Friday, 9 November 2012

How can THC want 'Expanded' A96 Corridor in NPF3 when there's no real sign of a contributions protocol



Compare and contrast the statements - which I have put into a table below and taken from the new DPS (Development Plan Scheme) - regarding two developer contributions protocols. 

The Planning Authority should have had the 'A96 Corridor Developer Contributions' guidance in place by now, why is it still dragging its heals on this? 

A special developer contributions protocol was an integral part of the 'A96 Corridor Growth Development Framework' when it was 'approved' and this special contributions protocol was to be in place at the adoption of the HwLDP.  


The following text was sent by me, as part of an email to councillors, in September 2012, to tie in with the consideration of the 'New town' Planning Application:

....The ‘A96 Growth Corridor Development Framework’ was placed before the PEDC on Wednesday 26 September 2007. BUT, what is particularly important is that which was stated within the Committee Report (dated 19 September 2007) with respect to developer contributions (I have underlined statements that I consider pertinent):


5.  Developer Contribution Protocols

5.1 Section 8 of the Framework in Appendix 2 is fundamental to the success of development in the A96 Corridor.  It represents a strategic response to the need for key infrastructure and provides a blueprint for ensuring that investment happens in the right places at the right times.  The use of the protocols will be a prerequisite for development proposals which come forward.  The majority of development interests have broadly welcomed the approach taken by the Council, although there are a number of outstanding issues over the overall costs and the means of delivery.  These outstanding issues will be the basis of ongoing negotiation with the different development interests as they come forward and as the levels of public funding contributions become clearer.

5.2 Around £326m of strategic infrastructure investment (excluding water and sewerage) is required to facilitate development across the Corridor.  About 70% of this will be funded from the development process.  This will require public subsidy to meet regional investment requirements of £56m.   The remaining 30% would require public funding in areas of transport, schooling and landscape/park provision.  This means that the overall public/private split would require £151m (46%) of public investment and £175m (54%) of private contribution. This will be provided through the levels of contributions set out in Section 8 of the document
In line with the approach taken elsewhere in Inverness and throughout the country, developer contributions of between £7,000 and £11,000 per house have been established depending on the requirements for infrastructure within each development zone.  Other land uses will also be expected to contribute, again in line with the content of the protocols. Section 9 of the Framework identifies as a key action that there should be regular quarterly updates of the development funding protocol and delivery costings should be maintained.

5.3 The delivery of infrastructure through the protocols will be complex, but what has been established to date represents the first step in a welcome change to the way that the private and public sectors co-operate in the delivery of facilities or physical works which need to be provided to make better places.  In that context, Committee approval is sought for the developer contributions protocols.   


Well the HwLDP has been adopted and still not sign of this special protocol.

I have become tired and fed up of pointing out to the planning authority that this should be in place and the planning authority seems quite empowered to ignore my protestations.

The Planning Authority is continuing to promote the A96 Corridor and associated developments as 'National' through a third  National Planning Framework (The A96 Corridor only managed to be placed as a 'Spatial Perspective'  in the current NPF2).   Evidence of  private and public sector co-operation should be far more evident before inclusion and expansion of the A96 Corridor is considered through any future National Planning Framework.

Title of Supplementary Guidance
Purpose and Progress
Target Date



Developer Contributions
Provides guidance on how, when and why we negotiate contributions from development. This will bring together all of our existing guidance on developer contributions and our affordable housing supplementary guidance. We carried out consultation on this document Summer 2012.
A revised document will be reported to the PED Committee in January 2013.



A96 Corridor Developer
Contributions
Sets out our procedure for securing contributions from developers towards long-term infrastructure within the A96 Corridor.
A draft document will be reported to the PED
Committee in 2013. Public
consultation will follow.

No comments:

Post a Comment

Post a Comment