Q142: Do you agree with the

Object

Representation ID: 3235

Received: 22/03/2021

Respondent: Ms Heather Jones

I don't agree with this approach because it has been to shown to fail and is not an effective way of getting developer contributions to infrastructure.

A case in point is the recently approved Sun Lane development at Burley in Wharfedale. Early planning submissions from the developer CEG indicated the developer would build a new primary school at the site. Over time and subsequent submissions, this contribution was watered down to the point where CEG will only make available, for ten years, a piece of land for someone else (probably the council using taxpayers money) to build a school. At the end of ten year period, the developer gets the piece of land back. This is a shockingly bad deal for Bradford taxpayers. How on earth did Bradford's planning officers let it slip through?

Comment

Representation ID: 15532

Received: 19/03/2021

Respondent: Highways England (Yorkshire & North East Team)

It is considered by CH2M that the proposals within Policy ID2 need to be linked to the IDP, to ensure that the identified infrastructure is funded and can be delivered over the course of the Plan period. It is further considered that the approach to charging developers through the Community Infrastructure Levey Charging Schedule is
an appropriate mechanism.

Object

Representation ID: 18403

Received: 24/03/2021

Respondent: Johnson Mowat

Johnson Mowat objects to the draft Appendix 13 ‘Planning Obligation Formulas’ as this appears to be potentially incomplete and lacking of satisfactory justification or evidence. Indeed, the third paragraph indicates that this appendix ‘will be further developed and form part of the Local Plan’.

We are therefore concerned that it is not only premature to consult on its content, but also that items to be added or amended in future may have a material effect on the deliverability and viability of development.