DOT backs down on road-funding threat

News

02 October 1993

The DOT has also withdrawn from plans to incorporate road requirements (Development Road Projects) into UDPs and other development plans “for the time being”.

Last year the DOT consultation paper, entitled “Developers Contributions to Highway Works”, met fierce opposition from the development lobby. According to St Quintin planning partner Gary Halman: “If implemented, the proposals would have had a terrible effect on the timing and viability of developers’ activity.”

RICS chief executive Michael Pattison said: “This is an important document which we have to digest. Our first reaction is that some of the more insane proposals have been withdrawn or postponed.”

Welcoming the Government’s response to the paper, directorgeneral of the British Property Federation William McKee commented: “The plans flew in the face of all common sense and sense of fairness. It is the Government’s job, not developers, to provide roads.

“How could the traffic consequences of a development be sensibly determined until a detailed planning application, with square footages, is fixed? And the Government’s own traffic forecasting methods are too coarse.”

St Modwen Properties chief executive Anthony Glossop said: “I’m delighted, as the proposals were unworkable. We feel that developers contributing sensibly towards infrastructure is quite acceptable, but the idea of paying at application stage was crass.

This week Key claimed that developers will see better links between land use planning and the road network, and will have greater certainty and advance warning of the improvements needed on trunk roads.

He added: “Our aims, stated in the public consultation last year. . . are to provide developers as early as possible with information on whether trunk roads need to be improved to cope with the increased traffic that the development will bring and the costs of the upgrading.

“We also aim to give developers freedom to choose their own design consultants and contractors to carry out the works, and to ensure a swift and efficient service to developers in their dealings with the department.”

Transport Secretary Robert Key has pulled back from controversial proposals to force developers to provide funds for road improvements when they lodge planning applications for large, traffic-generating schemes. David Sands reports. The DOT has also withdrawn from plans to incorporate road requirements (Development Road Projects) into UDPs and other development plans “for the time being”. Last year the DOT consultation paper, entitled “Developers Contributions to Highway Works”, met fierce opposition from the development lobby. According to St Quintin planning partner Gary Halman: “If implemented, the proposals would have had a terrible effect on the timing and viability of developers’ activity.” RICS chief executive Michael Pattison said: “This is an important document which we have to digest. Our first reaction is that some of the more insane proposals have been withdrawn or postponed.” Welcoming the Government’s response to the paper, directorgeneral of the British Property Federation William McKee commented: “The plans flew in the face of all common sense and sense of fairness. It is the Government’s job, not developers, to provide roads. “How could the traffic consequences of a development be sensibly determined until a detailed planning application, with square footages, is fixed? And the Government’s own traffic forecasting methods are too coarse.” St Modwen Properties chief executive Anthony Glossop said: “I’m delighted, as the proposals were unworkable. We feel that developers contributing sensibly towards infrastructure is quite acceptable, but the idea of paying at application stage was crass. This week Key claimed that developers will see better links between land use planning and the road network, and will have greater certainty and advance warning of the improvements needed on trunk roads. He added: “Our aims, stated in the public consultation last year. . . are to provide developers as early as possible with information on whether trunk roads need to be improved to cope with the increased traffic that the development will bring and the costs of the upgrading. “We also aim to give developers freedom to choose their own design consultants and contractors to carry out the works, and to ensure a swift and efficient service to developers in their dealings with the department.”