planning appeal/s.106 agreements...fao saxoboy
15 November 2005, 10:33 AM
#1
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: essex, then chongqing, china and now essex again
Posts: 2,568
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
planning appeal/s.106 agreements...fao saxoboy
one for saxoboy or anyone else involved in planning/development...
i am preparing a planning appeal, which deals with new residential development on top of an existing block. there are two conditions for refusal;
1. proposals out of context.
- i can deal with this relatively easily as the design of the scheme reflects exactly what is already there and what is being built/about to be built (ie approved schemes) in the immediate locality and the same section of the streetscene. not the same as what's around, but "reflects" what's around.
2. no s106 proposed ??
since when did a planning application require the applicant to offer a s106 agreement. the whole point in planning gain is for the local authority to secure a contribution towards services or something for the benefit of the local population by granting a consent which perhaps not normally have gained approval without some form of minor amendment. surely this suggests that if a s106 agreement were proposed by the applicant, then the consent would have been forthcoming.... (think about it)
opinions anyone? or does anyone have any recent experience of appealing such a condition/experience of attaching such a condition to a refusal notice?
i am preparing a planning appeal, which deals with new residential development on top of an existing block. there are two conditions for refusal;
1. proposals out of context.
- i can deal with this relatively easily as the design of the scheme reflects exactly what is already there and what is being built/about to be built (ie approved schemes) in the immediate locality and the same section of the streetscene. not the same as what's around, but "reflects" what's around.
2. no s106 proposed ??
since when did a planning application require the applicant to offer a s106 agreement. the whole point in planning gain is for the local authority to secure a contribution towards services or something for the benefit of the local population by granting a consent which perhaps not normally have gained approval without some form of minor amendment. surely this suggests that if a s106 agreement were proposed by the applicant, then the consent would have been forthcoming.... (think about it)
opinions anyone? or does anyone have any recent experience of appealing such a condition/experience of attaching such a condition to a refusal notice?
15 November 2005, 03:44 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by richardg
one for saxoboy or anyone else involved in planning/development...
i am preparing a planning appeal, which deals with new residential development on top of an existing block. there are two conditions for refusal;
1. proposals out of context.
- i can deal with this relatively easily as the design of the scheme reflects exactly what is already there and what is being built/about to be built (ie approved schemes) in the immediate locality and the same section of the streetscene. not the same as what's around, but "reflects" what's around.
2. no s106 proposed ??
since when did a planning application require the applicant to offer a s106 agreement. the whole point in planning gain is for the local authority to secure a contribution towards services or something for the benefit of the local population by granting a consent which perhaps not normally have gained approval without some form of minor amendment. surely this suggests that if a s106 agreement were proposed by the applicant, then the consent would have been forthcoming.... (think about it)
opinions anyone? or does anyone have any recent experience of appealing such a condition/experience of attaching such a condition to a refusal notice?
i am preparing a planning appeal, which deals with new residential development on top of an existing block. there are two conditions for refusal;
1. proposals out of context.
- i can deal with this relatively easily as the design of the scheme reflects exactly what is already there and what is being built/about to be built (ie approved schemes) in the immediate locality and the same section of the streetscene. not the same as what's around, but "reflects" what's around.
2. no s106 proposed ??
since when did a planning application require the applicant to offer a s106 agreement. the whole point in planning gain is for the local authority to secure a contribution towards services or something for the benefit of the local population by granting a consent which perhaps not normally have gained approval without some form of minor amendment. surely this suggests that if a s106 agreement were proposed by the applicant, then the consent would have been forthcoming.... (think about it)
opinions anyone? or does anyone have any recent experience of appealing such a condition/experience of attaching such a condition to a refusal notice?
We find a nice 1 1/2 acre site with full consent for housing and put an offer in then checked out sewerage/services.
It turned out there was No 106 in place something local authorities used to consult as part of the planning proccess and take into consideration before granting consent.
At some time this seems to have changed and as a result we were nearly left with a piece of land with full consent and a VERY expensive bill for a new quarter mile length of sewer down a very busy street had it not been for the eagle eyed agent we gave the job to for valuation purposes.
the onus now is on the developer to provide proof that all services are viable which means alot more cost before you can even think about a formal offer
15 November 2005, 04:47 PM
#4
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: essex, then chongqing, china and now essex again
Posts: 2,568
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
matt - are you confusing 106 with 104?
i see what you're saying though - service searches are something we always carry out when we initially look at a scheme, usually starting with a quick look on site, marking positions of any services on or near boundaries.
i see what you're saying though - service searches are something we always carry out when we initially look at a scheme, usually starting with a quick look on site, marking positions of any services on or near boundaries.
15 November 2005, 06:08 PM
#5
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whoops sorry Richard.
Still surprised 106 obligations werent raised at consultative stage.
I take it this has outline consent ?
We get 106 waved in our face from time to time (with regard to "affordable housing) on a development with outline dating back to 1983 and we always shrug our shoulders and tell them they cant make it retrospective end of discussion.
Still surprised 106 obligations werent raised at consultative stage.
I take it this has outline consent ?
We get 106 waved in our face from time to time (with regard to "affordable housing) on a development with outline dating back to 1983 and we always shrug our shoulders and tell them they cant make it retrospective end of discussion.
15 November 2005, 08:42 PM
#7
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Bradford
Posts: 13,720
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like a total joke to me. You can't refuse planning permission because someone didn't propose to enter into a s106 agreement. That basically supports the idea of selling planning permission - i.e. make us a good offer and the consent is yours.
As an applicant if you identify something that may need to be the subject of such an agreement you may indicate a willingness to enter into such an agreement but I would argue it's ultra vires for a planning authority to refuse an application on the grounds that an offer was not forthcoming.
As an applicant if you identify something that may need to be the subject of such an agreement you may indicate a willingness to enter into such an agreement but I would argue it's ultra vires for a planning authority to refuse an application on the grounds that an offer was not forthcoming.
Trending Topics
16 November 2005, 09:11 AM
#8
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: essex, then chongqing, china and now essex again
Posts: 2,568
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mattstant
Whoops sorry Richard.
Still surprised 106 obligations werent raised at consultative stage.
I take it this has outline consent ?
We get 106 waved in our face from time to time (with regard to "affordable housing) on a development with outline dating back to 1983 and we always shrug our shoulders and tell them they cant make it retrospective end of discussion.
Still surprised 106 obligations werent raised at consultative stage.
I take it this has outline consent ?
We get 106 waved in our face from time to time (with regard to "affordable housing) on a development with outline dating back to 1983 and we always shrug our shoulders and tell them they cant make it retrospective end of discussion.
i'm guessing you've spent a few quid over the years on 'implementing' consents in order to keep them valid if your lpa are trying to get contributions from you for '83 outline consents! things have changed a little, but you can't blame them for trying!!
16 November 2005, 09:13 AM
#9
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: essex, then chongqing, china and now essex again
Posts: 2,568
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by mattstant
Just a thought how are you regarding PPG3 it seems to ride rough shod over quite a few traditional planning restrictions
16 November 2005, 09:15 AM
#10
Scooby Regular
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: essex, then chongqing, china and now essex again
Posts: 2,568
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saxo Boy
Sounds like a total joke to me. You can't refuse planning permission because someone didn't propose to enter into a s106 agreement. That basically supports the idea of selling planning permission - i.e. make us a good offer and the consent is yours.
As an applicant if you identify something that may need to be the subject of such an agreement you may indicate a willingness to enter into such an agreement but I would argue it's ultra vires for a planning authority to refuse an application on the grounds that an offer was not forthcoming.
As an applicant if you identify something that may need to be the subject of such an agreement you may indicate a willingness to enter into such an agreement but I would argue it's ultra vires for a planning authority to refuse an application on the grounds that an offer was not forthcoming.
16 November 2005, 04:41 PM
#11
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by richardg
not sure i can answer that at the moment - still a little unclear how it's going to affect us, but i'll have a chat with a couple of colleagues later on and see what their opinions are. we were talking about this at a cpd meeting last week and everyone went away more confused than before!
The 83 consent goes back to a 70 acre site we have been nibbling away at for years on our 7th phase now although we didnt start till late 80's and had to sell some on to cover infrastructure
16 November 2005, 04:44 PM
#12
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,152
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Saxo Boy
Sounds like a total joke to me. You can't refuse planning permission because someone didn't propose to enter into a s106 agreement. That basically supports the idea of selling planning permission - i.e. make us a good offer and the consent is yours.
As an applicant if you identify something that may need to be the subject of such an agreement you may indicate a willingness to enter into such an agreement but I would argue it's ultra vires for a planning authority to refuse an application on the grounds that an offer was not forthcoming.
As an applicant if you identify something that may need to be the subject of such an agreement you may indicate a willingness to enter into such an agreement but I would argue it's ultra vires for a planning authority to refuse an application on the grounds that an offer was not forthcoming.
well put
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Phil3822
General Technical
0
30 September 2015 06:29 PM