Draft Planning Obligations SPD
Search representations
Results for Savills search
New searchObject
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
6.4.2
Representation ID: 28525
Received: 11/07/2014
Respondent: Savills
Agent: Savills
Savills consider that care should be taken to ensure that developers are not unduly impacted by obligations in regards to waste and that obligations are reasonable and fair.
Savills consider that care should be taken to ensure that developers are not unduly impacted by obligations in regards to waste and that obligations are reasonable and fair.
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
10.1.1
Representation ID: 28526
Received: 11/07/2014
Respondent: Savills
Agent: Savills
Savills is concerned that CCC do not appear to have fully addressed the potential burden imposed on developers as part of this section. Existing site conditions, affordable housing requirements, demolition, site specific constraints such as contamination, noise mitigation, air quality, protected trees, historic environment considerations and other factors such as space standards and detailed design considerations are not noted within this section. It is imperative for the delivery of the objectives of the plan that the Council fully assess the cumulative impact of the obligations on the developer.
Savills is concerned that CCC do not appear to have fully addressed the potential burden imposed on developers as part of this section. Existing site conditions, affordable housing requirements, demolition, site specific constraints such as contamination, noise mitigation, air quality, protected trees, historic environment considerations and other factors such as space standards and detailed design considerations are not noted within this section. It is imperative for the delivery of the objectives of the plan that the Council fully assess the cumulative impact of the obligations on the developer.
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
7.1.1
Representation ID: 28527
Received: 11/07/2014
Respondent: Savills
Agent: Savills
Section 7
Public art is not reasonably necessary for the grant of planning permission and should be removed from this document. The inclusion of these sorts of obligations place an unnecessary burden on the developer which could seriously threaten the delivery of the objectively assessed housing need and the objectives of the Plan as stated in The NPPG(2014)(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. See Details.
Section 7
Public art is not reasonably necessary for the grant of planning permission and should be removed from this document. The inclusion of these sorts of obligations place an unnecessary burden on the developer which could seriously threaten the delivery of the objectively assessed housing need and the objectives of the Plan.
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.
