Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

Comment

Representation ID: 1691

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: Essex County Council

ECC wishes to stress the positive relationship which has been built up over time between ECC, Southend and its two neighbouring Essex Districts, Castle Point and Rochford, including through Thames Gateway South Essex. ECC particularly welcomes the statement in para.1.14 of the PDCS document which states that Southend will wish to work with ECC on projects on the A127 and A13. ECC will wish to continue to work collaboratively with Southend in ECC's role as Highway Authority in Castle Point and Rochford and in developing projects through the Integrated County Strategy which includes Southend, Thurrock , the 12 Essex Districts and ECC. ECC is aware that Southend is a unitary authority over which ECC has less influence than over Essex Districts on CIL and other matters

Support

Representation ID: 1692

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: Essex County Council

Yes

Support

Representation ID: 1693

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: Essex County Council

ECC supports the proposed instalment policy as it involves a smaller number of instalments than some other Charging Authorities in Greater Essex have offered .ECC has stressed its preference for a smaller number of instalments.

Support

Representation ID: 1694

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: Essex County Council

ECC wishes to express its broad support for Southend's CIL and its wish to work with Southend on projects such as the A127 and A13. It also wishes to suggest that Southend should complete an equality impact assessment prior to finalising the schedule. ECC has declined to answer questions 2-5 and 7-10 as it feels that to answer them might be seen as trying to 'second guess' Southend's assessment which it would not wish to do. It has taken a similar stance in responding to PDCS and DCS documents from Essex Districts.