2.2

Comment

Representation ID: 286

Received: 17/12/2009

Respondent: SBC

Whilst these obligations are negotiated I think it would be much fairer to developers to give them an indication of what tarrif/formular will be used to enable them to have a greater understanding of our need.

Object

Representation ID: 333

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Sport England (East Office)

. However, objection is made to the lack of detail in the SPD about how new developments will actually make provision for community facilities in practice. The approach proposed in paragraph 2.2 of the SPD where the scale and scope of a planning obligation will be determined by negotiation in relation to the specific circumstances of the development is of concern as this does not offer clarity, consistency and transparency with respect to how planning obligations for community facilities such as sports facilities will be identified, calculated and secured in practice. While Circular 05/2005 does not require standard charges/formulae to be used by local authorities, they do offer the benefit of speeding up negotiations and ensure predicatability and transparency as set out in the Circular. Most local authorities have now taken this approach with respect to planning obligations relating to sports facilities as the majority of developments would not be expect to make on-site provision and therefore an off-site contribution using a standard charge/formulae is preferable.

Object

Representation ID: 334

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Sport England (East Office)

The preferred option that was proposed in paragraphs 6.8-6.16 (and Appendix 3) of the Council's Planning Obligations and Vehicle Parking Standards DPD Pre-Submission Public Participation document (2006) was broadly supported as it provided detail and clarity on how a developer contributions scheme for open space, sport and recreation would operate in practice. The approach proposed in the current SPD consultation document is considered to be a step back from this as this provides no certainty to developers or the community about the scope and extent of developer contributions that will be expected with respect to community facilities. While acknowledging that viability of individual proposals should be accounted for this can still be built in to a planning obligations scheme through guidance on when exceptions will be acceptable.

Comment

Representation ID: 358

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

The approach in Section 2 embraces the concept of negotiation as to the amount of the contribution. Whilst accepting that a hard and fast rule on quantum would be difficult, the council seem to do little to provide certainty.