Comment

Representation ID: 24781

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Andrew Hunter

The current system is bound up with CIL regulations and too much reliance on section 106 agreements. A tariff based charged is likely to be easier and more effective and timely.

Comment

Representation ID: 25181

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Environment Agency

If a Community Infrastructure Levy is to be adopted, we would welcome contributions towards flood risk infrastructure such as the future maintenance of the tidal barrier and existing tidal and fluvial defences.

Comment

Representation ID: 25453

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Suffolk County Council

In some circumstances, S106 is the most appropriate way of securing developer contributions, in others CIL is more appropriate. The determining factor is the value to be derived from development against the cost of infrastructure. CIL is useful for the mitigation of cumulative impacts but does not currently function when the total cost of infrastructure will not be supported by the income from the levy. The Borough Council should give close consideration to the potential benefits of implementing of a tariff-based charge, but will clearly need to be mindful of the changes being proposed by Government.

Comment

Representation ID: 25489

Received: 30/10/2017

Respondent: Mr Arwel Owen

The IGS demonstrates that where the Council coordinates infrastructure funding offered through S106 agreements, it is possible for the planning and provision of strategic infrastructure to be undertaken on a comprehensive basis. For large scale strategic developments such as the IGS, this is the preferred mechanism rather than relying on tariffs.