Support

Representation ID: 30944

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Iceni Projects Limited

Support the zero CIL fee for strategic site within Brentwood. It is recommended that the Council clarify that in such instances zero CIL would be applicable to ensure that the CIL does not prejudice the viability of developments. The CIL Charging Schedule should
confirm that it will be for the council and the applicant to consider the balance of securing developer obligations through S106 contributions and/or CIL.

Comment

Representation ID: 30945

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Iceni Projects Limited

Support the ongoing review of costs and contingencies as detailed in the consultation. It is recommended that the VA takes into account the Tender Price Indices (TPI) in addition to the most recent BCIS costs.

Comment

Representation ID: 30946

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Iceni Projects Limited

The Consultation states that the principle driver of the differences is the situation rather than the location of a site. That is to say, the value will be more strongly influenced by the specific site characteristics, the immediate neighbours and environment, rather than in which particular ward or postcode sector the scheme is located. It is questioned whether this actually applies to Brentwood where there are clearly major differences in values depending on the location within the Borough. It is recommended that this is considered further by the Council to ascertain whether different levels of CIL contribution would be appropriate.

Comment

Representation ID: 30947

Received: 11/11/2022

Respondent: Iceni Projects Limited

The CIL Payment Schedule should be agreed on a project by project basis, reflecting the phasing profile of strategic projects. The Instalments Policy seems appropriate as long as this only relates to each Reserved Matters Phase of the Strategically Allocated developments, or else this could prove financially damaging to the developer. Flexibility will be required for either CIL or S.106 payments on Strategic Sites.

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 The costs in the IDP are now clearly out of date and need a full review to ensure infrastructure delivery.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.