Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) October 2010

List Comments

Search for Comments

Response Type
Order By
in order

16 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Church Commissioners for England 06 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 2420
  • Response Type: Support
Policy SS7 Planning Obligations We note and support the objective of securing contributions towards provision of community infrastructure. In accordance with national policy, this must be fairly and reasonably related to the development concerned and the level of contributions that may be secured will be affected by development viability (draft policy SS8 refers). We support the recognition given to the critical issue of viability within draft policy SS8. Our previous reps highlighted this issue
Area East Development Team, SSDC 03 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 1270
  • Response Type: Observation
· A clear & explicit obligations regime will ultimately assist with viability as, in due course, developers in purchasing land will be taking this into account and therefore development site acquisition will be pitched at a more appropriate level to meet these needs, in other words there should not be such a huge differential between agricultural and development land value, as exists at the current time. This will create the necessary headroom to properly address the need for community infrastr
East Coker Preservation Trust 03 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 2442
  • Response Type: Object
The comments on planning obligations make no reference to safeguarding the historic environment or monitoring the real capacity of areas to absorb new development. If implemented the policies above could not be retrospectively corrected if the scale of development proved individually or cumulatively too harmful to the historic environment and its interaction with other key quality of life issues. Policies SS6 SS7 and SS8 are also therefore not sound.
Abbey Manor Group 03 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 1540
  • Response Type: Object
7.4 Viability (Policy SS8) 7.4.1 We have indicated in Section 5 that the viability of residential schemes has constrained housing supply within South Somerset District from both brown and greenfield sources. 7.4.2 To ensure that future development proposals within the Core Strategy are deliverable, it is essential that the Local Authority adopts a more flexible and realistic approach to planning obligations, mindful of the content of Circular 05/2005, CIL Regulation 122(2) and realistic land val
Cavanna Homes (SW) Ltd and Cha… 03 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 2725
  • Response Type: Object
Support is given in principle to Policy SS8 which seeks to deal with Viability issues associated with development proposals. However, the policy does not go far enough and should state that where the viability of a scheme is marginal then Planning Obligations will not be sought.
Charles Bishop Ltd (JB) 03 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 2754
  • Response Type: Object
SS8 Viability Viability is already a serious issue, evidenced by the fact that four of the six Key Sites allocated many years ago in the South Somerset Local Plan have failed to start, which in turn has a serious impact on local levels of: · Unemployment · Council Tax revenue · Housing waiting lists We object to the Policy because we feel the Council should take a more realistic and more informed economic approach to viability, taking account of the following: · planning gain is derived from 'l
Mr & Mrs A Noel and Others 03 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 703
  • Response Type: Object
The question of viability is closely associated with the planning obligations outlined in Policy SS7. Therefore the comments set out in relation to that Policy are equally applicable in relation to Policy SS8. Thus, whilst it is appropriate to ensure that contributions are made in relation to the demand which a new development imposes (in accordance with the criteria outlined in Circular 05/05), the ability to contribute will depend upon market circumstances. For the last two years the market
Hannick Homes and Developments Ltd 03 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 2482
  • Response Type: Support
Hannick Homes and Developments Ltd supports the principle of pro rata contributions for proposals which form part of larger proposals and the recognition that viability will be a consideration in seeking financial contributions.
Barratt Strategic Developments… 03 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 1186
  • Response Type: Observation
4) RPS welcomes the provisions of Policy SS8 in acknowledging that the requirements as set out under any Section 106 Agreements or CIL should not be so unduly onerous as to prejudice the implementation of development. To that end, the policy is welcomed as it demonstrates a clear understanding that issues of viability must be taken in the round as part of the negotiation of any planning application. 5) The requirements and direction of the 3 policies could adequately be set out under one compre
Barratt Strategic Developments… 03 Dec 2010

Draft Core Strategy (incorporating Preferred Options) Settlement Strategy Planning Obligations Viability Viability

  • Comment ID: 1187
  • Response Type: Object
4) RPS welcomes the provisions of Policy SS8 in acknowledging that the requirements as set out under any Section 106 Agreements or CIL should not be so unduly onerous as to prejudice the implementation of development. To that end, the policy is welcomed as it demonstrates a clear understanding that issues of viability must be taken in the round as part of the negotiation of any planning application. 5) The requirements and direction of the 3 policies could adequately be set out under one compre
Next pageLast page