Mr. Tim Lucey:

On the collection of the levy, a concern was expressed about the number of stages that had to be gone through before a levy was finally determined and capable of being collected. Clearly, market valuations have to be made and there will potentially be appeals to the Valuation Tribunal and so on. While the legislation is being developed, our commentary is based on our experience, in particular, our experience of the application of the derelict sites levy, which almost appears to be replicated. It is inevitable that there will be time delays in a system of appeals, which is a concern. Even before we get to set a market value, there will be a situation where there will clearly be interaction between the local authority and the site owners on whether the site is under-utilised, whether there are hardship clauses or whether particular circumstances are set out in the legislation which would apply to the site. That is the concern. However, the concept is good, but it will only remain so if it is reasonably efficient and quick in its application. Obviously, the concept is to try to ensure development commences. However, if we are held up in a series of processes which results in a year or 18 months passing by, it will have failed in its original objective.

On the spending of development contributions generally, in our own circumstances we believe the system was very well received by our own local authority members in that it certainly added significant benefits to infrastructure in the county. To revert to my previous point, it was of significant benefit in aiding development coming on stream. It is a good system and should be continued, although at what level is a matter for consideration. They are probably the two key issues.