Although it has already arrived at the Sorry Advertiser by totally confusing the handful of people who actually now buy it in Waverley. It has failed to mention to whom CIL applies, and grossly inflates figures.
C I L stands for Community Infrastructure Levy – sounds a bit boring – but it won’t be boring, in fact, it will be very useful when it arrives on ‘Your Waverley’s doorstep.’
Because our borough, in common with many others – including Guildford,- had no approved Local Plans in place, developers have dealt with their contributions towards such things as education, roads and leisure facilities through what are called 106 agreements. These agreements will continue for some very major developments in the future. So even if CIL had been available NOW in the case of Crest Nicholson; Cala Homes; Bewley Homes; Berkeley Homes; A2 Dominion; Bellway; Thakeham Homes; Dunsfold Aerodrome; and on and on … it could not be imposed.
Because quite simply Waverley Borough Council does not have an adopted Local Plan! Why? because it is presently being challenged in the High Court by Protect Our Waverley – known locally as stop Dunsfold at any price – and the Campaign for the Protection of Rural England (CPRE). Challenges that have cost millions!
‘Your Waverley’ has now agreed its CIL levy, which is considerably higher than other borough’s in the country. However, all credit to them for pitching the CIL high and sticking to their guns in the face of considerable opposition from developers. All the above with the exception of DunsfoldAerodrome – if it ever receives consent – pays minimal contributions in 106 contributions.
The plan seems to be that anything granted after 1 March 2019 will now be liable to CIL. And yes, we are sure you agree – shutting the door after the horse has bolted comes to mind!
Also, see around para 68 re Dunsfold. Some people may not like the outcome but at least WBC’s approach has been independently verified.
The point which seems to escape people, including the Sorry Advertiser, is that building a new settlement is more expensive than bolting 200 houses onto an existing settlement where you can piggyback off the existing infrastructure. Perhaps the SAd should start looking at some of the other developer contributions? Including one who is contributing £174,000 towards a 3G sports pitch for one of the top public schools in the country?
And, for those who regularly accuse us of supporting development at Dunsfold. We have, and will continue to support development on brownfield land rather than concreting over the borough’s countryside – whoever it is built by and wherever it is.