What is the developer contribution used for?

Showing comments and forms 1 to 5 of 5

Support

Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 3204

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter

Representation Summary:

Whilst supporting the principle of developer contributions, there is no mention of use for minimising Fire Risks, and creating restricted access points/protected No-Go zones, banning of dogs off the lead, physical methods of disrupting and discouraging Cat Predation, and of creating new Bye-Laws to assist in the enforcement.
Para 3.15; BDMC is shying away from insisting that all developers create SANG's, and also missing the opportunity to apply this retrospectively, eiher to those developments with current PP but not yet brought to market, or to existing homes developed over the past 20 years to be funded with a unique precept charge annually to assist in funding the strategy.
The mitigation strategy needs a Governance Structure that allows Parish Councils & authorised bodies ( Emergency services, Natural England, RSPB, Curlew Recovery partnership etc)

Full text:

Whilst supporting the principle of developer contributions, there is no mention of use for minimising Fire Risks, and creating restricted access points/protected No-Go zones, banning of dogs off the lead, physical methods of disrupting and discouraging Cat Predation, and of creating new Bye-Laws to assist in the enforcement.
Para 3.15; BDMC is shying away from insisting that all developers create SANG's, and also missing the opportunity to apply this retrospectively, eiher to those developments with current PP but not yet brought to market, or to existing homes developed over the past 20 years to be funded with a unique precept charge annually to assist in funding the strategy.
The mitigation strategy needs a Governance Structure that allows Parish Councils & authorised bodies ( Emergency services, Natural England, RSPB, Curlew Recovery partnership etc)

Object

Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 5213

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell

Representation Summary:

Whilst supporting the principle of developer contributions, there is no mention of use for minimising Fire Risks, and creating restricted access points/protected No-Go zones, banning of dogs off the lead, physical methods of disrupting and discouraging Cat Predation, and of creating new Bye-Laws to assist in the enforcement.
Para 3.15; BDMC is shying away from insisting that all developers create SANG's, and also missing the opportunity to apply this retrospectively, eiher to those developments with current PP but not yet brought to market, or to existing homes developed over the past 20 years to be funded with a unique precept charge annually to assist in funding the strategy.
The mitigation strategy needs a Governance Structure that allows Parish Councils & authorised bodies ( Emergency services, Natural England, RSPB, Curlew Recovery partnership etc)

Full text:

Whilst supporting the principle of developer contributions, there is no mention of use for minimising Fire Risks, and creating restricted access points/protected No-Go zones, banning of dogs off the lead, physical methods of disrupting and discouraging Cat Predation, and of creating new Bye-Laws to assist in the enforcement.
Para 3.15; BDMC is shying away from insisting that all developers create SANG's, and also missing the opportunity to apply this retrospectively, eiher to those developments with current PP but not yet brought to market, or to existing homes developed over the past 20 years to be funded with a unique precept charge annually to assist in funding the strategy.
The mitigation strategy needs a Governance Structure that allows Parish Councils & authorised bodies ( Emergency services, Natural England, RSPB, Curlew Recovery partnership etc)

Object

Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 5305

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell

Representation Summary:

Whilst supporting the principle of developer contributions, there is no mention of use for minimising Fire Risks, and creating restricted access points/protected No-Go zones, banning of dogs off the lead, physical methods of disrupting and discouraging Cat Predation, and of creating new Bye-Laws to assist in the enforcement.
Para 3.15; BDMC is shying away from insisting that all developers create SANG's, and also missing the opportunity to apply this retrospectively, eiher to those developments with current PP but not yet brought to market, or to existing homes developed over the past 20 years to be funded with a unique precept charge annually to assist in funding the strategy.
The mitigation strategy needs a Governance Structure that allows Parish Councils & authorised bodies ( Emergency services, Natural England, RSPB, Curlew Recovery partnership etc)

Full text:

Whilst supporting the principle of developer contributions, there is no mention of use for minimising Fire Risks, and creating restricted access points/protected No-Go zones, banning of dogs off the lead, physical methods of disrupting and discouraging Cat Predation, and of creating new Bye-Laws to assist in the enforcement.
Para 3.15; BDMC is shying away from insisting that all developers create SANG's, and also missing the opportunity to apply this retrospectively, eiher to those developments with current PP but not yet brought to market, or to existing homes developed over the past 20 years to be funded with a unique precept charge annually to assist in funding the strategy.
The mitigation strategy needs a Governance Structure that allows Parish Councils & authorised bodies ( Emergency services, Natural England, RSPB, Curlew Recovery partnership etc)

Object

Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 5666

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Nick Jones

Representation Summary:

I support developer contributions, but as experienced in the Sun Lane case, they are insufficient and most gets consumed by BMDC to use in their own way rather than benefitting the areas which have been adversely affected by the development. Funds are being used for political gain.

The mitigation strategy needs a governance structure with significant local input and in the case of Wharfe Valley, not dominated by those from over the moor!

Full text:

I support developer contributions, but as experienced in the Sun Lane case, they are insufficient and most gets consumed by BMDC to use in their own way rather than benefitting the areas which have been adversely affected by the development. As a result, developments in the Wharfe valley are being used politically to fund Bradford City and its Labour constituents. Is it a coincidence that the town most impacted, Burley has an MP who is of a different party and defeated the current leader of the Council when she tried to become an MP?

Para 3.15; BDMC is shying away from insisting that all developers create SANG's, and also missing the opportunity to apply this retrospectively, either to those developments with current PP but not yet brought to market, or to existing homes developed over the past 20 years to be funded with a unique precept charge annually to assist in funding the strategy.

The mitigation strategy needs a Governance Structure that allows Parish Councils & authorised bodies (Emergency services, Natural England, RSPB, Curlew Recovery partnership etc)

Object

Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document

Representation ID: 5869

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson

Representation Summary:

Why isn't BDMC insisting on a SANG being created? The Sun Lane development is enormous compared with the size of Burley-in-Wharfedale. It will destroy habitat of rare species such as Curlew and Lapwing birds. Surely the lack of a SANG is a glaring omission? Why doesn't the council stand up to the developer?

Full text:

Why isn't BDMC insisting on a SANG being created? The Sun Lane development is enormous compared with the size of Burley-in-Wharfedale. It will destroy habitat of rare species such as Curlew and Lapwing birds. Surely the lack of a SANG is a glaring omission? Why doesn't the council stand up to the developer?