remain viable across their delivery timeframe, do not stall and are delivered expeditiously contributing to the Council's five year housing land supply

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 25: Do you have any comments on legal, other costs and management of the obligation?

Representation ID: 624

Received: 24/09/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

The legality of the Council charging monitoring fees as proposed in Section 4.9.7 is in question.

Full text:

The legality of the Council charging monitoring fees as proposed in Section 4.9.7 is in question. The High Court case of Oxfordshire County Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government and Others (2015) found that such costs were unlawful and were struck out.
Consequently, flat rate monitoring fees cannot be applied. The monitoring fees must be reflective of an assessment of work the Council will be required to undertake to administer, monitor and enforce agreed obligations in order to fulfil the legal tests legislated within CIL Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). This should clearly be stated in Section 4.9.7.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 26: Do you have comments on bonds and enforcement action?

Representation ID: 625

Received: 24/09/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

The use of bonds is also unnecessary as the Council has enforcement powers which can be enacted against developers who default on payments.

Full text:

The use of bonds is also unnecessary as the Council has enforcement powers which can be enacted against developers who default on payments.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 27: What are your views on Harborough's affordable housing requirements in respect of the percentage sought and the tenure mix. Does this approach meet the housing needs of Harborough residen

Representation ID: 626

Received: 24/09/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

Para 6.2.4 should be updated to reflect current legal judgements. Housing mix should be flexible to ensure viability. Para 6.2.2 should not require greater affordable housing than current policy.

Full text:

In terms of paragraph 6.2.4 the recent High Court case West Berkshire District Council / Reading Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2015) EWHC2222 removed the tools by which this policy was brought into effect and the amended paragraph was removed from the PPG. This should therefore be reflected in the Planning Obligations SPD.

In terms of the mix of housing required on site, Gladman point out that flexibility is essential to ensure that the right mix of housing is provided in relation to current needs and to ensure that schemes remain viable. A over-reliance on small units in a particular scheme can have a significant impact on development viability which may jeopardise sites coming forward.

Gladman support the recognition of the need to provide specialist accommodation, particularly for the elderly. Harborough District Council has an aging population and specialist accommodation is required to meet this section of the community's needs.

Gladman object to paragraph 6.2.2 which states that a greater level of affordable housing may be sought on sites if any subsequent local housing needs assessment identifies exceptional housing needs. In these circumstances, the production of a new needs assessment which showed an increase in the need for affordable housing would trigger the need to review to the Local Plan in part or as a whole dependent on other evidence. To simply introduce a higher percentage through an evidence based document would be unjustified.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 30: Do you have any comments to make about Community Facilities Contributions

Representation ID: 627

Received: 24/09/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

Requests for community facilities should be justified with evidence and meet the CIL Regs.

Full text:

In terms of seeking contributions to the types of infrastructure set out in Section 7 (Community Facilities) and Section 10 (Community Safety) these must be supported by evidence and be directly related to the development, necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development in order to comply with the CIL Regulations.

In addition, with reference to Paragraph 11 of the Planning Inspectorate Good Practice Advice Note 16, the following evidence is needed to support the request for contributions made under S106 agreements:
a. The relevant development plan policy and relevant sections of any SPD or SPG;
b. Quantified evidence of the additional demands on facilities or infrastructure which are likely to arise from the proposed development;
c. Details of existing facilities or infrastructure and up to date, quantified evidence of the extent to which they are able or unable to meet those additional demands;
d. The methodology for calculating any financial contribution which is shown to be necessary to improve existing facilities or infrastructure, or provide new facilities or infrastructure, to meet the additional demands; and,
e. Details of the facilities or infrastructure on which any financial contribution will be spent.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 31: Do you have any comments about Open Spaces Sport and Recreation Contributions

Representation ID: 628

Received: 24/09/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

It should be recognised in Section 8 that Management Companies set up by developers to manage on site open space provision is a suitable and effective approach as opposed to the transfer of the open space to another party accompanied with a maintenance contribution.

Full text:

It should be recognised in Section 8 that Management Companies set up by developers to manage on site open space provision is a suitable and effective approach as opposed to the transfer of the open space to another party accompanied with a maintenance contribution.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 33: D you have any comment to make about Community Safety Contributions?

Representation ID: 629

Received: 24/09/2015

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Gladman Developments

Representation Summary:

Requests for Community Safety contributions should be justified with evidence and be compliant with the CIL regulations.

Full text:

In terms of seeking contributions to the types of infrastructure set out in Section 7 (Community Facilities) and Section 10 (Community Safety) these must be supported by evidence and be directly related to the development, necessary to make the proposal acceptable in planning terms and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development in order to comply with the CIL Regulations.

In addition, with reference to Paragraph 11 of the Planning Inspectorate Good Practice Advice Note 16, the following evidence is needed to support the request for contributions made under S106 agreements:
a. The relevant development plan policy and relevant sections of any SPD or SPG;
b. Quantified evidence of the additional demands on facilities or infrastructure which are likely to arise from the proposed development;
c. Details of existing facilities or infrastructure and up to date, quantified evidence of the extent to which they are able or unable to meet those additional demands;
d. The methodology for calculating any financial contribution which is shown to be necessary to improve existing facilities or infrastructure, or provide new facilities or infrastructure, to meet the additional demands; and,
e. Details of the facilities or infrastructure on which any financial contribution will be spent.

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