The legal mechanism to secure developer contributions
Support
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 3249
Received: 22/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Bernard Poulter
I completely agree with the use of S106 legal agreements to raise the funding.
4.28: Acknowledges that CIL was innefective method of funding specific projects
4.29: Agree absolutrely that "payment of the required funds on the commencement of the development" using the section 56 definition of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 .
4.31: Agree with the insistence on using a Council Prepared "standardised unilateral Form" pursuant to section 106 of the act. Developers throw all sorts of reasons why this is unfair, unworkable, impossible to finance etc, but on this ONE THING, BDMC must remain firm.
4.36: NO!! an instalments policy negates all the good done by the the above paragraph. Disturbance to the SPA/SAC starts as soon as the first bulldozer arrives on site. To allow developers to delay paying for this upfront puts the burden back on the Council Tax Payers . This is markedly unjust.
I completely agree with the use of S106 legal agreements to raise the funding.
4.28: Acknowledges that CIL was innefective method of funding specific projects
4.29: Agree absolutrely that "payment of the required funds on the commencement of the development" using the section 56 definition of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 .
4.31: Agree with the insistence on using a Council Prepared "standardised unilateral Form" pursuant to section 106 of the act. Developers throw all sorts of reasons why this is unfair, unworkable, impossible to finance etc, but on this ONE THING, BDMC must remain firm.
4.36: NO!! an instalments policy negates all the good done by the the above paragraph. Disturbance to the SPA/SAC starts as soon as the first bulldozer arrives on site. To allow developers to delay paying for this upfront puts the burden back on the Council Tax Payers . This is markedly unjust.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5225
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Miss Teresa McDonell
I completely agree with the use of S106 legal agreements to raise the funding.
4.28: Acknowledges that CIL was ineffective method of funding specific projects
4.29: Agree absolutely that "payment of the required funds on the commencement of the development" using the section 56 definition of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 .
4.31: Agree with the insistence on using a Council Prepared "standardised unilateral Form" pursuant to section 106 of the act. Developers throw all sorts of reasons why this is unfair, unworkable, impossible to finance etc, but on this, BDMC must stand firm.
4.36: No: an instalments policy negates all the good done by the the above paragraph. Disturbance to the SPA/SAC starts as soon as the first bulldozer arrives on site. To allow developers to delay paying for this upfront puts the burden back on the Council Tax Payers . This is markedly unjust.
I completely agree with the use of S106 legal agreements to raise the funding.
4.28: Acknowledges that CIL was ineffective method of funding specific projects
4.29: Agree absolutely that "payment of the required funds on the commencement of the development" using the section 56 definition of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 .
4.31: Agree with the insistence on using a Council Prepared "standardised unilateral Form" pursuant to section 106 of the act. Developers throw all sorts of reasons why this is unfair, unworkable, impossible to finance etc, but on this, BDMC must stand firm.
4.36: No: an instalments policy negates all the good done by the the above paragraph. Disturbance to the SPA/SAC starts as soon as the first bulldozer arrives on site. To allow developers to delay paying for this upfront puts the burden back on the Council Tax Payers . This is markedly unjust.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5317
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Robin McDonell
I completely agree with the use of S106 legal agreements to raise the funding.
4.28: Acknowledges that CIL was ineffective method of funding specific projects
4.29: Agree that "payment of the required funds on the commencement of the development" using the section 56 definition of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 .
4.31: Agree with the insistence on using a Council Prepared "standardised unilateral Form" pursuant to section 106 of the act. Developers throw all sorts of reasons why this is unfair, unworkable, impossible to finance etc, but on this, BDMC must stand firm.
4.36: No - an instalments policy negates all the good done by the the above paragraph. Disturbance to the SPA/SAC starts as soon as the first bulldozer arrives on site. To allow developers to delay paying for this upfront puts the burden back on the Council Tax Payers . This is markedly unjust.
I completely agree with the use of S106 legal agreements to raise the funding.
4.28: Acknowledges that CIL was ineffective method of funding specific projects
4.29: Agree that "payment of the required funds on the commencement of the development" using the section 56 definition of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 .
4.31: Agree with the insistence on using a Council Prepared "standardised unilateral Form" pursuant to section 106 of the act. Developers throw all sorts of reasons why this is unfair, unworkable, impossible to finance etc, but on this, BDMC must stand firm.
4.36: No - an instalments policy negates all the good done by the the above paragraph. Disturbance to the SPA/SAC starts as soon as the first bulldozer arrives on site. To allow developers to delay paying for this upfront puts the burden back on the Council Tax Payers . This is markedly unjust.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5555
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr & Mrs A & J Hardy
Agent: SSA Planning Limited
We consider that the lack of proportional connection between the development from which contributions will be sought, the impacts sought to be mitigated and the measures intended to achieve that, is contrary to the national legal and policy tests for planning agreements and to Core Strategy policy ID3. In particular, account ought to be taken of existing funding, the real likelihood and scale of each impact and the effect that any requirement for contributions will have on the viability of businesses undertaking development during a period of extreme economic difficulty.
We consider that the lack of proportional connection between the development from which contributions will be sought, the impacts sought to be mitigated and the measures intended to achieve that, is contrary to the national legal and policy tests for planning agreements and to Core Strategy policy ID3. In particular, account ought to be taken of existing funding, the real likelihood and scale of each impact and the effect that any requirement for contributions will have on the viability of businesses undertaking development during a period of extreme economic difficulty.
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5691
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Nick Jones
Agree with the use of S106 legal agreements to raise the funding.
4.28: Acknowledges that CIL was ineffective method of funding specific projects
4.29: Agree that "payment of the required funds on the commencement of the development" using the section 56 definition of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 .
4.31: Agree with the insistence on using a Council Prepared "standardised unilateral Form" pursuant to section 106 of the act. Developers throw all sorts of reasons why this is unfair, unworkable, impossible to finance etc, but on this ONE THING, BDMC must remain firm.
4.36: NO!! An instalments policy negates all the good done by the the above paragraph. Disturbance to the SPA/SAC starts as soon as the first bulldozer arrives on site. To allow developers to delay paying for this upfront puts the burden back on the Council Tax Payers . This is markedly unjust.
Agree with the use of S106 legal agreements to raise the funding.
4.28: Acknowledges that CIL was ineffective method of funding specific projects
4.29: Agree that "payment of the required funds on the commencement of the development" using the section 56 definition of the Town & country Planning Act 1990 .
4.31: Agree with the insistence on using a Council Prepared "standardised unilateral Form" pursuant to section 106 of the act. Developers throw all sorts of reasons why this is unfair, unworkable, impossible to finance etc, but on this ONE THING, BDMC must remain firm.
4.36: NO!! An instalments policy negates all the good done by the the above paragraph. Disturbance to the SPA/SAC starts as soon as the first bulldozer arrives on site. To allow developers to delay paying for this upfront puts the burden back on the Council Tax Payers . This is markedly unjust.
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)
Object
Draft South Pennine Moors SPA/SAC Planning Framework Supplementary Planning Document
Representation ID: 5893
Received: 24/03/2021
Respondent: Mr Roger Wilson
4.28 seems to accept the CIL is a poor way of trying to fund mitigation work. Why is it still being suggested then?
4.29 suggests the developer will have to pay at the start of work. This should most definitely happen. The council should stand-up to the developer when they try to renege.
4.36 is a disaster. There should not be any question of an instalment system. This would completely undermine the use of the Standardised Unilateral Form!
4.28 seems to accept the CIL is a poor way of trying to fund mitigation work. Why is it still being suggested then?
4.29 suggests the developer will have to pay at the start of work. This should most definitely happen. The council should stand-up to the developer when they try to renege.
4.36 is a disaster. There should not be any question of an instalment system. This would completely undermine the use of the Standardised Unilateral Form!