Object
Community Infrastructure Levy Modifications 2017
Representation ID: 70558
Received: 19/05/2017
Respondent: Graham Ball
My question on the community infrastructure levy is: why is it 2 to 5% of development costs? There should be economic theory supporting the percentage. Specifically, the main cost of building new housing to the existing community is the health-giving countryside that is built on. For every hectare of countryside that is built on, in theory the district council should purchase a new hectare of (equivalent) countryside nearby (eg elsewhere in south Warwickshire) to replace the land that has been lost. The community infrastructure levy should be set equal to the cost of this land purchase. If (roughly) 1/3 of the cost of a new house is land, this suggests that the community levy should be set at more like 33% rather than 2 to 5%.
A target of ~16,000 new homes in 18 years promotes an emotional reaction of shock because most locals would not want this scale of development; the price of those homes does not reflect the true cost to existing residents of that development.
In conclusion, the community infrastructure levy should reflect the cost to existing households as well as to new households. With a finite land supply, this approach would also make the council's policies sustainable.
My question on the community infrastructure levy is: why is it 2 to 5% of development costs? There should be economic theory supporting the percentage. Specifically, the main cost of building new housing to the existing community is the health-giving countryside that is built on. For every hectare of countryside that is built on, in theory the district council should purchase a new hectare of (equivalent) countryside nearby (eg elsewhere in south Warwickshire) to replace the land that has been lost. The community infrastructure levy should be set equal to the cost of this land purchase. If (roughly) 1/3 of the cost of a new house is land, this suggests that the community levy should be set at more like 33% rather than 2 to 5%.
A target of ~16,000 new homes in 18 years promotes an emotional reaction of shock because most locals would not want this scale of development; the price of those homes does not reflect the true cost to existing residents of that development.
In conclusion, the community infrastructure levy should reflect the cost to existing households as well as to new households. With a finite land supply, this approach would also make the council's policies sustainable.