1.24
Comment
Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions
Representation ID: 308
Received: 05/01/2010
Respondent: Renaissance Southend Ltd
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.
Comment
Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions
Representation ID: 346
Received: 07/01/2010
Respondent: Castle Point Borough Council
In light of the potential for a Community Infrastructure Levy system to come into force in 2010, I would like to suggest that greater consideration be given to developing tariffs for different types of infrastructure. This will give greater clarity to developers/applicants, and could be more readily adapted to a Community Infrastructure Levy in the longer-term.
Comment
Planning Obligation - A Guide to Section 106 and Developer Contributions
Representation ID: 347
Received: 07/01/2010
Respondent: Castle Point Borough Council
I would also like to suggest that consideration be given to opportunities for Southend-on-Sea Borough Council and its neighbours, including Castle Point to work together to deliver infrastructure in the longer-term through pooled resources, including developer contributions/community infrastructure levy.