Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

Search Representations

Results for Renaissance Southend Ltd search

New search New search

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

1.1

Representation ID: 295

Received: 05/01/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Representation Summary:

Given the role of RSL in promoting investment and development that will contribute towards economic growth, jobs and housing, the Company is keen to ensure that the planning environment is a positive one for developers and property investors. In principle, therefore the consultation draft is welcomed as providing clarity on the policy context and criteria for seeking s106 obligations in Southend. It also sets out some detail of the process and administration of agreements and obligations, both during the decision making stage and post commencement.

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

2.14

Representation ID: 296

Received: 05/01/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Representation Summary:

RSL understands that a further Development Delivery DPD is to be published in due course, subject to progress with the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy, which will provide more detail on the formulae and application of the policy and criteria set out in this SPD. In the interim RSL is concerned there may be a potential risk that the SPD fails to provide the certainty and consistency for potential developers wishing to understand what the Borough Council will be seeking from any planning application. In particular, the priorities under the Sustainable Communities Criteria are very wide ranging as listed at paras. 2.20, 2.23, 2.26, 2.28, 2.31, 2.33 and 2.36, with no indication as to what scale of development these will be applied to, nor any indication of relative priority. Some detail is given on affordable housing, reflecting its status in the Core Strategy DPD, and administration and monitoring, but otherwise the developer has no basis upon which to calculate the likely level of contributions that may be required for any particular development. This uncertainty is likely to be a deterrent, especially in the current property market. This risk is further exacerbated by the high proportion of major sites in Southend that are likely to be on previously developed, or brownfield sites, where existing use values and abnormal costs may be significantly higher than on green field sites.

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

2.9

Representation ID: 305

Received: 05/01/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Representation Summary:

Whilst the viability test and need for flexibility is noted in paras.2.9-2.13, it will not be possible for
developers and investors to fully take account of the likely s1 06 costs in any land value, unless
the details are known.

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

2.3

Representation ID: 306

Received: 05/01/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Representation Summary:

Whilst para 2.3 seeks to provide re-assurance that the council does not seek to apply a blanket approach', in the absence of the certainty that the proposed Development Delivery DPD may provide, the consultation draft SPD may increase the perceived risk and act as a deterrent to prospective developers. Furthermore, some recognition may need to be given to circumstances where the objectives of achieving town centre regeneration may result in a mix of uses that is Sub-optimal in terms of land value, or indeed overall viability, which may limit the scope to meet all the priorities listed under the Sustainable Communities Criteria.

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

1.1

Representation ID: 307

Received: 05/01/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Representation Summary:

In setting out the Sustainable Communities Criteria the SPD makes a number of very
generalised statements in Section 2 that are not supported by any specific evidence of what is
needed or required in Southend and how any contributions from s1 06 obligations will be used to deliver facilities or mitigate impact. This may undermine the Council's ability to seek future
contributions. Sections 3 and 4 provide helpful and pragmatic advice on the s106 process and there may be a case for separating this out from the policy context and justification in sections 1 and 2, together with the detailed affordable housing and costs of administration.

Comment

Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions

1.24

Representation ID: 308

Received: 05/01/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

Representation Summary:

The relationship between the current SPD and the proposed DPD may need to be further
defined to enable any applicant to clearly distinguish between the policy background and
justification for the Council's s1 06 requirements, from the more detailed guidance on a case by
case basis that will provide the applicant or his advisors with clear guidance on what the Council
will be seeking on any given development.
In the circumstances Renaissance Southend would welcome the opportunity to discuss some of these issues in more detail prior to formal adoption.

If you are having trouble using the system, please try our help guide.