Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6213

Derbyniwyd: 13/10/2009

Ymatebydd: John, Elaine and Sarah Lewis

Object

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 6276

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Ross Telford

Those who benefit (Developers) should pay.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6358

Derbyniwyd: 18/09/2009

Ymatebydd: John Jessamine

Object.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 6454

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: graham leeke

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

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 6739

Derbyniwyd: 22/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 6976

Derbyniwyd: 23/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 7011

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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?

Sylw

ID sylw: 7039

Derbyniwyd: 18/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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.

Sylw

ID sylw: 7052

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 7075

Derbyniwyd: 29/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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.

Sylw

ID sylw: 7122

Derbyniwyd: 10/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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

Sylw

ID sylw: 7131

Derbyniwyd: 16/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 7403

Derbyniwyd: 23/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Parkridge Development Land Ltd

Asiant : 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.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 7421

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

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

Asiant : 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.

Sylw

ID sylw: 7437

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Hallam Land Management & William Davies Ltd

Asiant : 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.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 7585

Derbyniwyd: 17/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr George Jones

Object

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 7650

Derbyniwyd: 14/12/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr Boyle

Asiant : Brown and Co

Support

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 7666

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

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

Asiant : 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.

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 7728

Derbyniwyd: 23/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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.

Sylw

ID sylw: 33531

Derbyniwyd: 15/12/2009

Ymatebydd: 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

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 33567

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Thomas Bates & Son LTD

Asiant : 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.

Sylw

ID sylw: 33589

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Revelan Group

Asiant : Harris Lamb

We cannot comment on CIL until Government guidance is published.

Sylw

ID sylw: 33682

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Mr T Steele

Asiant : Savills (L&P) Ltd

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

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 33735

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Sharba Homes

Asiant : PJPlanning

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

Gwrthwynebu

ID sylw: 33768

Derbyniwyd: 28/08/2009

Ymatebydd: Shirley Estates

Asiant : Davis Planning Partnership

Needs to be considered further.

Sylw

ID sylw: 33885

Derbyniwyd: 25/09/2009

Ymatebydd: A C Lloyd

Asiant : Redline

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

Sylw

ID sylw: 33922

Derbyniwyd: 09/09/2009

Ymatebydd: 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.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 33933

Derbyniwyd: 28/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Kenilworth Town Council

All contributions should be ring fenced to the area concerned.

Cefnogi

ID sylw: 33967

Derbyniwyd: 24/09/2009

Ymatebydd: Louis Balestrini

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