Support
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5826
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: SHMS
Support. CIL is not delivering the funding forecasted. However consider any development in the 0-7km zone should be a last resort after development in towns and city on pdl sites. Concern that the headroom(profit margin) identified in the CIL viability appraisal and consultation, will allow for an additional S106 cost and developers could seek to overide this in a site specific viability appraisal. Any needed funding for mitigation should be provided up front or in early stages of development to ensure mitigation measures are delivered in a timely manner (e.g. before specific site occupations) Also suggests developers are encouraged to contribute by incorporation of defensive hedgerows in preference to close boarding fencing, protect and supplement existing trees ( 1 fruit per garden minimum)
Support. CIL is not delivering the funding forecasted. However consider any development in the 0-7km zone should be a last resort after development in towns and city on pdl sites. Concern that the headroom(profit margin) identified in the CIL viability appraisal and consultation, will allow for an additional S106 cost and developers could seek to overide this in a site specific viability appraisal. Any needed funding for mitigation should be provided up front or in early stages of development to ensure mitigation measures are delivered in a timely manner (e.g. before specific site occupations) Also suggests developers are encouraged to contribute by incorporation of defensive hedgerows in preference to close boarding fencing, protect and supplement existing trees ( 1 fruit per garden minimum)