Draft Planning Obligations SPD

Significant number of jobs through in commuting as a planned strategy whilst developers have a responsibility to contribute, they do not have a responsibility to compensate for the authorities strategy shortcomings.

Suggest new text to the end of the paragraph to read "...provided they meet the tests set out in the Regulations.

The tests are:

* necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
* directly related to the development; and
* fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.

1.1.1
Significant number of jobs through in commuting as a planned strategy whilst developers have a responsibility to contribute, they do not have a responsibility to compensate for the authorities strategy shortcomings.

Suggest new text to the end of the paragraph to read "...provided they meet the tests set out in the Regulations.

The tests are:

* necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms
* directly related to the development; and
* fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.


1.1.5
As a general point the SPD is lengthy in nature and uses a significant amount of jargon and complex terms without definitions or a glossary. If the authority are aiming the document at local residents, developers and landowners as stated in paragraph 1.1.5 then it should be less technical and more user friendly in nature. It is suggested that the document should be a technical tool and should be aimed at developers and consultants as those likely to submit planning applications and a less technical summary document be produced for the public and interested parties.

1.3.1
Savills welcome the production of the SPD alongside the CIL charging schedule in general. CCC need to ensure that reps made against the CIL charging Schedule are adequately considered in relation to this document and that amendments are made accordingly as part of a holistic process.

Savills consider that the latest amendments to the CIL regulations should be referred to in this section alongside other legislation and in turn fully considered as part of the production of this document.

Savills has submitted separate representations as to the suitability of the CIL charging schedule and expects that these are considered in the context of any revised SPD document.

Savills welcome the acknowledgement of planning balance and acceptance of uniqueness in individual cases.

Savills welcome the condition first strategy, but request that this goes further to ensure that where conditions are imposed that they are adequately considered and worded such that they do not adversely impact upon the timeframes and costs of development. (e.g. by using a significant number of "prior to commencement" conditions).

In the second bullet point concerning the function of planning obligations it is important to acknowledge that a developer should only be asked to compensate as a result of the impact of that particular development - it is not appropriate to seek obligations from a developer to address existing problems or to resolve matters that have been created by others. Consequently we suggest the second bullet point be amended to read :

"Securing a contribution from a developer to compensate or re-provide for loss or damage created by that particular development ...."

3.5.2
Savills is concerned by the limited reference to the relationship between the LPA and the Highways Authority. As the LPA Savills consider that the CCC should be cultivating mutually supportive relationships with the Highways Authority , not simply absolving themselves of responsibility. Savills would welcome additional comment in regards to this in future documentation, for instance by referring to the Duty to Cooperate as set out in the Localism Act 2011.

3.6.2
Savills request that, in the interests of clarity, the last sentence of this paragraph is amended to reflect that planning obligations can only be negotiated for items directly necessary for the purposes of that development. Additionally we have concerns about the intention behind this text. We appreciate that the Reg 123 list can change over time where the local planning authority can add an infrastructure project to where CiL funds could be targeted and could remove one where it had been completed. However it is inappropriate to remove projects in order to those to be the subject of separate obligation and thus attract more funds. That is totally unacceptable.

3.7.1
Savills has made separate representations on this table as part of the CIL Charging Schedule and therefore we seek changes to be made to the CIL requirements in accordance with such representations and these to be carried through into future versions of this document.

In addition however, a number of the items mentioned within the table are considered unreasonable. Public Art should not be referenced. The NPPG (2014) specifically refers to public art as

"clearly not necessary to make a development acceptable in planning terms" (NPPG Ref ID:23b-004-20140306).

It is therefore strongly advise that the City Council should remove reference to Public Art in Table 1. Public art, whilst possibly desirable, cannot be said to meet the tests in CIL Regulation 122 and cannot therefore be funded through S106.

The table includes city wide public art as being funded through CIL. Public art does not fall within the statutory definition of infrastructure in S216 of the Planning Act 2008 and therefore can not be funded through CIL. Given the identified infrastructure deficit, we also consider it would be bizarre to use scarce funds to deliver public art when other more important infrastructure items meeting the tests should be more of a priority

The document simply states which items fall within which category (Obligations/ Conditions or CIL), but does not give any indication of how this will be achieved in practice. In 1.1.2 the purpose of the document is set out as to clearly set out the Council's approach, policies and procedures. It is not considered that due weight has been given to the approach and procedures in this section to avoid double counting and overlap contrary to Regulation 122 of the CIL regulations and the NPPF (para 204).