Draft Planning Obligations SPD
Search representations
Results for Carter Jonas search
New searchObject
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
1.1 Purpose of the document
Representation ID: 28549
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
A narrow point perhaps, but it seems to me that the language used in paragraph 1.1.1 is unfortunate, describing as it does the "harm" caused by new development. I consider that new development should be considered in a more positive light. Yes, its effects on the likes of transport infrastructure will often require mitigation but it is in my opinion too general to describe development as causing harm. What does this mean in any event?
A narrow point perhaps, but it seems to me that the language used in paragraph 1.1.1 is unfortunate, describing as it does the "harm" caused by new development. I consider that new development should be considered in a more positive light. Yes, its effects on the likes of transport infrastructure will often require mitigation but it is in my opinion too general to describe development as causing harm. What does this mean in any event?
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
2.2 The National Planning Policy Framework
Representation ID: 28550
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
It would be appropriate to also reference the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) which should be read alongside the NPPF.
It would be appropriate to also reference the National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) which should be read alongside the NPPF.
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
3.1 Scope of contributions
Representation ID: 28551
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
At paragraph 3.1.1 the Council seeks to leave 'the door open' to negotiate other planning obligations not covered in the document. This is unreasonable in that the Council should be clear what is and what is not likely to be covered. Advice is given that developers should anticipate likely planning obligation requirements ahead of acquiring a site which is a valid point; however if there are "unknowns" how can this be possible? If the Council feels that it needs to retain some flexibility at the very least it should detail the sorts of obligations it might seek.
At paragraph 3.1.1 the Council seeks to leave 'the door open' to negotiate other planning obligations not covered in the document. This is unreasonable in that the Council should be clear what is and what is not likely to be covered. Advice is given that developers should anticipate likely planning obligation requirements ahead of acquiring a site which is a valid point; however if there are "unknowns" how can this be possible? If the Council feels that it needs to retain some flexibility at the very least it should detail the sorts of obligations it might seek.
Support
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
3.3 Planning Conditions
Representation ID: 28552
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
I support the comment at paragraph 3.3.3 that planning conditions are to be preferred to Section 106 Agreements.
I support the comment at paragraph 3.3.3 that planning conditions are to be preferred to Section 106 Agreements.
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
3.6 The Cambridge Community Infrastructure Levy
Representation ID: 28553
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
I object to the final sentence of paragraph 3.6.2. A planning obligation in respect of a proposed development should only be sought where the mitigation it delivers is directly related to the proposed development and fairly and reasonably related to it. CIL funds will be pooled and used more broadly than any funds raised from S106 which will be used locally. If a scheme is dropped from the Regulation 123 list, it should not then be expected to be 'picked up' via S106. It must either be CIL or S106 compliant - it cannot be both.
I object to the final sentence of paragraph 3.6.2. A planning obligation in respect of a proposed development should only be sought where the mitigation it delivers is directly related to the proposed development and fairly and reasonably related to it. CIL funds will be pooled and used more broadly than any funds raised from S106 which will be used locally. If a scheme is dropped from the Regulation 123 list, it should not then be expected to be 'picked up' via S106. It must either be CIL or S106 compliant - it cannot be both.
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
3.7 Obligation Types
Representation ID: 28554
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
Public art cannot be funded via CIL in accordance with the relevant legislation. Section 216 of the Planning Act 2008 defines funding infrastructure which can be provided via CIL; public art is not referenced. Public art should not in any event feature within this document as it is not suitable for inclusion in planning obligations as confirmed in the NPPG. In future it should be addressed via a planning condition and the Council could update its Public Art SPD to reflect the new rules.
Public art cannot be funded via CIL in accordance with the relevant legislation. Section 216 of the Planning Act 2008 defines funding infrastructure which can be provided via CIL; public art is not referenced. Public art should not in any event feature within this document as it is not suitable for inclusion in planning obligations as confirmed in the NPPG. In future it should be addressed via a planning condition and the Council could update its Public Art SPD to reflect the new rules.
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
4.4.7
Representation ID: 28555
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
Works in the highway, especially if off-site, should be carried out by the Highway Authority. Developers should not be expected or required to carry out these works. They are not the Highway Authority.
Works in the highway, especially if off-site, should be carried out by the Highway Authority. Developers should not be expected or required to carry out these works. They are not the Highway Authority.
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
5.6.1
Representation ID: 28556
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
The Council must ensure that each case is considered on merit and that competing interests, for example the desirability of achieving high density yet good quality development on urban or suburban sites, is not prejudiced due to a need to fully meet informal open space standards on site. In a great many cases, where there is good access to off-site open space, full provision on site would have dramatically reduced housing yield. This paragraph is somewhat confusing when read against the advice in paragraph 5.7.1 (see separate representation).
The Council must ensure that each case is considered on merit and that competing interests, for example the desirability of achieving high density yet good quality development on urban or suburban sites, is not prejudiced due to a need to fully meet informal open space standards on site. In a great many cases, where there is good access to off-site open space, full provision on site would have dramatically reduced housing yield. This paragraph is somewhat confusing when read against the advice in paragraph 5.7.1 (see separate representation).
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
5.6.2
Representation ID: 28557
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
There is no explanation as to how the figures of 0.3ha per 1,000 people for provision for children and teenagers, and 2.2ha per 1,000 people for informal open space have been arrived at. It is not clear why the informal open space figure is increasing relative to the standards currently used.
There is no explanation as to how the figures of 0.3ha per 1,000 people for provision for children and teenagers, and 2.2ha per 1,000 people for informal open space have been arrived at. It is not clear why the informal open space figure is increasing relative to the standards currently used.
Support
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
5.6.11
Representation ID: 28558
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
This is a reasonable objective and is balanced in that it clearly accepts that it may not always be appropriate to provide full open space provision in accordance with standards on site. However this is contradicted by the approach suggested in section 5.7 of the strategy which says that to not deliver full provision will only be permitted exceptionally.
This is a reasonable objective and is balanced in that it clearly accepts that it may not always be appropriate to provide full open space provision in accordance with standards on site. However this is contradicted by the approach suggested in section 5.7 of the strategy which says that to not deliver full provision will only be permitted exceptionally.
