Local Plan to 2030 Regulation 19 - Publication June 2016

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

3 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Home Builders Federation Ltd (… 10 Aug 2016

Local Plan to 2030 - Publication Draft TOPIC POLICIES SECTION F - IMPLEMENTATION Deferred Financial Contributions Deferred financial contributions

  • Comment ID: ALP/1924
  • Status: Accepted
The policy is unsound because it is unjustified. We accept that in those cases where an applicant is unable to meet all the requirements of local planning policy set out in the Local Plan, then the applicant should submit viability evidence. We do not accept, however, the 'claw-back' provision. If a scheme has to make adjustments to policy in order to become viable, then those adjustments will need to be determined at the time of the application. The possibility that the Council will insist on
Bellway Homes Ltd (Kent) (Unknown) 10 Aug 2016

Local Plan to 2030 - Publication Draft TOPIC POLICIES SECTION F - IMPLEMENTATION Deferred Financial Contributions Deferred financial contributions

  • Comment ID: ALP/2592
  • Status: Accepted
Policy IMP2: Deferred Contributions 3.43 We object to this policy on the basis that this is a blanket requirement on all developments, irrespective of their size and whether it is practical or reasonable to require a deferred contributions mechanism. 3.44 In most cases this mechanism is not reasonable because the majority of sites are not so large that there would reasonably be expected to be any change in market circumstances that would improve the viability of site such, that there is ad
Crest Strategic Projects (Unkown) 10 Aug 2016

Local Plan to 2030 - Publication Draft TOPIC POLICIES SECTION F - IMPLEMENTATION Deferred Financial Contributions Deferred financial contributions

  • Comment ID: ALP/2725
  • Status: Accepted
CSP objects to this policy, as the last paragraph stated that the council will require the applicant to agree a deferred contributions approach, to claw back as much of any deficit as possible, should market conditions improve significantly. There is ambiguity here because; it is not clear what a "significant" improvement in market conditions could constitue. There is a danger that this would add cost and uncertainty for developers in the future. The NPPG confirms that viability assessment in d