Object

Representation ID: 30155

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: S&J Padfield and Partners (SJP)

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Proposed change requires contributions to infrastructure “as set out in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan…where such contributions are compliant with national policy and the legal tests’;
The tying of contributions to the IDP is considered somewhat problematic as it is a live document subject to change; and the IDP is not subject to a level of scrutiny to ensure the contributions it demands are justified, reasonable and viable, in the same way a Local Plan or CIL Charging Schedule would be.

Support

Representation ID: 30156

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: S&J Padfield and Partners (SJP)

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

MM7 suggests it will be necessary to obtain funding from alternative sources and to collect developers’ contributions retrospectively for these projects. We concur with this view.
This modification is required to ensure that the BLP will ensure effective delivery of requisite infrastructure, and in a manner that does not entail certain developments being required to make a disproportionate financial contribution towards this.

Object

Representation ID: 30161

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: S&J Padfield and Partners (SJP)

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Consider it is imperative that the Local Plan Review should consider not simply additional housing needs, but also any additional employment land that may be required to support these. Failure to do so would risk an imbalance between housing and employment provision, and the Local Plan review resulting in an unsustainable strategy for growth.

Object

Representation ID: 30162

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: S&J Padfield and Partners (SJP)

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

The proposed wording references the need for contributions from developments towards transport infrastructure to be reasonable and proportionate, but does not acknowledge the other tests of a legally-compliant contribution.

Object

Representation ID: 30163

Received: 30/11/2021

Respondent: S&J Padfield and Partners (SJP)

Agent: Strutt & Parker LLP

Legally compliant? Not specified

Sound? No

Policy text should make clear contributions should only be demanded where necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms; directly related to the development; and fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.
It should be noted contributions to infrastructure provision should only be in relation to any additional infrastructure requirements generated by future development of site E10.
We do not consider reference to the M25 J28 and to West Horndon Station as proposed recipients of contributions from development at site E10 could be considered necessary, given the lack of any evidence to suggest that any development at site E10 could be likely to engender a need to make contributions to their improvement. We do not consider that the proposed reference to these infrastructure items in the policy is justified.