Support

Representation ID: 221

Received: 10/03/2024

Respondent: Mrs Marie Jackson

No further comment

Support

Representation ID: 777

Received: 21/04/2024

Respondent: Jane Bateman

I support this, BUT SKDC must ensure developer contributions are made for the good of residents - they must not be allowed to water them down, change them etc.

Object

Representation ID: 1087

Received: 24/04/2024

Respondent: Dr Ray Butler

I cannot support a ‘plan’ that advocates widespread destruction of the local countryside.

Support

Representation ID: 1289

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Knightwood Developments Ltd

Agent: Boyer Planning

The summary provided on page 235 of the Regulation 18 document details that “An Infrastructure Delivery Plan, including an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule, is being prepared and will inform the policy once finalised.” We are concerned that the details of these important evidence base documents are not provided at this stage of the plan making process to allow for engagement and representations to be made on approach, requirements and timescales envisaged.

Paragraph 13.16 of the Regulation 18 document confirms that the Council will continue to seek developer contributions through Section 106 and may consider the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy or a replacement tariff following the Governments national review. Although we broadly support this approach, the Local Plan needs to provide an indication as to the level of Section 106 that may be requested for different types of development in different parts of the plan area. Without this clarification, the Council’s Viability Appraisal is flawed because assumptions used in relation to Section 106 may not be accurate and therefore could be under or over stating requirements that need to meet the tests for planning obligations.

Support

Representation ID: 1314

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Caddick Developments

Agent: Boyer Planning

Paragraph 13.16 of the Regulation 18 document confirms that the Council will continue to seek developer contributions through Section 106 and may consider the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy or a replacement tariff following the Governments national review. Although we broadly support this approach, the Local Plan needs to provide an indication as to the level of Section 106 that may be requested for different types of development in different parts of the plan area. Without this clarification, the Council’s Viability Appraisal may be challenged because assumptions used in relation to planning obligations may not be accurate and therefore could be under or over stating requirements that need to meet the relevant tests for planning obligations.

Object

Representation ID: 2310

Received: 23/04/2024

Respondent: Department for Education

One of the tests of soundness is that a Local Plan is ‘effective’, meaning the plan should be deliverable over its period. In this context, there is a need to ensure that financial and land contributions made by developers are sufficient to deliver the education infrastructure required to meet the increase in demand generated by new developments. The department notes that South Kesteven’s requirements for S106 obligations are set out in the adopted Local Plan and Planning Obligations SPD (2012) and that these will be updated to reflect Local Plan review priorities, and that the Council will ensure appropriate rates are levied and the right infrastructure is secured across the district.

The department supports the use of planning obligations to secure developer contributions for education wherever there is a need to mitigate the direct impacts of development, consistent with Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations. The advantage of using Section 106 relative to CIL for funding education infrastructure is that funding is ringfenced for this purpose, providing more certainty that developer contributions will be used to fund the new school, early years or sixth form places that are needed. This is particularly important in two-tier local authority areas, and where strategic site allocations are planned.

We also request a reference within the Local Plan’s policies or supporting text to explain that developer contributions may be secured retrospectively, when it has been necessary to forward fund infrastructure projects in advance of anticipated housing growth. An example of this would be the local authority’s expansion of a secondary school to ensure that places are available in time to support development coming forward, when phased developer contributions had been agreed to maintain development viability. This helps to demonstrate that the plan is positively prepared and deliverable over its period.

Object

Representation ID: 2421

Received: 25/04/2024

Respondent: Vistry Group

Agent: Boyer Planning

The summary provided on page 235 of the Regulation 18 document details that “An
Infrastructure Delivery Plan, including an Infrastructure Delivery Schedule, is being prepared and will inform the policy once finalised.” We are concerned that the details of these important evidence base documents are not provided at this stage of the plan making process to allow for engagement and representations to be made on approach, requirements and timescales envisaged.

Paragraph 13.16 of the Regulation 18 document confirms that the Council will continue to seek developer contributions through Section 106 and may consider the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy or a replacement tariff following the Governments national review. Although we broadly support this approach, the Local Plan needs to provide an indication as to the level of Section 106 that may be requested for different types of development in different parts of the plan area. Without this clarification, the Council’s Viability Appraisal is flawed because assumptions used in relation to Section 106 may not be accurate and therefore could be under or over stating requirements that need to meet the tests for planning obligations.

Object

Representation ID: 2546

Received: 22/04/2024

Respondent: Colsterworth & District Parish

CADPC are aware that any S.106/CIL needs to be properly costed and put forward and would request early involvement in any further development. CADPC are also aware that it can be several years before public services meet the trigger points within any S106 agreement potentially leaving a community depleted/without services until these have been implemented.

CADPC would expect to be included in discussions regarding a robust infrastructure upgrade plan which are essential for any future developments that could increase the population of the Parish, such as:
• Lack of current capacity at the Primary School
• Lack of current capacity at the GP Practice and associated healthcare services
• No permanent Post Office
• Loss of Police/Community Office and no Community Policing
• Sewage and Water provision including flooding and drainage
• Communication – internet facilities at peak times
• Play/Open Spaces
• Community Hub