Planning Obligations SPD

Search Representations

Results for Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited search

New search New search

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 8: Do you have any comments to make on National Policy and Guidance?

Representation ID: 723

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

2.1 National guidance has changed following the recent Planning Court decision (West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v DCLG [2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin)). The paragraph must be corrected.

Full text:

2.1 National guidance has changed following the recent Planning Court decision (West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v DCLG [2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin)). The paragraph must be corrected.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

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

Representation ID: 724

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 4.4.6 should refer to Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations ("the CIL Regs") and the Council should make it clear that it will make available up to date information on the number of obligations entered into since 6 April 2010 for specific projects or types of infrastructure.
Question 12 and Paragraph 4.4.7: Typographical error; should be reference to paragraph 4.9.5.

Full text:

Paragraph 4.4.6 should refer to Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations ("the CIL Regs") and the Council should make it clear that it will make available up to date information on the number of obligations entered into since 6 April 2010 for specific projects or types of infrastructure.
Question 12 and Paragraph 4.4.7: Typographical error; should be reference to paragraph 4.9.5.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 13: Would a model legal agreement template be useful?

Representation ID: 725

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

A template s106 would be useful and should serve to reduce delay.

Full text:

A template s106 would be useful and should serve to reduce delay.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 14: Do you have any comments about Determining Applications and appropriate Obligations?

Representation ID: 726

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 4.5.1: Typographical error; should be reference to paragraph 4.4.4.
Paragraph 4.5.2: Planning applications should only be determined once the s106 Agreement has been completed rather than detailed draft Heads of Terms agreed. Agreeing Heads of Terms, including timings of payment, prior to a resolution to grant subject to a s106 Agreement appears onerous as that is a matter which can properly follow such resolution.

Full text:

Paragraph 4.5.1: Typographical error; should be reference to paragraph 4.4.4.
Paragraph 4.5.2: Planning applications should only be determined once the s106 Agreement has been completed rather than detailed draft Heads of Terms agreed. Agreeing Heads of Terms, including timings of payment, prior to a resolution to grant subject to a s106 Agreement appears onerous as that is a matter which can properly follow such resolution.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

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

Representation ID: 727

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 4.6.1:Reference to "any other interested party" could be confusing and may provide a legitimate expectation that third parties, including members of the public, have a right to take part in discussions concerning the drafting of the s106. This would be better drafted as "any other party to the Agreement".
Paragraphs 4.6.4/4.6.5: We would query the fact that the members are notified of the final draft Agreement before execution. Does this mean that Members can influence whether the final Agreement can be executed? Serious concerns would be raised with regard to potential delays if Members could influence completion of agreed drafts.

Full text:

Paragraph 4.6.1:Reference to "any other interested party" could be confusing and may provide a legitimate expectation that third parties, including members of the public, have a right to take part in discussions concerning the drafting of the s106. This would be better drafted as "any other party to the Agreement".
Paragraphs 4.6.4/4.6.5: We would query the fact that the members are notified of the final draft Agreement before execution. Does this mean that Members can influence whether the final Agreement can be executed? Serious concerns would be raised with regard to potential delays if Members could influence completion of agreed drafts.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 17: Do you have any comments about monitoring planning obligations?

Representation ID: 728

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

Monitoring is considered necessary although caution must be exercised with regard to its funding. Further detail is set out in relation to Q25

Full text:

Monitoring is considered necessary although caution must be exercised with regard to its funding. Further detail is set out in relation to Q25

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 19: Do you have any comments on pooling?

Representation ID: 729

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

The restriction on pooling may cause problems for standard charges, especially where pre-2015 obligations are loosely worded. However, this may be more a matter of proper definition with regard to where contributions are to be expended and more accuracy with regard to the specific project is welcomed.

Full text:

The restriction on pooling may cause problems for standard charges, especially where pre-2015 obligations are loosely worded. However, this may be more a matter of proper definition with regard to where contributions are to be expended and more accuracy with regard to the specific project is welcomed.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 20: Do you have any comments on holding and spending of contributions?

Representation ID: 730

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

An initial timeframe for spending contributions, for example 5 years from receipt of payment, would be useful in the interests of certainty and transparency.

Full text:

An initial timeframe for spending contributions, for example 5 years from receipt of payment, would be useful in the interests of certainty and transparency.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

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

Representation ID: 731

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

13.1 The text should make clear that the thresholds relate to net increase in development, for example, where existing units are replaced with a greater number of units only the difference should be chargeable.

Full text:

13.1 The text should make clear that the thresholds relate to net increase in development, for example, where existing units are replaced with a greater number of units only the difference should be chargeable.

Comment

Planning Obligations SPD

Question 22: Do you think the right balance is achieved between market reality and planning objectives? and Harborough's approach to viability generally?

Representation ID: 732

Received: 30/09/2015

Respondent: Hazelton Homes (Midlands) Limited

Agent: Marrons Shakespeares

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 4.9.5: Whilst it is necessary to ensure any submitted viability assessment is substantiated, for smaller schemes the costs of the Council's independent assessment can be onerous and diminish viability. The Council should consider a small site exception to this requirement by bearing its own costs in relation to the exercise or by relying on the evidence submitted by the applicant if such information is undertaken by an appropriately qualified and experienced expert.
Paragraph 4.9.5.6 The approach to flexibility for affordable housing is appropriate although it would be appropriate to make clear that commuted sums may be an option.

Full text:

Paragraph 4.9.5: Whilst it is necessary to ensure any submitted viability assessment is substantiated, for smaller schemes the costs of the Council's independent assessment can be onerous and diminish viability. The Council should consider a small site exception to this requirement by bearing its own costs in relation to the exercise or by relying on the evidence submitted by the applicant if such information is undertaken by an appropriately qualified and experienced expert.
Paragraph 4.9.5.6 The approach to flexibility for affordable housing is appropriate although it would be appropriate to make clear that commuted sums may be an option.

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