Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

List Comments

Search for Comments

Order By
in order

24 comments.

List of comments
RespondentResponse DateDetails
Tom Leimdorfer 24 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 936033/cil/17
  • Status: Accepted
My comments under Q5 are also relevant here. There is a potential problem here. While I can see the rationale for higher CIL rates for area outside Weston in terms of greater infrastructure requirements per dwelling, the higher rate can have two negative effects. While we don't want to encourage any large scale development in these areas, some relatively small scale developments can be desirable but more difficult to achieve with higher CIL. Developers paying the higher CIL rate will also argue
Deleted User 21 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 5541377/cil/1
  • Status: Accepted
The Highways Agency is principally interested in the transport aspects of the proposed Charging Schedule. In this respect the Agency is, at a strategic level, most interested in ensuring that North Somerset's proposed strategic transport mitigation measures are implemented. These transport schemes enabled the Highways Agency to support the growth proposed, particularly at Weston-super-Mare, in the Core Strategy. It is noted that in Table 2.b.(i) on page 8 that there is no funding gap for the pa
Backwell Parish Council 20 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 1013153/cil/16
  • Status: Accepted
Yes - but we feel strongly that a proportion should be handed to the local Parish or Town Council where the development is intended.
Deleted User 20 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 3568545/cil/17
  • Status: Accepted
We note that the Council's latest Infrastructure Delivery Schedule provides a detailed breakdown as of 30 September 2011 of the requirements within Weston and the Weston Villages. The scope of infrastructure split between the Section 106 contributions and the CIL within the draft charging schedule therefore provides a brief summary of the current position. In December 2012 DCLG CIL guidance requires (paragraph 85) local authorities to work proactively with developers to ensure they are clear ab
Deleted User 20 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 1014881/cil/13
  • Status: Accepted
It is suggested that the proportion of the CIL that is to be retained by the local community where development is taking place should not be less than 30%.
Blagdon Parish Council 20 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 7778337/cil/17
  • Status: Accepted
Yes.
Somerset County Council (S Win… 19 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 7788801/cil/17
  • Status: Accepted
We do not have any further comments to make.
Portishead Town Council 19 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 4193569/cil/17
  • Status: Accepted
Items mentioned specific to Portishead: Ø Coast Path between WSM & Portishead Ø Improvements to access at Somerset Hall Ø Provision of changing facilities to support the grass pitches at Clapton Lane Ø M5 J19 improvements Ø Portishead Rail Ø High Street to Gordano School, Portishead – contraflow and cycle route Ø 11,000 sq. m retail floor space between Clevedon, Nailsea & Portishead Ø 3,079 jobs focused at Nailsea, Clevedon & Portishead Answer: Portishead Town Council would wish to be involved
Deleted User 18 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 3322113/cil/8
  • Status: Accepted
The CIL references are more specific than the 106 and it was felt more details was required. Is there any structure in place to monitor the finance under CIL and 106 as it has been notorious for the lack of transparency in the past.
Banwell Parish Council 14 Dec 2012

Community Infrastructure Levy - Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Spending the CIL Q17 Do you agree that this table sets out an appropriate split between CIL and Section 106 funded infrastructure? Are there any changes you would propose?

  • Comment ID: 3984769/cil/1
  • Status: Accepted
The Council notes that the governance and prioritisation of CIL expenditure is tied to the Core Strategy Infrastructure Development Plan and will be allocated in consultation with other infrastructure providers. There is concern that the money received will go into one central pot and will not necessarily be used for infrastructure improvements arising from the developments in question. It was suggested that there needs to be a ring-fenced amount for each development which is used on the local i