Comment

Representation ID: 30920

Received: 03/11/2022

Respondent: Hallam Land Management Ltd (HLM)

Agent: Mr Reiss Sadler

It is recommended that the CIL Charging Schedule includes a mechanism to review CIL in line with the progression of the Brentwood Local Plan Review, which is required to be submitted for Examination by July 2024, to include consideration of the CIL rate for any allocated strategic sites to ensure they can be delivered appropriately. If the draft CIL Charging Schedule is not reviewed in an appropriate timeframe, it could render strategic and other allocations in the Brentwood Local Plan Review unviable.

Comment

Representation ID: 30922

Received: 08/11/2022

Respondent: Ingatestone and Fryerning Parish Council

Ingatestone & Fryerning Parish Council do [not] have expertise to comment

Comment

Representation ID: 30940

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Essex County Council

ECC’s comments in relation to the CIL Draft Charging Schedule – Regulation 16 consultation document and the 8 questions in this document are set out in ECC's representations made against the Draft CIL Consultation Information Booklet.

Object

Representation ID: 30942

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Ms Alice Maguire

There is no timetable for the implementation of CIL, so it is unclear if site RO9 will be required to pay the CIL levy.

Object

Representation ID: 30953

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: BNP Paribas Real Estate/Strutt & Parker

Concern regarding double counting if CIL is directed to paying for strategic infrastructure.

Object

Representation ID: 30958

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Transport for London

In order to maintain the viability of schemes which deliver significant infrastructure benefits, we suggest that the CIL Charging Schedule should explain that the Council will consider and accept, in appropriate circumstances, land or infrastructure in lieu of a CIL contribution. This is appropriate where a development goes above and beyond what it needs to do to make the development acceptable in planning terms and is instead providing strategic infrastructure. This is set out in Section 73 of the CIL Regs.

Comment

Representation ID: 30970

Received: 23/12/2022

Respondent: Mid and South Essex ICS (NHS)

The Mid and South Essex Integrated Care Board would welcome the opportunity to contribute to any future updates of the Brentwood IDP at the appropriate time to ensure that necessary healthcare infrastructure is included.

Object

Representation ID: 31068

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Ms Alice Maguire

It is important that the Council provides further information on how CIL and S106 will work together, in particular on allocation sites that are not subject to a proposed variable CIL rate, such as at Policy R09.

Object

Representation ID: 31069

Received: 09/11/2022

Respondent: Ms Alice Maguire

Planning Practice Guidance (Paragraph 017) states that no later than 31 December 2020, authorities should replace regulation 123 lists with infrastructure funding statements. The Council does not appear to have an up to date Infrastructure Funding Statement, with the latest statement (2021) setting out income and expenditure relating to S106 agreements for the year 2020/2021 only. In accordance with the guidance in the PPG, a CIL Infrastructure Funding Statement should be required to give developers more guidance on how contributions will likely be apportioned between CIL and s106 accordingly.

Comment

Representation ID: 31071

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Iceni Projects Limited

It is considered that in order to provide an appropriate balance between securing infrastructure investment and supporting viability of new development, the LPA requires an updated IDP that operates in tandem with the calculations that have supported the CIL Charging Schedule. The costs in the IDP are now clearly out of date and need a full review to ensure infrastructure delivery. The updated IDP should run concurrent with the Local Plan focused review and be adopted at the same time to ensure this balance is being struck.