Please note: You only need to register / login if you wish to make representations.
If you haven't got an account you can register now.
If you have forgotten your password you can request a new password.
You can view the full details of a representation by clicking either on the Representation ID in the top right of the summary box or on the More Details... link at the bottom.
COMMENT R F West Ltd represented by Andrew Martin Planning (Mr Andrew Martin)
This policy confirms the importance of the preparation of an IDP early in the plan making process as a guide to how policy will be implemented and how, and when developers may be expected to contribute towards the delivery of relevant infrastructure. Understanding when strategic local infrastructure improvements are required and how these fit in with the pattern and scale and timing of development is a prerequisite of a plan being found to be sound.
More details about Rep ID: 3220
COMMENT Environment Agency (Mr Martin Barrell)
EA would welcome the opportunity to contribute to CIL and developer contribution considerations. Where new development and re-developments will benefit from existing flood defence infrastructure, the Council should seeks contributions) to ensure they can be renewed or raised in future. New developments (post Jan 2012) built within flood risk areas, cannot benefit from Central Government's Flood Defence Grant-in-Aid.
New development on sites that have passed the Sequential test and proposed on land without adequate flood protection will have to fund improvements in wider flood defence infrastructure or develop and fund their own independent flood defences.
More details about Rep ID: 2961
OBJECT NHS England and North East Essex CCG (Kerry Harding)
There should be a reasonably worded policy within the Local Plan that indicates a supportive approach from the LPA to the improvement, reconfiguration, extension or relocation of existing medical facilities. This positive stance should also be indicated towards assessing those schemes for new bespoke medical facilities where such facilities are agreed in writing by NHS England. New facilities will only be appropriate where they accord with the latest up to date NHS England and CCG strategy documents.
More details about Rep ID: 2932
Existing healthcare infrastructure will require further investment and improvement in order to meet the needs of planned growth.
Policies should be explicit in that contributions towards healthcare provision will be obtained and the LPA will consider a development's sustainability with regard to effective healthcare provision.
The exact nature and scale of the contribution and the subsequent expenditure by NHS England will be calculated at an appropriate time as and when schemes come forward over the plan period to realise the objectives of the DLP.
More details about Rep ID: 2931
COMMENT RSPB (Mark Nowers)
We recommend that this policy (and subsequent development of SPDs) should include provision for developer contributions to a strategic mitigation package for recreational disturbance impacts on Natura 2000 sites. As allocations within this Plan have the potential to affect Natura 2000 sites (the Colne Estuary SPA and Ramsar, Blackwater Estuary SPA and Ramsar, Abberton Reservoir SPA and Ramsar, Stour and Orwell Estuaries SPA and Ramsar and the Essex Estuaries SAC) through increased recreational pressure, we would advocate that the Council should take a similar approach. We would be pleased to offer further advice if this would be helpful.
More details about Rep ID: 2706
OBJECT Persimmon Homes (Ms Anna Davies)
We objected to the CIL consultation. the proposed £150 sqm was considered to be higher than current contributions being sought through s106. Para 173 of the NPPF stresses the importance of ensuring viability and having regard to the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development.
Colchester should seek to engage with developers to ensure that sites being allocated can delivery the necessary infrastructure.
More details about Rep ID: 2590
OBJECT Hopkins Homes represented by Pegasus Group (Nicky Parsons)
My client objects to the first sentence of paragraph 4.65 as it is plainly wrong to assume that new development will always give rise to the need for many new or improved services. This is misleading and unhelpful. Amend the first sentence to read: "New development 'can give' rise to the need for many new or improved services, facilities and other infrastructure which can be considered as part of the overall cost of development." Remove the word 'gives'
More details about Rep ID: 2437
COMMENT Natural England (Kayleigh Cheese)
Community Infrastructure Levy and S106 need to include provisions for strategic mitigation for impacts to coastal designated sites, as may be appropriate.
More details about Rep ID: 2422
OBJECT Bloor Homes Eastern represented by Pegasus Group (Nicky Parsons)
My client objects to the first sentence of paragraph 4.65 as it is plainly wrong to assume that new development will always give rise to the need for many new or improved services. This is misleading and unhelpful.
Suggest amending the first sentence to read:
"New development 'can give' rise to the need for many new or improved services, facilities and other infrastructure which can be considered as part of the overall cost of development." Remove the word 'gives'
More details about Rep ID: 2392
COMMENT R F West, Livelands & David G Sherwood represented by Andrew Martin Planning (Mr Andrew Martin)
This policy confirms the importance of an IDP early in the plan making process to guide how policy will be implemented and how and when developers may be expected to contribute towards delivery of relevant infrastructure. Understanding when strategic local infrastructure improvements are required and how they fit in with the pattern and scale and timing of development is a prerequisite to a plan being found sound.
More details about Rep ID: 2294
COMMENT Essex County Council (Matthew Jericho)
ECC supports inclusion of policies covering strategic infrastructure, developer contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy. Recommended to combine main elements from policies SG6 and 8 so that there is one coherent policy covering all the above issues. Recommended wording provided.
More details about Rep ID: 2293
SUPPORT Cllr rosalind scott
I look forward to the additional infrastructure funding streams CBC can source.
More details about Rep ID: 2135
COMMENT Mr Guy Williamson represented by Mark Liell & Son LLP (Mr David Coleby)
LANGHAM - SCHOOL ROAD (EAST) AND WICK ROAD SITES
All payments (type and amount) must reflect the viability and affordability of the development proposed, and be evaluated overall taking account of the cost of all of the new and improved/upgraded Infrastructure, local need requirements (S106 payments, other planning gain contributions or CIL) and the affordable housing content. The sums must be directed to and reflect the needs of the immediate locality and related services.
The Community Infrastructure Levy must not be set at such a level as to dissuade, delay, or frustrate development that would otherwise proceed.
More details about Rep ID: 1785
COMMENT Dedham Vale Society (Mr J R Drury)
Policy SG 8:Developer Contributions and Community Infrastructure Levy - as stated above the impact of the rapid expansion of the Borough will be felt across a wide area. Funds raised from development should be spent across the Borough, including in the Vale, to mitigate the problems caused by a rapidly expanding population.
More details about Rep ID: 952
COMMENT Mrs Susan Allen-Shepherd
Unfortunately this does not address the lack of relevant infrastructure from past large and piecemeal developments. There needs to be a means of structuring a more long-term view, else it will be like the curate's egg, 'good in parts'.
This lack of a larger view ties us to ongoing problems.
More details about Rep ID: 815
SUPPORT Mr Mark Lee
More details about Rep ID: 336