3.6 The Cambridge Community Infrastructure Levy
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
Representation ID: 28513
Received: 11/07/2014
Respondent: Savills
Agent: Savills
3.6.2
Savills request that, in the interests of clarity, the last sentence of this paragraph is amended to reflect that planning obligations can only be negotiated for items directly necessary for the purposes of that development.
We appreciate that the Reg 123 list can change over time where the local planning authority can add an infrastructure project to where CiL funds could be targeted and could remove one where it had been completed. However it is inappropriate to remove projects in order to those to be the subject of separate obligation and thus attract more funds. That is totally unacceptable.
3.6.2
Savills request that, in the interests of clarity, the last sentence of this paragraph is amended to reflect that planning obligations can only be negotiated for items directly necessary for the purposes of that development. Additionally we have concerns about the intention behind this text. We appreciate that the Reg 123 list can change over time where the local planning authority can add an infrastructure project to where CiL funds could be targeted and could remove one where it had been completed. However it is inappropriate to remove projects in order to those to be the subject of separate obligation and thus attract more funds. That is totally unacceptable.
Object
Draft Planning Obligations SPD
Representation ID: 28553
Received: 14/07/2014
Respondent: Carter Jonas
Agent: Carter Jonas
I object to the final sentence of paragraph 3.6.2. A planning obligation in respect of a proposed development should only be sought where the mitigation it delivers is directly related to the proposed development and fairly and reasonably related to it. CIL funds will be pooled and used more broadly than any funds raised from S106 which will be used locally. If a scheme is dropped from the Regulation 123 list, it should not then be expected to be 'picked up' via S106. It must either be CIL or S106 compliant - it cannot be both.
I object to the final sentence of paragraph 3.6.2. A planning obligation in respect of a proposed development should only be sought where the mitigation it delivers is directly related to the proposed development and fairly and reasonably related to it. CIL funds will be pooled and used more broadly than any funds raised from S106 which will be used locally. If a scheme is dropped from the Regulation 123 list, it should not then be expected to be 'picked up' via S106. It must either be CIL or S106 compliant - it cannot be both.