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

Object

Representation ID: 6213

Received: 13/10/2009

Respondent: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Support

Representation ID: 6276

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Ross Telford

Those who benefit (Developers) should pay.

Object

Representation ID: 6358

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: John Jessamine

Object.

Object

Representation ID: 6454

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: graham leeke

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

Support

Representation ID: 6739

Received: 22/09/2009

Respondent: Milverton New Allotments Association Ltd

Levying developers should be sufficient to provide schools, nurseries, healthcentres, recreation land including allotments, as well as adequate roads and other communication infrastructure.

Support

Representation ID: 6976

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Chamber of Trade

CIL [or S106] provides a mechanism for local authorities to secure funding for public works as part of granting planning consent for new development. The key - this was one of the failings under S106 was the inconsistency of interpretation of the rules. It is also vital to have a clear vision in place though a detailed development brief so that it is transparent from the outset what is going to be required from developers. Any money generated should be ring fenced to the location from which it arises.

Support

Representation ID: 7011

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Norton Lindsey Parish Council

Supported providing the money is ring fenced and not as in other cases, leaked off by Government or Local/regional authorities, either directly or by reducing grants. A tax by any other name?

Comment

Representation ID: 7039

Received: 18/09/2009

Respondent: Cllr Bill Gifford

considerable concerns about the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Fears this would mean development in district being used to fund major infrastructure projects elsewhere. Danger that it could become a land tax rather than a means of providing real local infrastructure.

Comment

Representation ID: 7052

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Warwick and Leamington Green Party

Need to wait and see what the Government means by proposed Community Infrastructure Levy. Supports policy of Land Value Taxation where true value of development land reflects infrastructure provided by the surround community. If this is the Government's intention, then would support its adoption by District Council.
Continuing to "gather evidence on the infrastructure required to support growth" is not an appropriate paradigm to be working with.

Support

Representation ID: 7075

Received: 29/09/2009

Respondent: Warwickshire Wildlife Trust

Trust welcomes the proposals for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to
contribute to the delivery of improvements to green infrastructure throughout the district.

Comment

Representation ID: 7122

Received: 10/09/2009

Respondent: Advantage West Midlands

Crucial part of process is the production of a robust evidence base and transparency to show how CIL tariffs reflect local market conditions within the District to ensure it does not restrict regeneration and development due to unviable levels of obligations. Key task for Council will be to gain agreement from partners in prioritising infrastructure requirements to make certain that essential strategic infrastructure works vital to the Core Strategy are funded first to
encourage and promote development. Prioritisation of infrastructure requirements will also give investors and developers certainty and confidence that specific works will be carried out expedientl

Comment

Representation ID: 7131

Received: 16/09/2009

Respondent: The Theatres Trust

Suggest include present developer contributions arrangements that will be detailed within Planning Obligations SPD which can then be updated following a separate public consultation process when the content of the new CIL Regulations are known.

Support

Representation ID: 7403

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Parkridge Development Land Ltd

Agent: Holmes Antill

A Community Infrastructure Levy approach may not be the right approach in the case of development at Kings Hill as it will need to adopt a comprehensive solution to a specific series of problems.

Object

Representation ID: 7421

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Sir Thomas White's Charity & King Henry VIII Endowed Trust

Agent: Stansgate Planning

Infrastructure contributions should be based on that necessary as a result of the development. This approach is set out in Circular 05/2005. This principle should be applied to Community Infrastructure Levy, if adopted, in order that contributions are fair. This should be reflected in the Council's approach rather than applying a formulae which relates the size of the general infrastructure bill to the size of the development paying.

Comment

Representation ID: 7437

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Hallam Land Management & William Davies Ltd

Agent: Stoneleigh Planning

In so far as the Community Infrastructure Levy is concerned (CIL), it should be noted that the current consultation on detailed proposals and draft regulations does not suggest this will, in any way, replace or exclude a facility to enter into a planning obligation under Section 106 of the Act in order to fund contributions to infrastructure on a site by site basis.

Object

Representation ID: 7585

Received: 17/09/2009

Respondent: Mr George Jones

Object

Support

Representation ID: 7650

Received: 14/12/2009

Respondent: Mr Boyle

Agent: Brown and Co

Support

Support

Representation ID: 7666

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr & Mrs Forrester of Loes Farm, Guys Cliffe

Agent: Barlow Associates Limited

The criteria, grounds and implementation of the Levy need to be clearly set out. Clarity on the relationship between the Levy and S106 is also needed to ensure developers feel they are not over paying for consents.

Object

Representation ID: 7728

Received: 23/09/2009

Respondent: Ray Bullen

Too little detail provided of how this might work.
Any community levy will be passed on to house purchasers. It will fall into higher house prices and agreements to low levies before developers agree to proceed that are insufficient to provide the necessary infrastructure. Not realistic to expect developers to pay out of profits: they are a business.
Add the affordable housing requirement of whatever percentage then it will be normal house purchasers that will get higher prices and prices become less affordable. As new house prices rise, prices for old houses rise too and market gets out of control.
If planning authority allows development, has to take lead to provide infrastructure.
No development should commence unless infrastructure implications have been worked out, planned in and financed.

Comment

Representation ID: 33531

Received: 15/12/2009

Respondent: Natural England

This paragraph makes reference to the possibility of using CIL for district wide infrastructure needs such as schools and train stations. Natural England supports this approach and the proposal to prepare an infrastructure delivery plan and would wish to see the obligation mechanism/ delivery plan for infrastructure provision extended to green infrastructure. We strongly recommend the inclusion of policies relating to green infrastructure and specifically in relation to the use of developer contributions for its provision

Object

Representation ID: 33567

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Thomas Bates & Son LTD

Agent: Andrew Martin Associates

A sinlge formulae is not appropriate. In the current economic climate the demand for contributions should not be too high so as to render schemes to be non viable particularly where much needed affordable housing contributions are proposed to meet the current high demand.

Comment

Representation ID: 33589

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Revelan Group

Agent: Harris Lamb

We cannot comment on CIL until Government guidance is published.

Comment

Representation ID: 33682

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Mr T Steele

Agent: Savills (L&P) Ltd

It would be appropriate to comment further when more details are established.

Object

Representation ID: 33735

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: Sharba Homes

Agent: PJPlanning

Site by site obligations depending on the specific impacts of the proposal should continue.

Object

Representation ID: 33768

Received: 28/08/2009

Respondent: Shirley Estates

Agent: Davis Planning Partnership

Needs to be considered further.

Comment

Representation ID: 33885

Received: 25/09/2009

Respondent: A C Lloyd

Agent: Redline

No, all development sites have individual constraints and opportunities. A standardized approach can often impede the best development solutions.

Comment

Representation ID: 33922

Received: 09/09/2009

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

Some concerns about proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Can see some advantages in CIL of developer contributions being pooled, especially from smaller developments. However, there are fears that this could mean contributions from local developments being used to fund major infrastructure projects elsewhere in the Midlands. Most of the extra needs that new development puts on the community infrastructure should be met within the town or the district; therefore would expect that most of the money raised from developers would be required to be spent locally.

Support

Representation ID: 33933

Received: 28/09/2009

Respondent: Kenilworth Town Council

All contributions should be ring fenced to the area concerned.

Support

Representation ID: 33967

Received: 24/09/2009

Respondent: Louis Balestrini

Yes,but they are unlikely to be of any real use or quality.