Do you think the Council should adopt the Community Infrastructure Levy approach to securing developer contributions?

Object

Representation ID: 1885

Received: 31/07/2009

Respondent: Mrs Helen Cheatham

No

Support

Representation ID: 1951

Received: 03/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Andrew Ferguson

support

Object

Representation ID: 1983

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Ken Hope

(11.c) Depends on what it turns out to be when it arrives!!

Object

Representation ID: 2060

Received: 04/09/2009

Respondent: mr john jacques

developers will not tender unless they can make a satisfactoy profit

Support

Representation ID: 2078

Received: 05/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Peter Kerr

The concept of a 'Levy' is supported providing monitoring is in place to ensure that the 'Levy' is used for its declared purpose and not to supplement WDC expenditure in general.

Object

Representation ID: 2332

Received: 21/07/2009

Respondent: S B Hoyles

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2448

Received: 08/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Connolly

Object.

Support

Representation ID: 2498

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: British Waterways

Both 106 and CIL are supported by BW.

Support

Representation ID: 2565

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.A and Mrs B.E Donaldson

Number of people: 2

Contributions in the form of a levy should be paid by developers.

Support

Representation ID: 2643

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: John Arnold

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 2758

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Pauline Neale

Yes the levy proposed by the CIL is the fair way of getting something back from the developers who will be profiting from the housing and employment units being built.

Object

Representation ID: 2802

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Sheila F. Hadfield

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 2945

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Barford, Sherbourne and Wasperton Joint Parish Council

The levy should be on a site-by-site basis according to:
* The infrastructure needs of that site
* AND the impact of that site on the wider geographic area

Object

Representation ID: 2996

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs and Mr J Parr and Cotterill

Existing Council tax payers deserve a rateable value evaluation should these proposals go through.

Support

Representation ID: 3100

Received: 17/09/2000

Respondent: Mr Anthony Morris

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3180

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: John Murphy

The levy should be on a site-by-site basis according to:
* The infrastructure needs of that site
* AND the impact of that site on the wider geographic area

Comment

Representation ID: 3182

Received: 14/09/2009

Respondent: Mr R.C Hadfield

What does this jargon mean?

Support

Representation ID: 3231

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: mrs stella moore

yes

Support

Representation ID: 3284

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

I support it.

Support

Representation ID: 3285

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Mr David John Bowers

I support it.

Support

Representation ID: 3333

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Terence Kemp

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3375

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Christopher Gibb

Support

Object

Representation ID: 3486

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs E. Appleby

I do not think that developers should influence the Council.

Comment

Representation ID: 3608

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Sport England

It will not also be appropriate to rely on a CIL, even if it does come in. There will be times negotiations with the developer over large retail or employment schemes are justified over a CIL approach.

Support

Representation ID: 3715

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Richard Brookes

Sounds reasonable, and might encourage brownfield development first.

Support

Representation ID: 3752

Received: 15/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Dennis Michael Crips

Support

Support

Representation ID: 3911

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Wiggins

Your current strategy of securing money directly from the developers hasn't benefited Warwick Gates, so yes lets try something new that might just provide benefit at the place it was supposed to.

Comment

Representation ID: 3966

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr John Archer

Not sure at this stage. Depends how it evolves. There is a danger in it becoming too complex and presenting significant front funding difficulties. Approach with caution!

Support

Representation ID: 3992

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mr M Abba

Yes, the developers should pay for all infrastructure improvements, and these should be in place before any development starts. there is no point building 2000 new homes without first build a primary school - look at the issues this has caused in Warwick Gates.

Object

Representation ID: 4069

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Keith Turfrey

Developers are in for profit. Succes will depend on a proper thought through proposal supported by the electorate and strictly controlled by a planning dept not beholden to the developer.