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

Comment

Representation ID: 4076

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Mrs Diana Sellwood

I do not feel there is enough detail to be able to comment on this.

Support

Representation ID: 4089

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Angela Clarke

Yes - a fair and workable system.

Comment

Representation ID: 4153

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Woodland Trust

As regards funding, At the national ParkCity Conference in London last March (sponsored by Natural England and CABE) the then Minister for Housing & Planning Margaret Beckett stated that 'Section 106 has traditionally been the means of funding these projects. The new planning act also makes provision for a community infrastructure levy. Authorities can choose to make this charge to raise funds for investment in infrastructure. Given what we know about the benefits of public spaces, I'd expect to see that being invested in green infrastructure just as much as in traditional forms of infrastructure (http://www.communities.gov.uk/speeches/corporate/bitsbetweenbuildings) .

Object

Representation ID: 4202

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Onkar Mann

I believe the district should not wait before proposing any required infrastructure

Object

Representation ID: 4270

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Kulwinder Fathers

The council should produce infrastructure proposals in conjunction with any development proposed,rather than wait for details of the levy.

Support

Representation ID: 4444

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Andrea Telford

Support

Support

Representation ID: 4551

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Southern Windy Arbour Area Residents' Association

support

Object

Representation ID: 4617

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Mr S Morris

object

Object

Representation ID: 4715

Received: 23/10/2009

Respondent: V Gill Peppitt

As long as money spent wisely in areas requiring new infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 4883

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Vera Leeke

This has the effect of putting up house prices. Government funding should be sought for regeneration projects.

Support

Representation ID: 4973

Received: 08/10/2009

Respondent: Mr Graham Harrison

Yes

Support

Representation ID: 5060

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Michael Morris

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5156

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Barry Betts

This is a short term cash inflow, long term where will the on-going funding come from???

Object

Representation ID: 5255

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Lindsay Wood

object

Support

Representation ID: 5293

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: J. N. Price

The CIL approach largely eliminates the need for the current ad hoc approach to securing developer contributions which is not seen to be transparent and has lead in the past to allegations of 'horsetrading' over development permissions.

Object

Representation ID: 5353

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: SEAN DEELY

There is no detail as to how this will work in practice

Support

Representation ID: 5405

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: John Baxter

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5445

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mike Cheeseman

Sounds like another layer of complexity. Make the developer submit plans in line with guidelines and provide the infrastructure. He could team up with providers and defray some of the costs as appropriate.

Object

Representation ID: 5483

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: Joanna Illingworth

Blanket use of CIL could discourage development in the areas where it is most needed.

Support

Representation ID: 5537

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Mr and Mrs G Morgan

Number of people: 2

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5582

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: George Martin

Support.

Object

Representation ID: 5610

Received: 27/09/2009

Respondent: Dave Crisford

I am not in favour of the total adoption of the CIL. For some developments, it would be better if the developer provided or was responsible for the associated infrastructure when this is required to integrate the development into the existing community.

Support

Representation ID: 5668

Received: 20/09/2009

Respondent: Jane Boynton

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5714

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Roger Warren

Strongly Support.

Support

Representation ID: 5777

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Philip Wilson

We are all in this together - so a modest infrastructure levy might lead to more within our local communities taking a keener interest and pride in our locality than currently exists!

Support

Representation ID: 5820

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Ms Alison Cox

But don't know enough about the implications from the explanation.

Support

Representation ID: 5934

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Mr Alan Roberts

But only if it is in a separate account and target at that development and not in a general fund.

Support

Representation ID: 6009

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Debbie Harris

Support.

Support

Representation ID: 6036

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Paul Skidmore

Support.

Comment

Representation ID: 6138

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Richard and Judy Swallow

Number of people: 2

I assume Community Infrastructure Levy approach means charging the developer through a S106 Agreement the cost of the infrastructure but that means that the infrastructure is not sufficient and too late.