Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List
Search representations
Results for Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council search
New searchSupport
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List
Q1. Do you agree that Rother District Council should introduce a CIL?
Representation ID: 21671
Received: 26/09/2014
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
The Parish Council agrees with the benefits of CIL outlined in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the document.
The Parish Council agrees with the benefits of CIL outlined in paragraphs 3 and 4 of the document.
Support
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List
Q2. Do you agree that there is clear infrastructure funding gap?
Representation ID: 21672
Received: 26/09/2014
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
The Parish Council agrees with the findings outlined in the Infrastructure Funding Gap Analysis.
The Parish Council agrees with the findings outlined in the Infrastructure Funding Gap Analysis.
Support
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List
Q3. Do you agree with the proposed residential CIL charging zones?
Representation ID: 21673
Received: 26/09/2014
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
Different rates are appropriate due to the differing types of location and type of development relevant to each.
Different rates are appropriate due to the differing types of location and type of development relevant to each.
Support
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List
Q4. Do you agree with the proposed CIL charge rates for residential uses?
Representation ID: 21674
Received: 26/09/2014
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
The Parish Council supports the findings of the viability study.
The Parish Council supports the findings of the viability study.
Support
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List
Q5. Do you agree with the proposed CIL rates for non-residential development?
Representation ID: 21675
Received: 26/09/2014
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
The Parish Council supports the findings of the viability study.
The Parish Council supports the findings of the viability study.
Support
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List
Q6. Do you support the introduction of an instalment policy in Rother for CIL payments?
Representation ID: 21676
Received: 26/09/2014
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
Yes, especially with developers/builders trying to say they are "cash strapped" at the beginning of their project.
Yes, especially with developers/builders trying to say they are "cash strapped" at the beginning of their project.
Support
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List
Q7. Do you have any views on whether the District Council should introduce a discretionary and exceptional relief policy?
Representation ID: 21677
Received: 26/09/2014
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
The PC would pose the question "What would be the council's criteria for offering such relief?" It might offer a degree of flexibility in exceptional circumstances.
The PC would pose the question "What would be the council's criteria for offering such relief?" It might offer a degree of flexibility in exceptional circumstances.
Support
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Regulation 123 List
Q8. Do you agree with the proposed draft R123 list?
Representation ID: 21678
Received: 26/09/2014
Respondent: Salehurst & Robertsbridge Parish Council
The Parish Council agrees with the list in principle, although it appears to be very "Bexhill biased". A very important local (Robertsbridge) issue relates to the increased traffic resulting from building developments in accordance with the numbers in the Core Strategy, and the potentially serious effects on the A21 junction at the top of George Hill; the Parish Council would like to see major improvements to this junction.
The Parish Council agrees with the list in principle, although it appears to be very "Bexhill biased". A very important local (Robertsbridge) issue relates to the increased traffic resulting from building developments in accordance with the numbers in the Core Strategy, and the potentially serious effects on the A21 junction at the top of George Hill; the Parish Council would like to see major improvements to this junction.
