1.1

Comment

Representation ID: 295

Received: 05/01/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

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

Representation ID: 307

Received: 05/01/2010

Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd

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.

Support

Representation ID: 309

Received: 05/01/2010

Respondent: Highways Agency

The Highways Agency strongly supports the production of the Developer Contributions Guidance Supplementary Planning Document The document should provide clear guidance to developers on expected levels of contribution and will help to ensure funding is available for infrastructure improvements necessary to support new development.

Comment

Representation ID: 326

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: CPREssex

The document appears to be clear, concise and accessible, and we have no other comments.

Comment

Representation ID: 330

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Southend Borough Council

These planning documents are well written and clear. They give good structure and guidance for developers on the legality, principles, processes and intentions of s.106 agreements and I believe that they will be welcomed.

I suppose that the variation and margins for developments are so diverse that any form of tabular system to provide an early guide to triggers and the likely type and quantum of contribution(s) would be unworkable? I appreciate that this may hamper negotiations on particularly unusual sites but with suitable caveats and exemptions it may be worth some thought.

Comment

Representation ID: 331

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Sue Goss

Appendix 2: Pre application line 2: Need for planning obligations established and applicant provided with written advice following pre-application discussions. Any need for a Travel Plan, S38 or S278 agreement also identified at this stage.

Comment

Representation ID: 340

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Essex County Council

In Section 3, clarify that adjoining authorities should be involved equally in the procedure for completing planning obligations in respect of those development proposals which had an impact outside Southend.

Comment

Representation ID: 341

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Essex County Council

In Section 4 include a further question to explain why adjoining authorities may be involved in the negotiation and completion of planning obligations for proposed development within Southend.

Comment

Representation ID: 342

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Essex County Council

In Appendix 1, should include reference to the 'Developer's Guide to Infrastructure Contributions, Essex County Council, April 2008' and note that a revised document is currently in preparation for publication during 2010.

Comment

Representation ID: 343

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Essex County Council

In Appendix 3, add as contact and information source for Essex County Council,

Essex County Council, Strategic Development and External Funding
Keith Blackburn- External Funding and Monitoring Officer
Essex County Council, County Hall, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1QH
Telephone: 01245 437558 E-mail: Keith.Blackburn@essex.go.uk Keith Lawson - Strategic Development and External Funding Manager
Essex County Council, County Hall, Chelmsford, Essex, CM1 1QH
Telephone: 01245 437123 E-mail: Keith.Lawson@essex.gov.uk

Support

Representation ID: 344

Received: 07/01/2010

Respondent: Castle Point Borough Council

Castle Point Borough Council supports Southend-on-Sea Borough Council in seeking to set out clear and transparent policy and guidance for developers/applications on what Planning Obligations are by the Council as the basis for negotiations.

Comment

Representation ID: 353

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: English Heritage

Appendix 1
As the document progresses it is likely that PPS15 will replace PPGs 15 and 16. While this remains a draft we recommend, however, that the references to the current PPGs are retained.

Comment

Representation ID: 355

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

We find it diffcult to comment on individual aspects (or whether to laugh or cry). The document appears to be off the shelf requiring the Council merely to fill in the blank spaces with the usual smattering of planning speak. 106 agreements have been in existence for many years but related to a particular development. The cash payments were limited to sensible matters such as contributions towards specific town centre parking. Unlike previous land tax legislation this seems to be a back door for of taxation (stealth tax springs to mind) which appears to be extremely imprecise and calculated by Council officers with no expertise in valuation nor taxation.

Comment

Representation ID: 356

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Specific - the problem facing the planning officers is illustrated in Appendix 2 pages 38-39. Especially in the light of recent events relating to No 82 Undercliff Gardens the obvious conclusion is if the planning officers were to pay more attention to the planning issues, read the file, check the drawings, inspect the site and take more notice of correspondence from neighbours and interested societies we would not now be faced with the No 82 fiasco.

Comment

Representation ID: 357

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

In the current economic climate, contributions by developers are likely to be restricted, especially as they are required to make an up front payment (see Section 4 first paragraph).

Comment

Representation ID: 359

Received: 12/01/2010

Respondent: The Society for the Protection of Undercliff Gardens

Any monies obtained from such agreements will take many years to gather, (see page 33) by which time circumstances will have changed, and even governments may change. We suggest any funds so raised should be ring fenced.

Comment

Representation ID: 365

Received: 13/01/2010

Respondent: Civil Aviation Authority

Other Civil Aerodromes - Operators/licensees of civil aerodromes other than those that are officially safeguarded are advised to take steps to protect their locations from the effects of possible adverse development. To this end local authorities might agree to accept a 'non-official' safeguarding map from any local aeronautical site. If the Council has agreed to hold such maps it should approach the site operator directly for comment on planning matters. Local planning authorities are asked to respond sympathetically to requests for non-official safeguarding. The CAA is prepared to offer advice on the preparation of a non official safeguarding map at the request of any aerodrome operator or local planning authority. ODPM Circular 1/2003 (annex 2, paragraph 13) refers.

Comment

Representation ID: 366

Received: 13/01/2010

Respondent: Civil Aviation Authority

Telecom Installations - Whilst it is noted that the General Development Order states that applications for masts within 3 km of an aerodrome should contain evidence of notification to the CAA or aerodrome operator, the appropriate contact is the aerodrome operator. Notification to the CAA will result in advice to contact the aerodrome operator.

Comment

Representation ID: 367

Received: 13/01/2010

Respondent: Civil Aviation Authority

Wind Turbines - All wind turbine proposals, whether prior to, or at, formal planning application state, should be notified to both the CAA's Directorate of Airspace Policy and to the Ministry of Defence (Defence Estates) addresses supplied.

Comment

Representation ID: 368

Received: 13/01/2010

Respondent: Civil Aviation Authority

High Structures - Notwithstanding the requirements of local aerodrome operators to consider the impact of structures within their (official of unofficially) safeguarded area, away from the immediate vicinity of an aerodrome, tall structures might nevertheless constitute an aviation hazard. In view of this, there is a mandatory lighting requirement for structures less than 150m or more. Moreover, away from aerodromes, even structures less than 150m high may need to be lit if by virtue of their nature or location they constitute a significant hazard to air navigation. It is recommended that all proposed developments over 90m in height should be notified to the Directorate of Airspace Policy (DAP) and comment sought relating to the need otherwise for aviation obstruction lights. Additionally, to cater for the need to record in aviation documents and charts at structures extending 91.4m (300ft) above ground level, local planning authorities are asked to inform the CAA/DAP about developments that might breach this level. DFT/ODPM Circular 1/2003 (annex 2, paragraph 30-32) refers.

Comment

Representation ID: 369

Received: 13/01/2010

Respondent: Civil Aviation Authority

Venting and Flaring - Venting and flaring of gas should be anticipated with mineral extraction. This might have a potential impact upon the safe operation of aircraft in the immediate vicinity. With this in mind, should planning permission be granted, it would be essential to establish whether such releases of gas would constitute a potential danger to overlying aircraft. If there were such a danger, the site would need to be promulgated to the aviation community along with advisory avoidance criteria.