CIL'S - Community Infrastructure Levy

[Denise Lloyd]

For those that are not aware when a housing development is built a CIL's charge is made by the Council.  Once upon a time this payment was used in the area affected by the development.  This has now changed to those that have Neighbourhood Plans receive 25% of the charge those that do not have a NDP receive 15%. The remaining amount goes to the Council. This is quite a considerable amount of money going into the coffers of the Council but is little mentioned and is fairly ironic that the people who have actively objected to the Link Road and the SLR find that the money that should have been spent to improve their community is now being used on some white elephant.   

 

I may have my facts not quite spot on and if anybody is the wiser please correct me.

[herefordman75]

Which is why they are hoping that the houses at Three Elms will be built - the levy on those (plus the ones planned for Grafton between the bus depot and the roundabout) will be used to finance the Western loop of the bypass, at least that's what the council are hoping for.

[Slim]

Which is why us residents of Bobblestock and Three Elms do not want our lovely green fields built on or a useless bypass to feed said houses. It is a farce, when a "consultation" by the developers, has a plan of the proposal with street names and house numbers already written in! Consultation! Done deal me thinks. And all to bolster the nearly empty coffers of the church!!

[Denise Lloyd]

•  

•  

Compensation for unwanted development: CPRE's response

8 August 2016

• Email 
• Print

 

 

Today, The Telegraph quoted a Government source apparently suggesting that rural homeowners could be given cash payments in compensation for unwanted developments. 

Matt Thomson, head of planning at the Campaign to Protect Rural England, comments: 

“It is unlikely that the DCLG source quoted in The Telegraph is seriously – or even knowingly – proposing that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) cash should simply be handed over to people living in areas affected by new housing development. Rather the source is suggesting that development should benefit people living in the area through investment in infrastructure and services, instead of that investment being made somewhere else.

“This is in fact a central tenet of the way that CIL and section 106 funds are generally used, with at least 15% of CIL funds being allocated to local community priorities, rising to 25% where a neighbourhood plan is in place. Still, Government appears committed to ensuring that the benefit to those most immediately affected by development is improved still further, as The Telegraph’s source states.

“If it really were the case that the Government planned to put cash directly into people’s pockets, the move would be almost impossible to administer. Among the problems would be a local infrastructure deficit, caused by cash for households being taken from funds earmarked for the provision of infrastructure necessary to support new development.

“A move to pay households directly would signal that the Government is giving up on making the planning process work for communities. Bypassing community engagement with pay-outs would not be a constructive approach.

“The existing planning system does allow for some compensation to those harmed by developments under certain circumstances, and perhaps there is a case for being more generous about compensation. But the key factor must be that decisions are made in response to planning policies and other relevant factors, and compensation should only considered after a decision has objectively been made, not before.â€