It is considered that there needs to be more distinction between infrastructure which will be funded wholly or partially by CIL and that which will be funded by s106 or another mechanism. It is suggested that under the transport section the exclusion column text is changed to the following:

Site specific improvements needed to make the development acceptable in
planning terms. These exclusions can include (but are not limited to):
* Highways crossovers to access the site and local junctions;
* Deceleration and turning lanes;
* Measures to facilitate pedestrian, public transport and cyclist improvement and access;
* Lighting and street furniture needed to mitigate impact of development; and
* Mitigation works remote from the development where the need
for such works is identified in a Transport Assessment

For education it is considered that the description in the exclusion column is too general and may count as 'double dipping' with the schemes to be funded through CIL. It is suggested that as the only scheme that is appropriate to be funded through s106 is primary school provision in Bexhill that this for clarity is specifically named in the exclusion column.

It is felt that the detail on education schemes is too specific and does not reflect that given for other types of infrastructure. A bit of flexibility on exact needs will allow for slight changes in future pupil forecasts to be accommodated without requiring the Reg. 123 list to be revised.

The Reg.123 list should include a section on 'Training and Workforce Development' and cover the provision of facilities to improve local labour employment opportunities on development sites. County Council officers are happy to provide more details on possible projects in this area.