Daventry District Council Lodge Road, Daventry, Northamptonshire. NN11 4FP Tel: (01327) 871100 Fax: (01327) 300011 DX: 21965 Website: www.daventrydc.gov.uk Chief Executive: Ian Vincent B.A. (Hons) Arch, Dip Arch, RIBA

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE STRATEGY GROUP

4th June 2014

Dear Sir/Madam,

STRATEGY GROUP

A meeting of the Strategy Group will be held in the Council Chamber, Council Offices, Lodge Road, Daventry on Thursday 12th June 2014 at 6.15 p.m.

Members are reminded to sign the Attendance Register on entering the Council Chamber.

This meeting will be recorded in accordance with the Council’s Constitution.

Mobile phones must be switched off before entering the Council Chamber.

Yours faithfully,

Chief Executive

AGENDA

1. PRESENTATION–– Northamptonshire Motorcycle task Force - Encouraging Motorcycle Use in Northamptonshire

2. Minutes. To sign the minutes of the meeting of the Strategy Group held on 10th April 2014 (previously circulated). (Please note queries relating to the accuracy of the Minutes must be submitted in writing to the Monitoring Officer by Noon on Wednesday 11th June 2014 – Constitutional requirement - Part 5D, Section 3.3).

3. Apologies for absence.

4. Declarations of Members’ Interests. To receive declarations of Members’ disclosable interests and the nature of such interests in any of the following agenda items.

5. Councillor Development Charter - Committee Development Needs. In line with the Council’s commitment to achieving the Councillor Development Charter, to discuss and identify any development needs for the Committee as a whole. 6. COMMUNITY, CULTURE AND LEISURE ISSUES

Leisure Centre East - (copy attached, ref: SG.120614/1– page nos. 1-10).

7. HOUSING AND ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH ISSUES

“Clean up my Community” – Environmental Crime Campaign – (copy attached, ref: SG.120614/2– page nos. 11-16).

8. RESOURCES ISSUES

Planning Appeal Legal Costs - (copy attached, ref: SG.120614/3– page nos. 17-18).

9. STRATEGIC PLANNING ISSSUES

(i) Five Year Housing Land Supply - (copy attached, ref: SG.120614/4– page nos. 19-22).

(ii) Community Infrastructure Levy – Draft Charging Schedule- (copy attached, ref: SG.120614/5– page nos. 23-29). The appendices to this report (1-5) are circulated separately to the Agenda.

10. ECONOMIC, REGENERATION & EMPLOYMENT ISSUES

Closure of the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation- (copy attached, ref: SG.120614/6– page nos. 30-34).

11. ACCESS AND COMMUNICATION ISSUES

Superfast broadband – request for DDC contribution - (copy attached, ref: SG.120614/7– page nos. 35-42).

12. URGENT BUSINESS. To consider any other item that the Chairman decides is urgent, notice of which has been given in writing to the Chief Executive prior to the commencement of the meeting.

---o0o---

Meetings of the Strategy Group are held in public and members of the public may listen to, but not take part in, discussions.

If you have any special communication needs please contact Jeverly Findlay on 01327 302324 as soon as possible. Every effort will be made to provide extracts from the Agenda in a suitable form or help with communication at the Strategy Group meeting. ---o0o---

FIRE/EMERGENCY EVACUATION

PLEASE read the Fire/Emergency Evacuation Instructions BEFORE the meeting starts. These are displayed by the entrance to the Council Chamber.

TO ALL MEMBERS OF THE STRATEGY GROUP Electronic copies of the agenda have been circulated to remaining members of Council Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 1

Wards affected:

General

Strategy Group – 12 June 2014

Leisure Centre East

Community, Culture and Leisure Issues

1. Purpose of Report

To outline the outcomes of work to date on the feasibility of a new leisure centre serving the eastern part of the District, recommend approval of the concept and seek authority to consult on the location and mix of uses to be provided to support the development of a Business Plan.

2. Advice

That it be RECOMMENDED: 1. That it is the Council’s intention to provide a new leisure centre (“Leisure Centre East”) to serve the eastern part of Daventry District. 2. That consultation may take place on the location and mix of facilities to be provided at Leisure Centre East. 3. That detailed proposals should be worked up, including arrangements for funding, which should seek to maximise, to the extent proper, external and developer funding and in due course presented as a Business Plan for approval.

3. Introduction

As part of the 2014/15 budget, Council agreed to set aside £50,000 to explore the feasibility of a new leisure centre to serve the eastern part of the District. This arose from both the existing identified deficit in swimming pool provision and the needs for a range of sporting and leisure provision which will be generated by the major growth planned for that area. Work has now proceeded to a point where it is possible, and desirable, for a decision to be taken on the principle of the project.

4. Information

4.1 Objectives

The objectives of the exercise were to establish if a new leisure centre serving the east of the District, and ideally providing a hub for outreach sports development activity, could be sustained without an ongoing subsidy. If this was the case and Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 2

Members agreed that the principle should be supported, work would then proceed to look in more detail at a specific location (or conceivably locations) and the mix of facilities to be offered. In general terms, there are three main elements – dry sports, swimming pool(s) and gym – but a wide range of sub-elements, options and additional items are possible.

As with the current leisure centre, the need would be to provide an offer which is attractive enough to generate significant income, which is then used to cross- subsidise elements which are themselves financially loss-making but which contribute to public wellbeing. It is thus a form of social enterprise.

Of course, whilst also seeking to meet existing needs, the potential development would also, and importantly, respond to the needs created by growth. The growth in focus is within Daventry District but addresses the needs of Northampton. There is also some growth within the Northampton Borough boundary which may potentially relate. Given these inter-relationships dialogue with Northampton Borough Council and other interested parties on these issues and may influence the final form of any proposals.

4.2 Initial feasibility process

The assessment of the feasibility of providing a new leisure centre to serve the east of the District (called for now ‘Leisure Centre East’; a formal name can be considered in due course) has thus far used a combination of in-house and external expertise.

The likely catchment of the new centre was initially mapped using the Council’s GIS (geographic information system, digital mapping) and in-house expert. This allowed an assessment to be made of the likely catchments of different general locations in the east of the District, taking into account travel times and competing facilities. In this process, as in the following step, potential gym membership was the key factor, as typically gyms provide the major source of income to offset less financially beneficial elements such as swimming pools. The general locations were chosen for testing on the basis that they represented a reasonable geographic spread, therefore making it likely that if a viable location existed it would be identified, and that construction would be possible without requiring demolition of existing property. All locations also relate to either existing settlements or proposed sustainable urban extensions, and either have or could have reasonable access by public transport.

Having established potentially credible broad locations in this way, they were then submitted to a specialist company (The Leisure Database Company, TLDC) for more detailed assessment against socio-demographic and competition data.

4.3 Initial feasibility outcomes

Four broad locations were originally tested with TLDC and a fifth general location was added following further internal discussions about the planning policy implications of the potential broad locations. To the TLDC outputs were added comments based on planning policy and practical considerations. The results of this exercise are set out in Table 1, appended. The ‘latent demand’ figures are Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 3 those from TLDC and outline the total number of fitness memberships that it is believed can be achieved for the location. Given that this is the highest income generator within a leisure centre it is standard practice within the industry that feasibility is based on these latent demands. The TLDC methodology may validly be relied upon for these purposes as substantial investment decisions in the private sector are taken based on it. Moreover, the Council would only be using it for this initial stage and further work would substantiate results.

By way of comparison with the figures in Table 1, the TLDC latent demand figure for Daventry Leisure Centre is 2,400. However, as the Table shows, the latent demand number is not the only factor in anticipated gym income; the population mix is also an important factor as higher gym membership fees can be sustained if the population is generally wealthier. In considering this factor, it needs to be borne in mind that gym income is used to cross-subsidise other activities which benefit the wider community.

The impacts of the broad locations have been assessed against the Sport England Affordable Sports Centres model (on which, see below). In summary, it is concluded that all five general locations are potentially viable and therefore worthy of further exploration and consultation. Engagement of the local communities and other interested parties is an important factor in establishing the preferred location, form and mix of facilities, including whether it would be a collaborative arrangement.

4.4 Costs and income

For the present purposes, the 2013 Sport England Affordable Sports Centres model has been used. Whilst naturally any specific scheme will vary from these costs (in either direction) they represent a reasonable basis for initial feasibility work at this level. If the project is approved to proceed, options for delivery will be explored which include innovative solutions which aim to reduce both capital and revenue costs.

The Sport England figures suggest a project cost of £8 million would be reasonable to assume, for a four court sports hall, six lane swimming pool and learner pool, a 100 station fitness suite and studio. These parameters are used as a typical mid-range Centre for the purposes of indicative costing and site requirements, and do not prejudge the outcome of the proposed consultation and further feasibility work. This requires a site of 0.85Ha (2.1 acres) which for the present purposes it is conservatively assumed purchase is required, priced at £0.5 million per Ha, giving a site cost of £0.425 million. Consultancy and other preparatory costs are estimated broadly at £250,000 and thus a total estimated cost of £ 8.675 million may be assumed for these purposes.

Against this needs to be set the anticipated planning obligation income. As an indication the contributions according with the Council’s Infrastructure and Planning Obligations SPD for the various elements which form part of a leisure centre may be considered. For 3,500 dwelling at the Northampton North Sustainable Urban Extension and around 600 dwellings at Buckton Fields, these would amount to a sum of around £4.2 million. Further contributions may also be possible and legitimate. Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 4

Alternatively, CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) provides a means of focusing on specific items of infrastructure in sequence, rather than being bound by the specific impacts of each development and therefore the initial CIL programme shows a figure of £7 million allocated. This can, of course, change (in either direction) and may need to do so if some of the major development is approved before CIL comes into force.

Once established, the Sport England Affordable Sports Centre guide together with the outputs from TLDC suggests a facility in location 3, 4 or 5 should be able to sustain a modest surplus (which it is envisaged would support sports development activity in the area). A smaller but potentially higher quality facility appears to be feasible in location 1 (Brixworth), but would provide for a smaller proportion of the population.

4.5 Consultation process and development of preferred options

If these proposals are approved, consultation would then take place with the public, parish councils, regional governing bodies and sporting and community groups, developers, neighbouring councils and other stakeholders. The aim would be to identify the location or locations with the greatest support, deliverability and consistency with the Council’s policy framework, and combine this with further work on the viability of more detailed proposals. A recommendation would then be made to Members for a specific site (or, conceivably, sites, if some disaggregation of facilities made sense and did not undermine the ability to make the whole work) and the outline of facilities to be provided. It is of course possible that sites may be identified in the consultation process in addition to those identified in Table 1. These would be considered on their merits.

Clearly, a range of significant risks relate to this project including the following.

 Inability to actually deliver a Centre for a range of reasons and therefore public expectations having been raised are then dashed. This can be managed to a degree through careful choice of language but is partially unavoidable if the Council makes it clear (as is recommended) that it has taken a policy decision to provide a Centre.  Money invested does not result in a Centre, again for a range of reasons. This is clearly a risk and one which can be managed to a reasonable degree through staged approval (in line with the Council’s normal financial control processes and Project Management Methodology) as certainty increases. Currently, the money at risk is the £50,000 of revenue already allocated to feasibility work. This would only increase with further formal approvals.  Competitive issues including developments within neighbouring areas. This is a risk which could feed into either of the risks identified above. To a degree risk posed by developments by other local authorities can be managed through liaison with them (for example, this project has been outlined at the Overstone, Moulton, Boughton, Bringtons and Harlestone (OMBBH) Development Implementation Working Group, of which Northampton Borough Council (NBC) are members, and no concerns have been raised by NBC). Private sector competition is probably more of an unknown. Of some comfort Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 5

may be the example of the Rugby & Daventry (Rainsbrook) Crematorium, where potential competition ultimately faded away.

The staged approval process that the Council adopts, together with carefully assessment of risks and opportunities as the project proceeds should enable these risks to be managed to an acceptable level.

5. Implications

5.1 Financial – Indicative costings of the new leisure centre are set out in the body of the report, together with the likely levels of planning obligation (Section 106) or Community Infrastructure Levy funding. This would leave a reasonable worst case of £4.8 million to be found, which the Council may need to borrow (this would incur interest not allowed for in the affordable sports centre cost model) or fund from, for example, retained non-domestic rates income (over and above that already assumed in the Medium Term Financial Plan). It should be noted that the authority currently has no approved borrowing strategy and this would need to be developed in order to consider all future projects and their affordability. For these purposes it is not assumed that income from the Centre would repay any of the capital costs. Grants would also obviously be sought. As the project progressed, further work would be carried out on this vital aspect. Future Medium Term Financial Plan and capital and CIL programmes would also address it. If CIL is used, additional planning obligation funds are secured and/or the Centre was created in a collaborative way, the net cost to DDC should fall, potentially to nil.

In terms of revenue costs, a key parameter for the project has been to create an asset which is, at least, self-sustaining. The approach to achieving this is set out in the body of the report. However, it is worth noting here that Daventry Leisure Centre, including its outreach sports development activities, is almost at breakeven over the ten-year minimum life of the contract with SLM, and will make a net financial return to the Council if the five year extension is applied. This is despite the age of the facility and the fact that it was not designed explicitly to secure such a financial outcome. It is therefore likely that the new leisure centre could achieve at least such a position and hopefully a substantially better one.

5.2 Personnel – Continuing with the project, which would be the immediate consequence of the recommendations, involves a modest amount of staff time which is currently programmed. Beyond that point, moving to implementation would clearly have significant impacts. These would be managed as part of the work programme over the medium term. Additional resources would be likely to be required for the period of detailed design and construction, which may be either temporary staff, agency workers or consultants. Such costs would form part of the overall project costs.

Once the new leisure centre approached opening, it would obviously require staffing. At this point it is assumed that the Council would continue its current approach of placing the centre in the hands of a suitable external contractor. If this is the case, the details of personnel issues would rest with that operator. Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 6

5.3 Legal/Constitutional – The Council has a range of powers to construct and operate leisure facilities, including the general power of competence under Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011.

5.4 Environmental – The construction and operation of a new leisure centre would have a range of environmental impacts, particularly land use changes (especially since most likely sites are green field, so biodiversity impacts are possible), energy use in the building, and transport of staff, suppliers and users. These factors would be addressed through the site selection and design processes.

Ways of mitigating adverse impacts, and potentially having a net positive impact, include selecting a site accessible by walking, cycling and public transport, but one which also minimises overall travel distances (allowing for diversion of people from centres further away), sensitive design of the building including potential habitat creation and energy-efficient design.

5.5 Policy – The creation of a new leisure centre to serve the eastern part of the District would contribute to both The Community Strategy 2012-2026 and the Corporate Strategic Plan 2014 – 2017.

Under the Community Strategy it would contribute to the following priorities.

 1a Healthy Start – Every child is safe and has the best start in life.  1b Healthy Choices – People choose healthier lifestyles and have greater control over their health and wellbeing.  1c Healthier for Longer – Vulnerable adults and elderly people are safe and able to use services and support that helps them live as independently as possible.  2a Skills and Learning – Support people to develop the skills they need to increase their employability – Raise the aspirations of young people.  2b Development and Regeneration – Support the development of a diverse range of businesses and jobs across the district.  2c Housing – Provide a range of housing opportunities that meets the needs of existing and future residents.

Under the Corporate Strategic Plan it would contribute to the following.

 B2.1 – Number of apprenticeships, work placements and trainee posts offered by the council.  B3.1 – The profile of Daventry District.  H2.1 – Sport and physical activity facilitated by the Council.

Daventry District Local Plan saved policies and West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

Any future proposal would require a planning application which would be judged against the policy framework and other material considerations.

The general locations at Buckton Fields and Northampton North are within or close to locations proposed for residential led development in the Joint Core Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 7

Strategy. Given that the developments in these locations are planning for sustainable transport – walking, cycling and public transport, these sites would, in principle, provide preferred locations for the centre.

The area to the West of Moulton is identified as a Green Wedge in the Local Plan. Saved Policy EN10 states that development will not be permitted in the Green Wedge unless it would not be discordant with the predominantly open/green nature of the wedge. A scheme of this type would not be in accordance with this policy and therefore would only be acceptable if material considerations outweighed the policies.

The Infrastructure & Developer Contributions SPD identifies the need for a range of sporting facilities arising as a result of development, and gives unit qualities and rates for these. In the case of swimming provision, it states that contributions will be sought when the Council “has policy to provide further swimming facilities”. Given the imminence of development proposals for a number of major sites, notably the Northampton North Sustainable Urban Extension, it important to address this issue now.

5.6 ICT – It is unlikely that the Council would need additional or different ICT systems to support the operation of a new leisure centre, based on the assumption it would be operated externally.

5.7 Crime and Disorder – A new leisure centre serving the eastern part of the District should have a modestly positive effect on crime and disorder, by providing a place in which legitimate sport and enjoyment can be had. If the wider aim of the project – to also have a programme of sports development allied to the new centre – is achieved, the crime and disorder benefits should be greater. There is some minor potential for problems in or close to a new centre, but these should be capable of being managed through careful design and operation.

5.8 Human Rights – It is unlikely that any of the Convention rights would be infringed by this proposal, which is to create a facility for general public use but which does not compel use. Should the selected site be one which the current owner did not want to sell and the Council considered use of compulsory purchase powers, then Article 1 of the First Protocol (Protection of property) might be engaged, but the UK Government considers that UK compulsory purchase law complies with the Convention.

5.9 Equalities – The provision of a new leisure centre appears unlikely to have any directly discriminatory impacts on any of the protected characteristics, and its indirect effects arising from the differential benefits different groups may receive are fairly obviously justified. The protected characteristic of disability is perhaps most relevant, but any new centre would be built so as to maximise the opportunities available to people with disabilities wishing to participate in sport and recreation.

6. Conclusions

Work to date would suggest that the provision of a new leisure centre to serve the eastern part of Daventry District is feasible. However, it does not establish a definitely preferred general location (and certainly not a specific site) and in any Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 8 event consultation on that aspect, and on the precise mix of uses, would be desirable. This is therefore recommended.

S P Bowers Business Manager

Background papers: Infrastructure and Developer Contributions SPD October 2013

Previous minutes: None

Contact Officer: Jez Watts/Julie Lewis Extension 2442/2548 Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 9

General Catchment Latent Competition Assumedcatchment Publictransport(see Potential Comments (see note 5) location population demand note 4) gym (gym) income, £,000s 1.South 28,398 1,211 low - Moulton 10 minute drive time X7 (Northampton – £504 Considerable driving likely therefore less Brixworth (educational Market Harborough) sustainable than other locations. Good bus only) service but connections may be difficult. TLDC: Only 12,500 live within 3 miles. 20% members from outside 10 min drive time. 2. Buckton 47,887 1,643 low - Dallington Adjusted 10 minute X7 (Northampton – £422 Located on edge of Northampton in a location Fields SUE Fitness, Mounts drive time excluding Market Harborough) where development is proposed in the Core Baths those outside 2 miles to Potential for Strategy. Good bus service but may be remote the south improvements as from actual site and connections may be part of SUE difficult. TLDC: 37,000 within 2 miles. 20% of development membership from further afield. 3. West of 68,978 2,108 All on 10 minute drive time 39 (Northampton – £632 Planning policy concerns due to risk of Moulton educational Kettering) infringing green wedge policy (see note 6). sites Reasonable bus service, but may be remote from actual site. TLDC: 39,000 within 2 mile radius. 15% travel from further afield. 4. North of 51,593 1,694 Moulton Adjusted 10 minute 39 (Northampton – £480 Reasonable bus service, but may be remote Northampton (educational drive time excluding Kettering) Potential from actual site. SUE sites) and Lings those outside 3 miles to for improvements as TLDC: 11,000 within 2 mile radius. 15% will Forum the south part of SUE travel more than 10 minutes. development 5. 47,614 1,499 Moulton Adjusted 10 minute No current service, £450 TDLC: 34,000 within 2 miles. 15% will travel Northampton (educational drive time excluding but potential for more than 10 minutes. North SUE sites) and Lings those outside 2 miles to creation as part of Forum the south SUE development

Table 1: Broad locations tested and issues identified Notes: 1. SUE is a Sustainable (large) Urban Extension. Report Reference: SG.120614/1 Page 10

2. Catchment and latent demand figures allow for the projected SUEs in the Submission version of the Core Strategy and thus do not show the increase from 2,000 to 3,500 dwellings in the North of Northampton SUE. 3. Leisure facilities at educational sites are considered not to provide material competition as they are not generally open to the public. 4. Public transport shows existing bus services with a frequency of hourly or better during the daytimes. The X7 currently runs early morning, into the early evening and also operates on Sundays; the 39 does not. 5. Comments prefaced ‘TLDC’ are based directly on The Leisure Database Company’s explanation of their assessment of demand. 6. The saved 1997 Local Plan policy on green wedges includes land to both sides of the road between Moulton and Boughton. The Council has successfully defended appeals for housing-led development in this area, partially on the basis of this policy. As such, it would be difficult to justify using a site within the green wedge designation. The assumed catchment figures assumed direct access from this road and therefore may not be entirely accurate for a detailed site within this general location assuming land subject to the green wedge policy is avoided. However, it should still give a useful general guide. Report Reference: SG.120614/2 Page 11

Wards affected: General

Strategy Group – 12th June 2014

“Clean up my Community” – Environmental Crime Campaign

Housing and Environmental Health Issues

1. Purpose of Report

To seek approval to proceed with the environmental crime campaign entitled “Clean up my Community”.

2. Advice

That it be RECOMMENDED: That the effectiveness of the environmental crime campaign ‘Clean up my Community’ be reviewed after the initial 2014 pilot.

3. Introduction

It is clear from recent feedback to the Community Safety Partnership that littering and dog fouling are significant concerns for the Daventry District residents. In recent years the Environmental Improvement team have largely responded to such concerns in a reactive way, although the team has recently attracted project funding to arrange proactive action days across the District.

4. Information

This proposal provides a more systematic and planned approach to the proactive work already undertaken to counter environmental crime and seeks to use innovative methods to spread the message to the public and to engage with partners and stakeholders, particularly at town and parish level.

The campaign will commence with an educative approach to countering littering and other forms of environmental crime. This will include press releases, high profile patrols targeted at known hotspots, and engagement with community groups. Offending behaviour will initially be dealt with using an informative approach focusing on the health and well-being implications to the community. This awareness-raising period will be followed by a heavily-promoted enforcement campaign targeting known hotspots at times when offences are most likely to take place. Appendix 1 provides more information about each element of the campaign.

Our plans to deliver this campaign were already well advanced before the local media coverage in May regarding environmental concerns in Daventry town. Issues such as litter and dog fouling are serious and can have a detrimental impact on neighbourhoods. While we are working hard to tackle these issues district-wide, it is also the responsibility Report Reference: SG.120614/2 Page 12 of individuals to comply with the laws and dispose of their rubbish properly or clean up after their pets.

Our first priority is to raise public awareness of litter and dog fouling. Enforcement action is a last resort but we will take it where necessary. For example last autumn we successfully prosecuted a dog owner who failed to clear up after their pet following repeated complaints from residents. We also enforce littering, last year issuing 64 fixed penalty notices for littering offences.

5. Implications

5.1 Financial

Much of the campaign proposed involves a more focused use of existing resources. One element of the campaign (employ 2 X part time DDC wardens at Band 6 on part time basis to counter littering and other crime in the town centre) will require additional funding being identified and approved.

5.2 Personnel

The campaign will largely be met utilising existing resources. The Appendix clearly specifies where additional resources will be required.

5.3 Legal/Constitutional

The proposal accords with functions and powers as specified in the Constitution (pages 114-118).

5.4 Environmental

The campaign aims to enhance the environment and to counter environmental health concerns arising from littering, dog fouling and other forms of environmental crime.

5.5 Policy

The provision of a targeted campaign to address environmental crime supports the Council’s objectives, particularly in respect of protecting and enhancing the environment. It supports many of our values including achieving positive outcomes for the community and providing an opportunity to demonstrate good leadership. It also supports policy commitments associated with anti-social behaviour, community safety and the Community Strategy.

5.6 ICT

Met from existing resources.

5.7 Crime and Disorder

Although environmental crime is often viewed as “low level” crime it consistently features as being of primary concern to the public. This campaign aims to counter criminal behaviour which degrades our environment. The Police and Crime Commissioner has Report Reference: SG.120614/2 Page 13 recognised the impact of environmental crime in relation to both rural crime and antisocial behaviour.

5.8 Human Rights

Enforcement on environmental crime has the potential to impact on Article 6 which relates to the right to a fair trial. Each enforcement element of the campaign will be carefully considered and implemented to ensure people’s human rights in this respect are unaffected.

5.9 Equalities

A proportionate approach to enforcement action will be used with young people (under the age of 16), and to people who have a disability that may affect their ability to comply with the law. For instance, our dog fouling orders allow exemptions for the registered blind and for persons who have a disability which affects their mobility, manual dexterity, physical co-ordination or ability to lift, carry or otherwise move everyday objects.

6. Conclusions

Environmental crime, particularly littering and dog fouling, are a major concern for our residents and amount to a significant blight on the environment within the district. Taken together, the options set out in the Appendix demonstrate how a focussed use of existing resources may have an appreciable effect in reducing the extent of such crime, and on how, by engaging with the community and local community groups, the Council can take a lead role in changing behaviour, preventing problems and thereby securing a sustainable improvement to the environment.

The report also provides suggestions for growing the resource for tackling this key area, which, if supported will enhance the effectiveness of the campaign.

Maria Taylor Community Manager

Background papers:

None

Contact Officer: Paul Knight Extension 2537 Report Reference: SG.120614/2 Page 14 Appendix 1

Littering

Action Timescale Partners Impact Gather baseline data on littering in April DDC, Enterprise Knowledge of when and Daventry town centre. Identify where where most litter is and when littering takes place to generated so as to inform focus of campaign. effectively target and monitor campaign

-Targeted educational campaign May and Enforcement officers Challenging offending challenging litter offenders including June working in pairs – focusing behaviour and raising individuals and businesses on hotspots and key times profile of campaign - -Town Centre Action days, of day and night spreading the word distribution of leaflets to businesses DDH, Amey, Town Engage with local groups and challenging workers and patrons Council and businesses to counter smoking outside workplaces and/or littering problem entertainment premises such as pubs -Invite DDH, Amey and Town Council to participate in educational campaign Parish Councils and local -Action days across the district community groups targeted at villages where residents are keen to be involved and/or there are specific litter problems

Targeted Town Centre enforcement July to Enforcement officers Publicity associated with campaign - fixed penalty notices September working in pairs focussing issuing of fixed penalty issued to litter offenders on hotspots at key times notices will further of day and night challenge offending behaviour

Explore with Town Council possible July to Enforcement officers Use of CCTV will ensure use of CCTV to target litter offenders September working with Town potential litterers in the – possible short term trial Council contractors town centre think twice utilising CCTV to assist before offending – with identifying offenders evidence may also be and obtaining evidence available should fines be challenged

Offer litter champions who come May to DDC, Town Centre Involve community and forward assistance in the form of September businesses, DDH, other local partners to leaflets, bags, publicity, co-ordination residents operating on counter littering and with Amey etc. behalf of parish councils, promote use of litter bins and individuals who volunteer to do litter- based work within their community

-Explore possibility of running a Summer, Individuals, businesses, “Clean up my Community” Autumn and community groups, competition encouraging individuals, Winter with schools and parishes businesses, community groups, prizes schools and parishes to do Clean up awarded in my Community campaigns of their January own. Once completed they will tell 2015 us about what they have done and what they have achieved which will then be promoted with winner/s announced at the end of the campaign. Report Reference: SG.120614/2 Page 15 Action Timescale Partners Impact Develop signs to apply to bins, notice July to DDC Promote use of litter bins boards and other possible locations September and discourage litter publicising prosecutions, problems offenders associated with litter, etc.

Employ 2 X part time DDC wardens July to DDC Extension of campaign to at Band 6 on part time basis to September provide consistent counter littering and other crime in presence both educating the town centre and enforcing on littering This action is subject to securing and other environmental additional funding, the cost of which crime may partially be offset by income generated from fixed penalty notices

Littering from vehicles

Action Timescale Partners Impact -Promote a District wide approach to Ongoing DDC, Police, community Greater use of litter bins reducing littering from vehicles groups, local residents, provided and less -Officers observe littering from cars Amey on clear ups discarding of litter into the -Educational/enforcement approach verge to be used to counter littering from lorries parked up in laybys near to M1 junction and other hotspots -Work with local police to engage with drivers to encourage use of litter bins provided -Joint action with local PCSO’s to attempt to identify littering offenders -Consider contacting freight organisations to promote proper disposal of waste by their employees

Dog fouling

Action Timescale Partners Impact -Continue and extend District-wide Ongoing 29 parish councils and 3 Concerned residents dog poo spraying initiative community groups already supplementing the publicity signed up, plus individual and enforcement work of residents the dog wardens

-Town centre and village action days Ongoing DDC Dog wardens and -Raise profile of focused on responsible dog environmental crime lead responsible dog ownership ownership and the work of the dog wardens. Support communities keen to counter irresponsible dog ownership

Ongoing enforcement patrols Ongoing DDC Dog wardens and -Ongoing effort in response environmental crime lead to 120 complaints per year Report Reference: SG.120614/2 Page 16

Fly tipping

Action Timescale Partners Impact -Engage with parishes and local Ongoing Parish Councils and -Keep the pressure up on residents at fly tipping hotspots, individual residents, fly tippers, raise profile of including leafleting of residents to Police, County and LA’s enforcement activity and promote reporting of incidents sharing borders close to aim to collect evidence that -Publicise enforcement action hotspots results in enforcement -Ensure signage in hotspots is action against fly tipping maintained particularly where such offenders signage is removed -Ensure links with Police and County are maintained, that intelligence is shared, and that enforcement action including rogue trader days, use of stop checks and use of surveillance cameras, where practicable, is effectively targeted -Publicise the requirement for the Ongoing Environment Agency, -Support legitimate public to check that businesses Police and County business interests removing waste, including green -Discourage and enforce waste, are suitably licensed against unlicensed waste carriage and associated illegal disposal of waste Report Reference: SG.120614/3 Page 17

Wards affected: General

Strategy Group – 12 June 2014

Planning Appeal Legal Costs

Resources Issues

1. Purpose of Report To seek funding approval for the Council’s robust legal defence of a planning appeal relating to the planning application refusal of a major housing development at Woodford Halse.

2. Advice

That it be RECOMMENDED: That Earmarked legal reserves of up to £25,000 - £50,000 be made available for these purposes if required.

3. Introduction

The Council is presently preparing its defence of a planning appeal relating to DA/2013/0916, a proposal to develop 55 houses on land off Farndon Road, Woodford Halse, which was refused by planning committee on 19 February 2014 against officer advice.

It is important to local residents and the Planning Committee that these appeals are properly defended. Failure to provide an adequate defence of the reasons for refusal could lead to an award of costs against the Council for “unreasonable behaviour”. These could be a considerable amount.

4. Implications

Financial The estimated cost of in-house legal services, expert external witnesses and additional administrative support is £25,000. If Counsel is required, an additional £25,000 may be required.

The Chief Executive has approved the use of contingency funding to meet these costs. However, if there is not sufficient contingency funding or other budget underspends available it is recommended that these costs are met from the earmarked legal reserve.

By providing a robust defence, it is hoped that the likelihood of an award of significant Report Reference: SG.120614/3 Page 18 costs against the Council will be reduced.

Policy National and local planning policy applies. Daventry District continues to attract several speculative planning applications for large scale housing developments in the rural area. With the Core Strategy not yet approved, developers continue to challenge whether there is a shortfall in the District’s five year housing land supply,- citing the National Planning Policy Framework and National Planning Practice Guidance.

Personnel Securing the services of independent planning and landscape expert witnesses and additional short-term administrative support as outlined in the report. Further administrative support to the planning inquiries will be met from casual employment.

Legal/Constitutional It is essential that the Council defends its decisions to refuse these applications, for reputational and financial reasons.

Environmental Environmental impacts relating to this application will be made available to the planning inquiry.

IT Met from existing resources

Human Rights No implications

Community Safety No implications Equalities No implications Previous Minutes Strategy Group July 2012 – Planning Appeal Legal Costs Strategy Group September 2012 – Planning Appeal Legal Costs Strategy Group July 2013 – Planning Appeal Legal Costs

Report Author: Maria Taylor Extension: 2229 Report Reference: SG.120614/4 Page 19

Wards affected:

General

Strategy Group – 12 June 2014

Five Year Housing Land Supply

Strategic Planning Issues

1. Purpose of Report

To seek approval to use the main modifications to the Joint Core Strategy (published January 2014) in housing policies (S3, S4 and S6) and the need identified in the associated trajectory (Appendix 3) for the calculation of the five year housing land supply.

2. Advice

That it be RECOMMENDED: That the housing requirement set out in the main modifications to the Joint Core Strategy (published January 2014) in housing policies (S3, S4 and S6) and trajectory (Appendix 3) be used for the calculation of the five year housing land supply until such time as the Core Strategy is adopted, and thereafter the adopted figures be used.

3. Background

Members will recall that in May 2013 they resolved to use the housing policies in the emerging Joint Core Strategy as the housing requirement for the 5 year land supply calculation. In the period immediately prior to the Council decision the Regional Strategy was in the process of being revoked.

The Regional Strategy was revoked on 12th April 2013. Work has progressed on the Core Strategy, and there is now a need to consider an updated position for the 5 year supply.

4. Information

4.1 The requirement to maintain a 5 year Supply of housing Land

Members will be aware that the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012 places emphasis on delivering housing and requires local authorities to maintain a five year supply of housing land. The NPPF states that where a five year supply cannot be demonstrated, policies relating to the supply of Report Reference: SG.120614/4 Page 20 housing should not be considered up to date (paragraph 49) and accordingly the presumption in favour of sustainable development will apply.

There are two Housing Land Supply Reports covering the Daventry District. This is because the policies included in the emerging Core Strategy clearly define a separate policy area to meet the growth needs of Northampton. This policy area is defined as the ‘Northampton Related Development Area’ (NRDA). The NRDA policies provide a co-ordinated policy basis for planning the growth of Northampton across the administrative boundaries of Northampton, Daventry and South Northamptonshire. There is a housing requirement for this policy area in the Core Strategy which is distinct from the housing requirements in the remainder of the Daventry and South Northamptonshire Districts.

The first of the two reports is produced by this Council each year. It covers housing supply in the District less that part covered by the Northampton Related Development Area (NRDA). It is produced on an annual basis. The latest report sets out the position as at 1st April 2014. This demonstrated that there was a 5.2 years supply. A copy of the report can be viewed at www.daventrydc.gov.uk. Given the need to have a position to inform development management decisions and to provide a basis for offering advice to potential applicants, the report had to be published ahead of the consideration of this Strategy Group report.

The second report is produced by Northampton Borough Council in partnership with this and South Northamptonshire Councils. It covers the NRDA. The NRDA comprises of Northampton Borough and the Northampton related Sustainable Urban Extensions in Daventry and South Northamptonshire Districts. The latest report sets out the position as at 1st April 2012. This demonstrated that there was a 2.32 years supply. A copy of the report can be viewed at www.northampton.gov.uk.

4.2 Proposed basis of calculation

Following the revocation of the Regional Strategy on 12th April 2013 there is no longer a housing requirement set out in a development plan document. This will be addressed when the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy Local Plan is adopted.

Given the need to have a basis for the five year supply consideration needs to be given to what fills the void created by the revocation of the Regional Strategy policies. It is suggested that the requirement set out in the emerging Core Strategy be used until such time as there is a settled figure in the adopted Core Strategy.

The NPPF states that weight can be attached to emerging plans, but the amount of weight depends on the stage reached, the extent of any unresolved objections, and the degree of consistency of the policies with the policies within the framework.

The Core Strategy has recently been subject to a reconvened examination. At the original examination in April/May 2013 the Inspector asked for further work to be undertaken to identify the ‘Objectively Assessed Housing Needs’ (OAHN) of West Northamptonshire and further work on the Sustainability Appraisal. This work was subsequently undertaken. Proposed modifications resulting from this work, together with the work itself were published for consultation in early 2014. All of this work was Report Reference: SG.120614/4 Page 21 tested at the reconvened examination. The Inspector has not asked for any further work to be undertaken and he intends to publish his report in late July. The various consultation stages on the plan have resulted in significant numbers of objections to the housing figures arguing variously that the figures should be higher or lower.

Members may be aware that in a recent High Court Judgement for a case in South Northamptonshire District, the Judge concluded that the Inspector was right in his approach to use the Regional Strategy figures. However this reflects the position when the inspector’s decision was taken last summer. More recently the Council has received two appeal decisions (Woodford Road, Byfield and South of Boughton Road, Moulton) where the Inspector has supported the Council’s use of the emerging Core Strategy housing figures and the evidence base. Similarly Kettering Borough Council has received similar support in respect of an appeal at Broughton.

Given that the figures included in the main modifications to the Core Strategy housing policies are based on the most up-to-date evidence it is considered appropriate to use them as the basis for housing land supply calculations until at least such time as an adopted Core Strategy (Local Plan) is in place, and to continue thereafter if the modifications are included in the adopted plan. If the finally adopted plan includes revised figures, these would supersede the modifications. This report recommends that this approach is adopted for the report produced by this Council. Through our partnership working we would seek to ensure that this approach is also adopted for the NRDA.

4.3 Likelyeffects

Whilst some guidance on how to undertake housing land supply calculations has been provided in the recently published National Planning Practice Guidance it must be acknowledged that there are still many aspects of undertaking the calculation for which there is no set method and that it is likely that at least some developers would seek to challenge the Council’s approach. The generally pro-development stance set out in the NPPF and the Government’s overall desire to promote growth must also be taken into account when considering the likely effects of a change in the basis of calculation.

However, the fundamental reason for needing a resolution from the Council at this time is to formally establish a current position given the change in circumstances since the resolution in May 2013.

5. Implications

5.1 Financial – Adopting a clear stance on how the housing land supply should be calculated may be of some assistance in reducing the time, and therefore cost, taken at inquiries over this issue, although the Council’s approach may still be contested.

5.2 Personnel – Adopting a clear stance on how the housing land supply should be calculated may be of some assistance in reducing the officer time taken at inquiries over this issue, although the Council’s approach may still be contested. Report Reference: SG.120614/4 Page 22

5.3 Legal – In accordance with Section 70(2) of the Town and County Planning Act 1990 and Section 38(6) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 planning applications required to be determined having regard to the provisions of the development plan unless material considerations indicate otherwise. Material considerations include the amount of housing supply and demand, and policy statements by Ministers, in particular the NPPF.

5.4 Environmental – Adoption of the Core Strategy approach to housing land supply calculations may move the Council into a position where it is better able to control the location and extent of housing development in accordance with the emerging Core Strategy, thus maximising the potential to select the sites with the best environmental performance and to minimise loss of biodiversity.

5.5 Policy – The proposed modifications to the Joint Core Strategy reflect the Council’s intended policy on housing supply, which is consistent with the goals in the Sustainable Community Strategy and Corporate Strategic Plan.

5.6 ICT – No implications.

5.7 Crime and Disorder – No implications.

5.8 Human Rights – No implications.

5.9 Equalities – No implications.

6. Conclusions

The preparation of the Joint Core Strategy has progressed over recent months with the preparation of the OAHN and the resultant proposed modifications. This effectively supersedes the position agreed by Council in May 2013 and a resolution supporting the use of the latest position is therefore sought.

S P Bowers Business Manager

Background papers: None

Previous minutes: None Contact Officer: Richard Wood Extension 2582 Report Reference: SG.120614/5 Page 23

Wards affected:

General

Strategy Group – 12th June 2014

Community Infrastructure Levy – Draft Charging Schedule

Strategic Planning Issues

1. Purpose of Report

To update Strategy Group on progress being made on introducing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and to seek authority to undertake a 6 week consultation exercise on the Draft Charging Schedule.

2. Advice

That it be 1. That the comments made on the Preliminary Draft RESOLVED: Charging Schedule set out in Appendix 2 be noted.

2. That the draft Charging Schedule attached at Appendix 1 be approved for consultation.

3. That the draft Regulation 123 List attached at Appendix 3 be approved for consultation.

4. That the draft Instalment Policy attached at Appendix 5 be approved for consultation.

3. Introduction

Members will recall that they have previously considered a number of reports on CIL, as follows.

 19th January 2012 when it was resolved in principle that CIL would be introduced to Daventry District.  14th February 2013 when authority was granted to consult on a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule.  13th November 2013 when an initial CIL programme was proposed and Regulation 123 list (see below) endorsed.

Work has been undertaken on CIL proposals taking into account the responses made to the consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, changes to the legal arrangements for CIL and market conditions. It is now therefore proposed to consult on a Draft Charging Schedule and allied documents. Report Reference: SG.120614/5 Page 24

4. Information

4.1 The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Between 14 March and 29 April 2013, the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit (WNJPU) co-ordinated a consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedules (PDCS) on behalf of DDC, South Northamptonshire Council (SNC) and Northampton Borough Council (NBC).

53 responses to the PDCS consultation were received. The main comments included concerns that the housing market was too fragile to sustain a mandatory charge on development. There were concerns that assumptions made in preparation of the viability evidence were unreasonable and that the rates were generally too high. A summary of the responses is presented in Appendix 2. All of the responses have been considered as preparations for the next stage of consultation have been made.

4.2 The Evidence Base – Viability

The results of the original evidence base on viability were presented to Strategy Group at its meeting on 14th February 2013. Since the original viability evidence was completed, there have been a number of changes to the CIL Regulations and Guidance and further CIL charges have been subject to independent examination. The consultants have undertaken a review of the viability work to ensure it complies with the amended Regulations and new guidance issued in February 2014. The review also addressed comments made at the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule consultation stage.

The original viability work demonstrated that small residential schemes in the rural areas that do not have to provide affordable housing (as they are under the threshold) could afford to pay a higher rate of the CIL, and this remains the case. However, at the time of the consultation into the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule there was conflicting advice nationally on whether charging separately for residential development in this way was permissible. The amended Regulations have now clarified that this is permissible although the approach must be supported by clear and robust evidence.

It is considered that a higher rate (£200 per m²) for such schemes would be appropriate and not harm scheme viability. These sites have provided more than 80% of the rural windfall completions in West Northamptonshire in recent years, so they are an important aspect of development in this District.

Charges for all other uses remain the same as per the consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. The proposed charging zones are illustrated in Appendix 1. The proposed rates for the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) are given in Table 1.

Charging Zone Proposed CIL rate per m2 Residential Urban Zone and SUEs £50 Residential Rural Zone, sites at or above affordable £150 housing threshold Report Reference: SG.120614/5 Page 25

Residential Rural Zone, sites below affordable housing £200 threshold Retail – excluding Daventry central zone £100 All other uses £0 Table 1 – Daventry District Council Draft Charging Schedule Note: SUE is a Sustainable Urban Extension – the large developments proposed at the edges of Daventry and Northampton.

It is recognised that the CIL will be reviewed as economic conditions change. An indicative timeframe for this is five years after adoption.

A copy of the viability work review undertaken by consultants to underpin the Draft Charging Schedule is available in the Members’ Room or it can be viewed on the Council’s website www.daventrydc.gov.uk.

4.3 The Evidence Base – Infrastructure

The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) identifies a range of infrastructure necessary to secure the delivery of the Joint Core Strategy. There is a substantial gap in funding from other sources to deliver this infrastructure, which provides a key justification for introducing CIL at the levels proposed. The background document (Appendix 4) provides more detail of the funding gap.

4.4 The Evidence Base – a review

In response to the work already completed in support of CIL, and the changing regulations and guidance, the partner councils have been working with the CIL Knowledge Partnership to assess whether any further work is required in support of the process. The CIL Knowledge Partnership has worked with the Planning Advisory Service to advise local authorities on the delivery of a CIL. Their assessment concluded that the work completed so far was appropriate and in line with Government guidance.

An item of further work proposed by the CIL Knowledge team included a workshop event with local infrastructure providers and developers to assist with the development of the R123 List. Consequently, the Partner Councils hosted a workshop on 8 May 2014. The knowledge gained in this session has been taken account of in preparing the current proposals.

4.5 Revenue

CIL receipts for housing are directly influenced by the number of properties delivered which are subject to the charge. As affordable housing units are exempt, the proportion of these in a development makes a marked difference to the outcomes. The JPU has considered these issues and provided the following projections.

The affordable housing element of each scheme varies but for the purpose of projecting likely CIL receipts it has been assumed that sites will meet the targets as outlined in the Joint Core Strategy. Due to variances in the approach to SUEs and the unique abnormal costs associated with each, two approaches have been considered. The lower end of the range assumes that each Sustainable Urban Report Reference: SG.120614/5 Page 26

Extension (SUE) will meet its affordable housing targets as set out in the JCS, the higher end considers an estimate of 20% across the SUEs. Table 2 below provides an overview. The outputs of this table would also change if further sites were granted planning permission before the CIL regime was introduced.

CIL receipts from CIL receipts from CIL receipts from urban and rural area SUEs meeting SUEs meeting (not including total affordable 20% of total SUEs) housing target affordable housing target Daventry £21.2m £18.7m £21.5m Northampton £14.5m £15.1m £18.6m South Northants £17.0m £9.4m £11.5m Total £52.7m £43.2m £51.6m Table 2 – Projected CIL Receipts 2015 to 2029

Table 2 does not take account of contributions that will be made to parish councils and does not take account of likely increases over the plan period as CIL is reviewed. Based on this information Daventry District Council could expect to receive between £39.9m and £42.7m. The three West Northamptonshire councils could expect to receive between £95.9m and £104.3m.

The infrastructure priorities of local neighbourhoods may vary from the priorities of the Joint Core Strategy. Non-parished areas will be consulted on local infrastructure priorities and the charging authority will invest the local proportion of CIL on their behalf. Using an illustrative figure of 15% across all areas, the total projected revenue from CIL for Daventry District Council use is between £33.9m and £36.3m. Parish councils would accordingly have received between £6.0m and £6.4m. The three West Northamptonshire principal councils could expect to receive between £81.5m and £88.7m.

By way of comparison, DDC’s own assessment prepared for the November 2013 CIL Programme shows anticipated CIL income of £47.9m up to 2029, with an assumed £9.6m passing to parish councils, leaving £38.3m for DDC to use for ‘strategic’ infrastructure. The differences arise from differing assumptions, ad illustrate the uncertainty inherent in setting up a new taxation regime. However, for the present it is not considered necessary to propose changes to DDC’s CIL programme.

4.6 Regulation 123 list

Regulation 123 provides for the Council to set out a list of those projects or types of infrastructure that it intends will be, or may be, wholly or partly funded through the CIL. This is known as the “Regulation 123” or “R123” list. A planning obligation contribution towards an infrastructure item already on the R123 list cannot be a reason for granting planning permission. This is intended to prevent a single development contributing twice to the same item of infrastructure. (However, the parish share of CIL can be used towards infrastructure which is also funded by a planning obligation).

Following the endorsement by Council of a draft DDC R123 list in December 2013, further work has been undertaken by DDC officers and partners on the Report Reference: SG.120614/5 Page 27 desirable content of the list. There are various different possible approaches, each potentially valid. However, it is considered that the approach endorsed by Council remains the best approach for Daventry District, with one substantive change (some minor wording clarification is proposed). That change is the inclusion of Fire & Rescue buildings and equipment.

NCC made a series of comments on proposed R123 lists in West Northamptonshire, one of which was the argument that Fire & Rescue services should be included within them, as it is a strategic service affected by development in general. This argument has some weight, and therefore inclusion of is proposed. Whether or not any actual Fire & Rescue schemes are approved to enter the CIL programme is, of course, another issue and would depend on the quality of argument presented by NCC as Fire & Rescue authority.

The R123 List does not identify priorities for spending within it, or any apportionment of the CIL funds, and does not signify a commitment from the Council to fund the projects listed through the CIL. This is provided with the CIL Programme, the first version of which was approved by Council in December 2013.

After adoption of CIL, the Council can review the R123 list at any time although any changes must be justified and subject to appropriate local consultation.

4.7 Instalment Policy

Officers across the West Northamptonshire councils have considered approaches to an instalment policy. This involved researching the Regulations and Guidance, reviewing other examples, contacting charging authorities to determine their effectiveness and working with partners for advice.

The Regulations and Guidance do not stipulate that the authorities have to use an instalment policy; they merely provide the legislative process for adopting such a policy. Once in use it can be withdrawn at any time.

The larger sites are more likely to benefit from such a policy due to the significant start-up costs for these sites. Phasing payments is likely to help support a developer, on viability grounds, in the early stages of site development. This was supported by consultation responses at the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule stage.

There are no guidelines as to how a phasing schedule should be presented but for consultation purposes an approach similar to approaches taken by authorities with similar development profiles is considered appropriate (Appendix 5). Once the consultation responses have been received the Council can review this approach.

4.7 Nextsteps

It is intended that the consultation results will be reported to Strategy Group in October 2014 and at that stage Strategy Group can advise Council to make a Report Reference: SG.120614/5 Page 28 final decision on whether to submit the Draft Charging Schedule for independent examination.

5. Implications

5.1 Financial – The costs to date of developing CIL have been borne by the Joint Planning Unit, which is funded by the three partner authorities. The implementation of CIL will require resources from several service areas across the authority. These are planned for by Managers as part of their service planning.

5.2 Personnel – The implementation of CIL will require resources from several service areas across the authority. These are planned for by Managers as part of their service planning.

5.3 Legal/Constitutional – The legal basis of CIL is given in the Planning Act 2008 as amended by the Localism Act 2011, and in the CIL Regulations made under it.

5.4 Environmental – Whilst introducing CIL will not have direct biodiversity or general environmental implications it may enable a more strategic approach to positively responding to the impacts of development on landscape and biodiversity.

5.5 Policy – Implementation of CIL should support Sustainable Community Strategy and Corporate Plan goals generally, and is called for in the Submission West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy.

5.6 ICT – The introduction of CIL may require new software to be purchased. This is something that will be looked into in more detail as work on preparing for CIL progresses.

5.7 Crime and Disorder – The introduction of CIL appears unlikely to have any material effects on crime and disorder, as it is simply a change of mechanism for securing part of developer contributions.

5.8 Human Rights – CIL is a tax authorised by Parliament and therefore does not raise any issues with the Convention rights. Taxation is not considered to breach the First Protocol Article 1 on protection of property.

5.9 Equalities – CIL does not have any directly discriminatory impacts and any indirect impacts are both uncertain and distant from the application of the charge. As such, to the extent they arise the impact is permissible as a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate end (including efficient collection of resources to mitigate the impact of development).

6. Conclusions

This report sets out the proposed charging schedule, following the agreement in principle of Council to adopt a CIL approach (following Strategy Group on 19th January 2012) and consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Report Reference: SG.120614/5 Page 29 agreed by Strategy Group in February 2013. It remains the case that CIL should provide a better method of providing for the ‘strategic’ infrastructure needs generated by development.

It is recommended that the draft charging schedule and allied documents be agreed for consultation.

S P Bowers Business Manager

Background papers:

Previous minutes: SG.05/12/01

Contact Officer: Richard Wood Extension 2582 Daventry District Council CIL - Draft Charging Schedule - June 2014 APPENDIX 1

DAVENTRY DISTRICT COUNCIL

Daventry District Council Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule - Consultation

June 2014 Daventry District Council CIL- Draft Charging Schedule - June 2014

1. Introduction

1.1 The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced under the Planning Act 2008 and came into force in April 2010. CIL is essentially a pre-set charge that can be applied to all new developments that create new floorspace over a minimum size. The CIL charge is then spent on infrastructure (such as roads, schools, green spaces and community facilities) that is required to support the delivery of new development.

1.2 CIL takes the form of a charge per square metre of additional floorspace (new build or extensions) and can be charged on most new developments. There are exemptions for charitable organisations and affordable housing. Developments under 100 sq m of net additional floorspace, unless it is a new dwelling, are not required to pay CIL.

1.3 From April 2014, the ability to pool planning obligations through legal agreements under Section 106 (of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)), will be restricted. This means that it will become difficult to deliver larger scale items of infrastructure such as schools and transport schemes where pooling of many individual planning contributions is often necessary. Section 106 will continue to be used to deliver some infrastructure, but this will largely be restricted to site-specific mitigation and for providing affordable housing.

1.4 This consultation conforms with Regulation 16(1) of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). Further information is available from the CIL background paper available via the following link: [add web link when consultation portal available].

1.5 This consultation is being coordinated by the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit on behalf of Daventry District Council, Northampton Borough Council and South Northamptonshire Council.

1.6 All references to legislation are to that legislation as amended. Daventry District Council CIL - Draft Charging Schedule - June 2014

2. How to Comment on this Document

2.1 Daventry District Council is seeking comments on the Draft Charging Schedule for 6 weeks from 26 June 2014 to 07 August 2014. You may comment on this document by-

 filling in the on-line response form by connecting to the Consultation Portal via the JPU website at www.westnorthamptonshirejpu.org and via the Daventry District Council website at www.daventrydc.gov.uk

 send a completed form (downloadable from the above websites) via email to [email protected] or post to

West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit, The Guildhall St Giles Square Northampton NN1 1DE

2.2 All responses must be received by the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit by 5pm on 07 August 2014.

2.3 Paper copies of the forms are also available from the Joint Planning Unit (tel: 01604 837837), Daventry Council Offices at Lodge Road, Daventry, NN11 4FP, South Northamptonshire Council, at Springfields, Towcester, NN12 6AE, and Northampton Borough Council Offices at The Guildhall, St Giles Square, Northampton NN1 1DE normal offices opening times).

2.4 The following supporting documents are also available to view and download from the CIL Consultation Portal or can be purchased in hard copy by contacting the JPU on 01604 838417:

 Draft R123 List  Draft Instalment Policy  CIL Economic Viability Assessment  CIL Background Paper  Statement of Consultation Daventry District Council CIL- Draft Charging Schedule - June 2014

2.5 Please note that comments cannot be treated as confidential. They will be made available as public documents. The information collected will be processed in accordance with the Data Protection Act 1998. Please note that we are required to make all representations available for public inspection. This will include publication of your name, but not your address, contact details or equalities information. Written comments will be entered on our online consultation system. Daventry District Council CIL- Draft Charging Schedule - June 2014 3. The Draft Charging Schedule

3.1 Below are the Community Infrastructure Levy Schedule charging rates proposed by Daventry District Council.

Development type Levy per m² Residential Urban Zone and SUEs £50

Residential Rural Zone, sites at or above affordable £150 housing threshold

Residential Rural Zone, sites below affordable housing £200 threshold Retail (excluding central zone) £100 All other uses £0

Residential charging zones Daventry District Council CIL- Draft Charging Schedule - June 2014

Central Zone (nil retail charging)

3.2 The rates will be charged against the Gross Internal Floor (GIA) area of all new dwellings (within use class C3) and development exceeding 100m².

3.3 In certain circumstances where a development includes the demolition of an existing building the GIA to be demolished can be deducted from the proposed floor space and CIL is then only charged on the overall increase in floor space. Deductions in respect of demolition will apply where the building has been in continuous lawful use for at least six months in the 3 years prior to the development being permitted. Where there is insufficient information or information of insufficient quality on GIA on demolition Daventry District Council as the charging authority will deem the previous GIA to be zero. Daventry District Council CIL- Draft Charging Schedule - June 2014

3.4 For changes of use where there is no new floor space created CIL will not be chargeable provided the development has been in continuous lawful use for the previous six months.

3.5 Daventry District Council will calculate the amount of CIL payable (the chargeable amount) in respect of a chargeable development in accordance with the formulae set out at Regulation 40 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010. The charging rates proposed will be indexed to account for inflation using a nationally recognised index. Full details of the way in which CIL will be calculated, together with an overview of CIL and the full Regulations can be found on the UK Government website: www.gov.uk.

3.5 Once planning permission is granted, CIL Regulations encourage any party (such as a developer submitting a planning application, or a landowner), to take liability to pay the CIL charge. CIL liability runs with the land, therefore if no party assumes liability to pay before development commences the landowner will be liable to pay the levy.

3.6 In accordance with the Regulations, where applicable the Council will issue a Liability Notice that states the chargeable amount on grant of planning permission or as soon as possible after the grant of planning permission. APPENDIX 2

West Northamptonshire Community Infrastructure Levies

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultations

Statement of Community Engagement and Consultation

June 2014 Contents

Section Sub Content Page Section Number

1.0 Introduction 1

1.1 Purpose of this Statement 1

1.2 Background 1

1.3 The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy 2

2.0 Consultation 3

2.1 The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule 3

2.2 The Consultation Process 3

2.3 Results of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule 4 Consultation

3.0 Stakeholder Engagement 9

Appendix 1 List of consultation bodies i

Appendix 2 List of public inspection locations xi

Appendix 3 Summary of responses xii 1.0 Introduction

1.1 Purpose of this statement

1.1.1 This statement sets out the community engagement and consultation undertaken to date for the community infrastructure levies being delivered by Daventry District Council, Northampton Borough Council and South Northamptonshire District Council.

1.1.2 For six weeks during April and May 2013 the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit managed a consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedules on behalf of the Partner Councils.

1.2 Background

1.2.1 In order for a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to be adopted, it is required by the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) that the Council holds a minimum of two rounds of public consultation. The first round of consultation to be held is concerned with the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule ‘PDCS’ and the second with the Draft Charging Schedule ‘DCS’. The Council has also adopted to hold stakeholder engagement sessions in order to gauge the opinions of developers, the local community and other organisations with an interest in development in the West Northamptonshire area.

1.2.2 Regulations 15 and 16 of the CIL Regulations specify the consultation bodies that the Council must consult for the PDCS and DCS. The Council has consulted beyond the statutory minimum requirement to ensure that a wider range of consultation bodies were given the opportunity to make representations. These consultation bodies were given the opportunity to make representations. These consultation bodies include parish councils, community groups and organisations, representatives from the affordable housing sector, local businesses and the development sector that operates locally.

1.2.3 The Partner Councils are required to publish a Statement of Community Involvement (SCI), the primary purpose of which is to clarify the breadth of consultation that will take place with respect to the preparation of the planning framework that will guide development in the area.

1.2.4 As the adoption of a CIL is embedded with planning legislation, regulations and guidance and its purpose is to support the funding of infrastructure

1 associated with the planned growth set out within the emerging Joint Core Strategy it is appropriate to align public consultation for CIL with adopted SCI. As such the SCI, along with statutory consultation requirements of Regulations 15 and 16 of the CIL Regulations, helped form the basis for who has been consulted on CIL and how CIL will be achieved.

1.3 The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy

1.3.1 West Northamptonshire is the area covered by Daventry District, Northampton Borough and South Northamptonshire Councils. It includes the towns of Northampton, Daventry, Towcester and Brackley and all the villages and rural areas within the three Councils’ administrative areas.

1.3.2 The Joint Core Strategy has been prepared by the Joint Planning Unit on behalf of the three Councils of Daventry District, Northampton Borough and South Northamptonshire working together with Northamptonshire County Council.

1.3.3 The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (as submitted) provides a planning framework for the West Northamptonshire area up to 2029. It sets out the long term vision and objectives for the whole of the area and includes strategic policies for steering and shaping development. It identifies locations for strategic new housing and employment and details the infrastructure (such as transport improvements, schools, open space and community facilities) required to support this development. It also defines where development will be limited.

1.3.4 The Localism Act 2011 and the Town and Country Planning (Local Planning) (England) Regulations 2012 introduced a range of changes to the planning system, and the Joint Core Strategy will now be a Part 1 Local Plan alongside a range of Part 2 Local Plans covering different locations or topics that will contribute to guiding development and use of land in West Northamptonshire for the Plan period up to 2029. Together the Part 1 and Part 2 plans comprise the Development Plan for West Northamptonshire.

1.3.5 The CILs will collect charges from development to facilitate the delivery of infrastructure across West Northamptonshire. Combined with other sources of finance, such as s106 agreements and Government capital investment programmes, the CILs will contribute towards infrastructure required as a result of the growth outlined within the Development Plans.

2 2.0 Consultations

2.1 The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedules

2.1.1 The purpose of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) consultations was to allow local communities, developers and businesses to make representations on the initial proposed charging schedules for each of the Partner Councils. The Joint Planning Unit managed the consultations on behalf of the three Partner Councils.

2.2 The Consultation Process

2.2.1 The consultation period for the PDCSs was held between Thursday 14 March and Monday 29 April 2013. The consultation for each PDCS was held in parallel and the process was identical for each.

2.2.2 The methods of consultation that were used are detailed below: i. Letter and email notification Notification by either letter or email was sent to the following:  The statutory consultation bodies as specified in Regulation 15 of the CIL Regulations;  The consultation bodies specified in each SCI; and  All those other companies, organisations and individuals in the development sector that the Partner Councils considered may have an interest in CIL. Every organisation and individual notified about the PDCS consultation over and above the statutory consultees received that notification by either standard letter or email. In total the Joint Planning Unit contacted 1783 consultees. Appendix 1 lists each consultee. ii. Advertisement on the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Website The consultation was made available online and the consultation featured on the front page of the website for the duration of the consultation period.

2.2.3 The PDCS and relevant evidence was made available for public inspection at the following locations: i. The Partner Councils’ principal offices A paper copy of the PDCS and relevant evidence was made available at the following locations:  Daventry District Council One Stop Shop, Lodge Road, Daventry, NN11 4FP 3  Northampton Borough Council One Stop Shop, The Guildhall, St Giles Square, Northampton, NN1 1DE  South Northamptonshire Council Reception, Springfields, Towcester, Northamptonshire, NN12 6AE. ii. The offices of Northamptonshire County Council and of the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation. iii. The West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Website An electronic copy of the PDCS and relevant evidence is available on the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit website by visiting http://ldfconsultation.westnorthamptonshirejpu.org/consult.ti/WN_CIL_P DCSs_Consultation/consultationHome iv. Local libraries Paper copies of the PDCS and relevant evidence were held for public inspection on request at 34 libraries in the Borough and in adjoining Council libraries during the consultation period (See Appendix 2 for a list).

2.2.4 In order to assist respondents in the consideration of the consultation, a questionnaire was produced which posed 11 questions. These are discussed further in the following section.

2.3 Results of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultations

2.3.1 The Joint Planning Unit received 53 responses to the PDCS consultations that included representations made by developers, Parish Councils, local businesses, local residents, affordable housing providers, infrastructure and utilities companies, public services, environmental groups and supermarkets. The 53 respondents submitted 218 separate comments. Most comments relate to all three of the Partner Councils but the table below lists the individual comments by district.

District Individual comments The area of West Northamptonshire 194 The area of Daventry District 9 The area of Northampton Borough 7 The area of South Northamptonshire 8

2.3.2 Those consulted were able to submit their comments electronically or in writing by letter or questionnaire. We received 29 emails, 19 online responses and 5 paper responses. Some of the key issues arising from the consultation are summarised in the tables below.

4 Question 1 Having considered the evidence base (in terms of the CIL Economic Viability Assessment) do you agree that the proposed CIL rates achieve an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure from CIL and the potential effects of the charge on the economic viability of development across the local authority area? Number of individual comments: 39 Summary of responses:  Housing market too fragile to sustain the charge.  Consider s106 assumption is too low for retail schemes.  Premature to determine rates until JCS adopted.  Affordable housing policy is excessive.  Rates should illustrate a buffer.  Sales values are too high.  Fixed assumptions, and therefore the interpretation of results, inaccurate.  The balance between viability and delivery of infrastructure is not achieved.  Insufficient evidence to support charges.

Question 2 Do you agree that the West Northamptonshire Infrastructure Delivery Plan (July 2012) demonstrates a funding gap that provides sufficient justification for the introduction of CIL within each of the local authority areas? Number of individual comments: 28 Summary of responses:  Concern that CIL + s106 is an unreasonable double levy for retail.  Information is not sufficient or robust.  Money should be spent on community amenities, schools, healthcare and roads.  Require further information on Objectively Assessed Housing Need.  Accurate costs for infrastructure projects are not available.  Adoption of CIL to bridge funding gap is welcomed.

Question 3 Do you agree with the Proposed Residential Charging Rates: Urban Zone (Including Strategic Urban Extensions (SUEs) - £50 per sqm? Number of individual comments: 18 Summary of responses:  Insufficient evidence provided.  Charges should be £150m2 for all developments, rural and SUE.  Rates for South Northants should be higher.  Retail rates will make development unviable.  Fixed rate for SUEs allows for certain sites to contribute more through s106.

Question 4 Do you agree with the Proposed Residential Charging Rates: Rural Zone - £150 per sqm? Number of individual comments: 19 Summary of responses:  Rate is too high.

5  Rate totally unviable. See Rugby rate of £50m2 in rural areas.  Not enough information provided.  Assumes all areas are homogenous.  Lower rates would provide flexibility and a more sustainable district.  Rural sites could have higher costs.  Viability testing demonstrates that charge is unviable.  £100m2 would be more appropriate.  Approach to benchmark land values is unrealistic.

Question 5 Do you agree with the Proposed Retail Charging Rates - £100 per sqm (excluding central zones in Daventry and Northampton)? Number of individual comments: 12 Summary of responses:  Rates are too high. Will make some development unviable.  S106 and s278 contributions under estimated.  Setting CIL levels at the maximum will not ensure viability.  Marginal rural retail like farm shops would be compromised.  More information required.  Consider it is a reasonable charge.

Question 6 Do you agree with the proposed charging zones (see Section 7 of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule documents)? Number of individual comments: 16 Summary of responses:  Zones are very specific. The levy should be uniform across the County.  Areas are not homogenous.  Case studies on a district basis required.  Approach is overly simplistic.  Challenge legality of approach.  SUEs should be charged the same as the rural rate.  Agree with approach. Not overly complex and treats all parishes equally.

Question 7 Do you agree that the CIL Economic Viability Assessment has assessed the overall economic viability of the development types most likely to occur in West Northamptonshire in the foreseeable future? If not, what other development types should be tested and what is your justification for this? Number of individual comments: 16 Summary of responses:  Has not tested lower densities. Most Daventry developments are below 30dph.  Abnormal costs not taken into account.  Assessment is too broad.  Infrastructure for DDC is in need of review.  Agriculture and rural workers’ dwellings should be exempt.  All major land uses assessed.  Rates do not achieve an appropriate balance. 6 Question 8 Do you consider the charging authorities should adopt a scheme of discretionary relief, so that in exceptional circumstances of economic viability developments that meet the essential criteria can be exempted from paying CIL? Number of individual comments: 14 Summary of responses:  Decision is welcomed.  Would provide flexibility.  Important to strike a balance to ensure relief given as appropriate but not at the expense of providing infrastructure.  Everyone will apply for relief which will cost the courts a great deal.  Relief should not be offered to SUEs.  Relief should be rare, can be removed if necessary.

Question 9 Do you consider that the charging authorities should have a policy for paying the chargeable amounts in instalments? If so, do you have a preference for how such a policy should be set, for example by percentages of the total amount and the length of time period in days? Number of individual comments: 16 Summary of responses:  Phasing and an instalment policy would work well.  Recommend quarterly instalments by equal %.  Recommend 33% at receipt of liability, 33% at start, 34% at completion.  Instalment will result in delays to provision of infrastructure.  Instalments should reflect type of development, for example size, location, timescale for delivery.

Question 10 Infrastructure projects required to support new development, especially those identified in the West Northamptonshire Infrastructure Delivery Plan, may be candidates for receiving any CIL obtained. This first stage of consultation will help inform the projects that may be prioritised for funding through CIL. Suitable projects may be identified on the Councils’ Regulation 123 List (the list of infrastructure projects and/or infrastructure types that CIL monies will be spent on). What do you consider should be included within the Councils Regulation 123 list? Number of individual comments: 22 Summary of responses:  Should consider neighbouring local authority and parish areas.  Transport, health, utilities, community facilities, green infrastructure and education were key priorities for respondents generally.  Work on CIL should be postponed until JCS has progressed further.

Question 11 Do you have a view on how the District/Borough Councils should coordinate and work with other infrastructure providers to ensure the delivery of infrastructure projects funded by CIL? Number of individual comments: 18

7 Summary of responses:  CIL should strike a balance.  Partner Councils should set up a working group.  Governance arrangements are unclear.  Infrastructure providers should have an opportunity to work collaboratively.  Work on CIL should be postponed until JCS has progressed further.

2.3.3 The responses to the PDCS consultations have been published on the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit website to inform the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) consultations. An overview of the responses, which includes a précis of the representations, is available at Appendix 3. The full version of each response is available via the website at: http://ldfconsultation.westnorthamptonshirejpu.org/consult.ti/WN_CIL_PDCSs _Consultation/listRespondents

2.3.4 The table in Appendix 3 also summarises the response of the Partner Councils and each resulting ‘Action’.

8 3.0 Stakeholder Engagement

3.1 Prior to embarking upon the preparation of the Preliminary Draft Charing Schedules, the Councils invited representatives of the development sector to CIL Workshops run by GVA, the consultants employed by the Councils to produce the viability assessment to inform the Partner Councils’ approach to rate setting.

3.2 The first event took place on Friday 27 July 2012. The event was targeted at agents, landowners and developers who would be able to provide constructive feedback into the CIL viability assessments being undertaken by GVA on behalf of the Partner Councils. An invitation was sent to 131 representatives of the development sector representing house builders, surveyors, planning consultants, promoters of commercial premises, land agents and the affordable housing sector. The event was attended by 23 stakeholders.

3.3 The workshop was underpinned by a presentation by officers of the Joint Planning Unit and GVA that set the scene to CIL, and the approach of GVA to setting assumptions to be used to determine viability of different types of development across West Northamptonshire. There was discussion on the types of development that it might be appropriate to test, the place of affordable housing and the relationship with the future of s106 planning obligations.

3.4 GVA offered any person attending the opportunity to make direct contact by telephone or email to discuss any matter that may arise subsequent to the event.

3.5 The second event took place on Friday 11 January 2013. An invitation was sent to 177 stakeholders. This event was organised to present the viability conclusions and provide an opportunity for further comment prior to the finalisation of the viability report. The event was attended by 16 stakeholders.

9 Appendix 1 – List of Cogenhoe and Whiston Parish Council Cold Ashby Parish Council consultation bodies Cold Higham Parish Council Collingtree Parish Council The consultation was sent directly to Cosgrove Parish Council all organisations and individuals on our Cottesbrooke Parish Council Cottisford Parish Meeting database, including: Courteenhall Parish Meeting Creaton Parish Council Town and Parish Councils: Crick Parish Council Croughton Parish Council Abthorpe Parish Council Culworth Parish Council Adderbury Parish Council Daventry Parish Council Adstone Parish Meeting Daventry Town Council Alderton Parish Meeting Deanshanger Parish Council Arthingworth Parish Council Deddington Parish Council Ashby St Ledgers Parish Council Denton Parish Council Ashton Parish Council Dodford Parish Council Aston le Walls Parish Council Draughton with Maidwell Parish Council Aynho Parish Council Dunchurch Parish Council Badby Parish Council Duston Parish Council Banbury Town Council Earls Barton Parish Council Barby and Onley Parish Council East Farndon Parish Council Beachampton Parish Council East Haddon Parish Council Biddlesden Parish Council Easton Neston Parish Meeting Billing Parish Council Ecton Parish Council Blakesley Parish Council Edgcote Parish Meeting Blisworth Parish Council Elkington Parish Council Boddington Parish Council Evenley Parish Council Bodicote Parish Council Everdon Parish Council Boughton Parish Council Eydon Parish Council Brackley Town Council Farthinghoe Parish Council Bradden Parish Meeting Fathingstone Parish Council Brafield on the Green Parish Council Fawsley Parish Council Braunston Parish Council Flore Parish Council Brington Parish Council Flore, Byfield and Long Buckby Parish Brixworth Parish Council Council Brockhall Parish Council Gayton Parish Council Broughton Parish Council Grafton Regis Parish Meeting Bugbrooke Parish Council Grange Park Parish Council Byfield Parish Council Great Houghton Parish Council Calverton Parish Council Great Oxendon Parish Council Canons Ashby Parish Council Greatworth Parish Council Castle Ashby Parish Council Greens Norton Parish Council Castlethorpe Parish Council Grendon Parish Council Catesby Parish Council Guilsborough Parish Council Chacombe Parish Council Hackleton Parish Council Charwelton Parish Council Hannington Parish Council Chipping Warden Parish Council Hanslope Parish Council Church & Chapel Brampton Parish Council Hardingstone Parish Council Church with Chapel Brampton Parish Hardwick & Tusmore Parish Meeting Council Harlestone Parish Council Clay Coton Parish Council Harpole Parish Council Claydon with Clattercott PC Harrington Parish Council Clifton Hampden Parish Council Hartwell Parish Council Clifton Upon Dunsmore Parish Council Haselbech Parish Council Clipston Parish Council Hellidon Parish Council

i Helmdon Parish Council Silverstone Parish Council Heselbech Parish Council Slapton Parish Meeting Holcot Parish Council Souldern Parish Council Holdenby Parish Council Spratton Parish Council Hollowell Parish Council Stanford Parish Council Kelmarsh Parish Council Staverton Parish Council Kilsby Parish Council Stoke Bruerne Parish Council Kings Sutton Parish Council Stoke Goldington Parish Council Kislingbury Parish Council Stoke Lyne Parish Council Lamport Parish Council Stoneton Parish Meeting Leckhampstead Parish Council Stony Stratford Town Council Stowe Nine Churches Parish Council Lilbourne Parish Council Sulby Parish Council Lillingstone Dayrell with Luffield Abbey Sulgrave Parish Council Parish Councils Syresham Parish Council Lillingstone Lovell Parish Council Sywell Parish Council Litchborough Parish Council Thenford Parish Meeting Little Houghton Parish Council Thornby Parish Council Loddington Parish Council Thornton Parish Council Long Buckby Parish Council Thorpe Mandeville Parish Council Maidford Parish Council Tiffield Parish Council Maidwell Parish Council Towcester Town Council Marston St Lawrence Parish Council Turweston Parish Council Marston Trussell Parish Meeting Upper Heyford Parish Meeting Mid Northamptonshire Parishes 2001 Upton Parish Council Middleton Cheney Parish Council Walgrave Parish Council Milton Malsor Parish Council Wappenham Parish Council Mixbury Parish Meeting Wardington PC Moreton Pinkney Parish Council Wardington PC Moulton Parish Council Warkworth Parish Meeting Naseby Parish Council Warkworth Parish Meeting Nether Heyford Parish Council Warrington Parish Council Newbottle Parish Council Watford Parish Council Newnham Parish Council Weedon Bec Parish Council Norton Parish Council Weedon Parish Council Old Parish Council Welford Parish Council Old Stratford Parish Council Welton Parish Council Olney Town Council West Haddon Parish Council Orton Parish Council Weston and Weedon Parish Council Overstone Parish Council Weston Underwood Parish Council Overthorpe Parish Council Whilton Parish Council Pattishall Parish Council Whitfield Parish Meeting Paulerspury Parish Council Whittlebury Parish Council Pitsford Parish Council Wicken Parish Council Potterspury Parish Council Willoughby Parish Council Prestcote Parish Meeting Winwick Parish Council Preston Capes Parish Council Wolverton Town Council Priors Hardwick Parish Council Woodend Parish Meeting Priors Marston Parish Council Woodford cum Membris Parish Council Quinton Parish Council Wootton Parish Council Radstone Parish Meeting Wormleighton Parish Meeting Ravensthorpe Parish Council Yardley Gobion Parish Council Ravenstone Parish Council Yardley Hastings Parish Council Roade Parish Council Yelvertoft Parish Council Rothersthorpe Parish Council Scaldwell Parish Council Residents Associations: Shutlanger Parish Council Banbury Lane Residents Association Sibbertoft Parish Council ii Blackthorn Residents Association Northampton Area Partnership 7 Boothville Community Council Northampton Area Partnership 8 Borough Hill Residents Association Northampton East Area Briar Hill 2 Residents Association Partnership Briar Hill Residents Association Brookside Residents Association Community Groups and other Camp Hill Residents Association Organisations: Castle St James Residents Association Ability Northants Castles Residents Association ACERT Collingtree Park Residents Association African Caribbean Elders Society Colwyn Road Residents Association Age Concern Community & Residents Association of Ashby St Ledgers Conservation Group Southfields Asian Men Sports & Social Club Drayton Residents Association B.R.D Conservation Group Eastfield Residents Association Barrack Road CAAC Evenley Residents Association Berkeley Community Villages Far Cotton Residents Association Blisworth Historic Buildings Society Trust Friars Residents Association Blisworth Heritage Society Green Park Residents Association Brackley Amenity Society Hood Street Residents Association Brackley Cottage Hospital Hopping Hill Residents Association Brackley Fox Lane Trust Hunsbury Residents Association Brackley Means Business Kings Heath Residents Association Brackley Mencap Kingsthorpe Hollow Residents Association Brackley Residents Action Group Lake View Residents Association Brackley Vision Lawrence & Deal Court, Deal, Leicester & British Geological Survey Duke Street Residents Association British Horse Society Northampton Federation of Residents' Brixworth Residents Against Unnecessary Associations Development Overstone Lodge & Goldings Residents Brockwatch Association Buckingham Canal Society PEMBA Residents Association Bugbrooke History Society Phippsville Residents Association CABE Queens Crescent Residents Association CALA (Campaign against Lorry Abuse) Queens Park Residents Association CAMRA Rectory Farm Residents Association CAN SPCC Residents’ Association Carers Forum Northamptonshire Spencer Dallington Residents Association Church Commissioners Spring Boroughs Residents Association Church of England St David's Residents Association Churches Together in all Northamptonshire Standens Barn Residents Association Cinema Theatre Association Tanfield Residents Association Citizen's Advice Buerau Thorpeville Residents Association Civic Trust Thorplands Residents Council Civil Aviation Authority Thrift Streets & Vernon Terrace Residents' Collingtree CAAC Association Commission for Racial Equality Tunnells Residents Association Whitehills & Spring Prk Residents Connexions Association Conservation Officer Group & Partners Wilby St, East St & South Tce Residents Council for British Archaeology Association Council for Ethnic Minorities Communities Wood Burcote Residents Association (Northampton) Council for Voluntry Services (Northampton) Area Partnerships: Countryside Agency Northampton Area Partnership 3 CPRE Northamptonshire Northampton Area Partnership 4 Crossroad Care Northampton Area Partnership 5 Cut Waste Improve Competitiveness Northampton Area Partnership 6 CWICK iii Cyclists Touring Club Conservancy DACT Freight Transport Association Dallington CAAC Friends of Alderton Monuments Dallington Sheltered Housing Residents Friends of Boughton Area Association Friends of Bradlaugh Fields Daventry Allotment Association Friends of the Earth Daventry and District Civic Society Friends of the Earth (East Midlands) Daventry and South Northants MAGRAH Friends of the Earth (London) Daventry Villages Together Friends of the Racecourse Daventry Volunteer Centre Government Office for the East Midlands Daventry Women's Institiute Grandfield Partnership Deafconnect Great Houghton CAAC Deanshanger Heritge Society Gypsy and Traveller Law Reform Coalition Department for Business, Enterprise and Health & Safety Executive Regulatory Reform Heart of England Tourist Board Department for Children, Schools and Help the Aged Families Highways Agency Department for Constitutional Affairs Hinton in the Hedges Parish Meeting Department for Culture, Media and Sport HM Prison Service Department for Innovation, Universities and Hobden Partnership Skills Home Builders Federation Department for Transport Rail Group Home Housing Association Department for Work and Pensions Home Office Department of Communities and Local Home Start Government Home Start Northampton Department of Transport House Builders Federation DIAL Housing Corporation Dialogue Inclusion & Pupil Support Diocesan Board of Finance Inclusive Environment Group Disability Rights Commission Indian Hindu Welfare Organisation (IHWO) Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Inland Waterways Association Committee Inland Waterways Association - District Development Consultancy Northampton Branch Domestic Violence Forum In-Motion Travel Duston Local History Society Innes England East Midlands Arts Board Institute of Directors (London) East Midlands Churches Forum Invest Northamptonshire East Midlands Development Agency Jehovah's Witnesses East Midlands Planning Aid Service Kettering Community Architects East Midlands Regional Assembly Kettering Rd, East Park Parade Residents East Midlands Regional Housing Board & Community Association East Midlands Sports Kingsley CAAC Ekins Allotment Association Kingsley Park Methodist Church EMDA Kingsoak Emmanuel Church Weston Favell Centre Kingsthorpe CAAC English as 2nd Language Group Kingsthorpe Grove Allotments Association English Heritage Landmark Information Group English Historic Towns Forum Landscope English Partnerships Learning & Skills Council Enterprise Solutions Legal Services Commission Environment Agency Lifelong Learning EPCAD Long Buckby Rail Users' Group Equal Opportunities Commission MAGRAH Explore Northamptonshire Midlands Rural Housing Fable Gospel Hall Trust Milton Malsor Action Group Forest Enterprise Milton Malsor Historical Society Forestry Commission MIND Forestry Commission, East Midlands Moulton Environment Group iv National Association of Local Councils Northamptonshire Environmental Network National Consultancy Unit, English Northamptonshire Federation of the Partnerships Women's Institute National Council for the Conservation of Northamptonshire Lesbian and Gay Plants and Gardens Alliance National Council of Women Northamptonshire Race Equality Council National Farmers Union Northamptonshire Racial Equality Council National Federation of Bus Users Northamptonshire Rural Housing National Playing Fields Association Association National Probation Service Northamptonshire Sport National Society of Allotments & Leisure Northamptonshire Voluntary and Gardeners Ltd Community Sector Alliance National Trust Northants Wildlife Trust Natural England Nortoft Partnerships Ltd Ncompass Norton Village Design Statement Steering Nene Flood Prevention Alliance Group Nene Housing Society Nottingham Community Housing New Testament Church of God Association NFBU NSV Northampton & Lamport Railway NTACT Northampton Auctions PLC Office of Government Commerce Northampton Borough Allotment and Old Road Securities Plc Garden Council Oxfordshire Archaeological Unit Northampton Central Area Partnership Parklands Allotments Association Northampton Chamber of Trade Peterborough Diocesan Board of Finance Northampton College Peterborough Diocese Northampton Commissioning PCG Pleydell Road Allotment Committee Northampton Connolly Post Office Property Holdings Northampton Diesel & Electrical Services Princes Foundation Northampton Disabled People Forum Rail Freight Group Northampton Door to Door Service (NDDS) Rail Users Group Northampton Friends of the Earth Railfuture Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust Ramblers' Association Northampton Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual RIBA People Forum Ridge Northampton Pensioners Forum River Nene Regional Park Northampton Race Equality Forum RMC Group Services Ltd Northampton Rail Users Group RNRP Northampton Rapid Transit System Limited Road Haulage Association Northampton Taxi Cab Association Rotary Club Northampton Transport Users Forum Royal Commission on Historic Monuments Northampton Volunteering Centre RSPB Northampton Women Forum Seeda Headquarters Northampton Women's Aid Semilong Community Forum Northampton Youth Forum Showmans Guild of Great Britain Northamptonshire ACRE Silverstone Pre-School Group Northamptonshire Adult Learning Service SOS Campaign Northamptonshire Archeaological Society South East England Development Agency Northamptonshire Association of Local South Northamptonshire Independent Councils Parishes Northamptonshire Chamber South Northamptonshire Tenants Group Northamptonshire Community Foundation South Northamptonshire Volunteer Bureau Northamptonshire Co-operative South Northamptonshire Youth Council Development Agency South Warwickshire Housing Association Northamptonshire County Council Fire and Southbrook Junior School Rescue Service Sport England Northamptonshire Enterprise Ltd Sport England (East Midlands) Northamptonshire Environmental Forum St Georges Community & Wildlife Group v St Lawrence C of E Church Service Providers: Stony Stratford Association Adolescent Services STOP Northants Advantage West Midlands Sustainable Transport Ancient Monuments Society Sustrans East Midlands Ancient Tree Forum Sworders Anglian Water The Churches' Officer for New Arts Council England, East Midlands Communities Boughton Primary School The Coal Authority British Chemical Distributors & Traders The Community Mental Health Team Association The Federation of Master Builders British Ecological Society The Football League British Gas PLC The Garden History Society British Gas PLC (South) The Georgian Group British Railways Board The Grange British Shops and Stores Association The Gypsy Council British Telecom The House Builders Federation British Waterways The Landscape Partnership British Waterways South East The Littman Partnership British Wind Energy Association The Naseby Battlefield Project Buckingham and River Ouzel Internal The National Trust Drainage Board The Northamptonshire Residents Alliance Cable & Wireless UK The Police Authority Campion School The Studio Caroline Chisholm Scool The Theatres Trust Central Networks The Victorian Society Central Railways The Wantage Gospel Trust Chenderit School The Wildlife Trust Children and Families The Woodland Trust Community Access and Language The Youth Offending Team Service Thorburn Colquhoun Community Mental Health Team Time 2 Talk Community Windpower Ltd TORCH Connells Land and Planning TORCH Northamptonshire Conrad Ritblat Erdman Total Reclaims Demolition Ltd Cooper Partnership Tove Valley Baptist Fellowship Corus Property Department Towcester & District Local History Spociety Country Properties Towcester and District Local History Countryside Properties (Special Society Projects) Ltd Towcester Business Club Crest Homes Towcester Partnership Crest Nicholson Developments Ltd Town Centre CAAC Croudace Transport Users Group Crown Estate Commissioners Traveller Law Reform Coalition Daventry District Council Twentieth Century Society Daventry and South Northants PCT United Reformed Church Daventry Fire Service Victim Support Daventry Job Centre Weedon History Society Daventry Police Welfare Rights Advisory Service Daventry Tertiary College Welford Action Group East Midlands Ambulance Service Women's Aid East Midlands Electricity Women's National Commission Entec UK Ltd WWF EWS Ltd YMCA Fire Service Youth Offending Team First Bus – Northampton Zindgani (Aston Main Group) Gridcom UK Hutchinson 3G UK Limited Kingsbrook School vi Magdalen School Advance Housing Association Mereway Ambulance Station AIG Property Milton Keynes PCT Andrew Granger & Co MK Metro Andrew Martin Associates Mobile Operators Association Anthony Ricketts Moulton College Aracon UK Moulton Surgery Aragon National Grid Arnold Thompson Network Rail Arun Investments NHS Confederation Ashby St Ledgers Farms LTD NHS East Midlands Atis Real Weatheralls NHS Estates Atkins (Property Service, NCC) NHS Executive (Anglia & Oxford) AWG Property Limited NHS Executive South East Region Barratt (Northampton) North Oxfordshire PCT Barris Liptrott Northampton Borough Council Barry Howard Homes Ltd Northamptonshire County Council Barton Willmore Northamptonshire Fire & Rescue Service Barwood Land Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust Bayly and Co Northamptonshire Police Beacon Housing Association Northamptonshire Police - Western Area Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Association Northamptonshire Probation Area Bellinge Residents Association Northamptonshire Teaching Primary Bellway Homes Care Trust Ben Coleman Associates NPower (Renewables) Berkeley Homes (North London) LTD NTL Group Limited Bernard and Mary Sunley Ltd O2 (UK) Limited Berry Morris Orange Personal Communications Ltd Bidwells Powergen Bidwells Drake Quinton House School Bletsoe & Son Roade School Bloor Homes Silverlink Train Services Blue Boar Group Holdings South Midlands LIFT Project Team Boots Properties PLC Sponne School Boots the Chemists Ltd St Andrews Hospital Bovis Homes Ltd St. Loys Church of England Primary Boyer Planning School BPA Ltd Stagecoach East Bpha (Bedfordshire Pilgrims Housing Sywell Aerodrome Association) Thames Water Property Brafield Stadium- Brafield Motorsports T-Mobile (UK) Limited Branston and Company Transco BRB (Residuary) Ltd University of Northampton Brian Barber Associates Ltd Virgin Trains Brian Cornley Vodafone Group PLC Briton Properties Ltd Yorks Coaches Bromford Housing Group Yorks Travel Brown & Co BT PP426 Derngate ATE BTCV Businesses, Developers, Agents and Buchanan Consulting Engineers Landowners: Budworth Hardcasstle Abbey Developments Ltd Burbage Realty Abbey Ross Burnett Planning and Developmet Abbeyfield UK HA Business Link Northamptonshire Abbot Anstey Reader Butler Sherborn AC Adam Development Ltd Calvoyden Property Ltd Adams Holmes Associates Camargue Consultants Cannons Group Limited vii Carillion URS DTZ Pieda Consulting Carlsberg Tetley East Midlands Housing Association Carpenter Planning Easynet Group Carter Jonas English Churches Housing Group Cavendish Properties English Courtyard Developments Ltd CB Richard Ellis Ltd First City CBI (East Midlands) Firstplan CDS Development Services Fisher German Celeford Essex Associates Fox, Bennett & Hackney Centex Strategic Land FPD Savills CGMS Frampton Chadwick McRae Chartered Surveyors Frazer Kircaldy Chancellors Freeman Leisure Chapman Warren Freeth Cartwright LLP Charles Church Developments Frontier Estates Charles F Jones Fuller Pieser Charles Planning Associates G A Soame & Associates Chesterhouse G L Hearn Planning Chesterton Plc G R Kenning Chetwood Associates Gallagher Estates Chiltern Hundreds Housing Association Gardner Associates Chris Thomas Ltd Gazeley Properties Ltd Christ Church Oxford Genesis Holdings Christina Cherry Geoff Amos Coaches CJC Development George Wimpey South Midlands Ltd Clayson Country Homes George Wimpey UK Ltd Clayson Haselwood George Wimpey West Midlands Ltd Clelford Essex Gerald Eve Cluttons Gill Pawson Planning Colliers CRE Godfrey Payton Cushman & Wakefield Goldfinch Cushman and Wakefield Healy and Baker Goode Coaches D M Wood Will Trust Gotch, Saunders and Surridge Dalton Warner Davis Goth Dandara Holdings Gough Planning Services Danetree Consortium Gregory Gray Associates Darland Property Management Ltd GVA Grimley Daventry Business Breakfast Club Hadland Chartered Surveyors David L Walker Halkins and Haskins David Lock Associates Hallam Land Management Ltd David Wilson Estates Hardys and Hansons Dbi Consulting Harris Lamb Planning Consultancy De Pol Associates Hartwell Bond Defence Estates East Harwoods Dennis Faulkner & Alsop Hawksmoor Property Services Derek Lovejoy Partnership Haywood and White Development Land & Planning Head Mann Associates Devplan UK Healey & Baker Diamond Estates Henry H. Bletsoe & Sons Dignity Funerals Ltd Hepher Dixon DLA LLP Hewitsons Dolton Warner Davies Highgrade Motors Donaldsons LLP Hinton In The Hedges Airfield DPDS Consulting Group Holme Holdings DRH Architectural Design Holmes Antill Drivers Jonas Howard Sharp and Partners LLP DTZ IG Land and Planning

viii Indigo Planning Ltd McIntyres J & J Design MCL Property Consultants J A Pye Meccantice Land J B Planning Associates Merrys J B Planning Associates Ltd (for Kier Land Midsummer Housing Association Ltd) Mike Hardy Planning Consultant J S Bloor Services Miller Homes James Bailey Planning Minster General Housing Association James Martin and Co. Molyneux Planning Januarys Montague Evans Jennifer Lampert Associates Montagu-Evans John Drake & Co Morrison Supermarkets PLC John Heber Evans Chartered Designers Mott McDonald John Martin & Associates MSP John Phillips Planning NAI Fuller Peiser Jones Day Nathaniel Lichfield and Partners JS Bloor Homes Nicholas Tye Kember Loudon Williams Ltd Northampton Landlords' Association Kemp & Kemp Number One Kensington Homes Oldfield King Planning Kier Land Ltd Orbit Housing Association King Sturge O'Riordan Bond King West Osborne & Shellard King West Blacklee Smith Paradigm Housing Group Kirkby and Diamond Paul & Company Lafarge Aggregates Peacock and Smith Laing Homes Pegasus Planning Group Lambert Smith Hampton Persimmon Homes Lane Fox Residential Ltd Persimmon Homes (Midlands) Ltd LDA Design Peter Brett Associates Legal & General Peter Haddon & Partners Leicester Housing Association Phillips Planning Services Ltd Leith Planning Plainwood Holdings LEVVEL Consulting Ltd Planning Bureau LHA Housing Association Planning Issues Lidl UK Planning Potential Linfield Ltd & Lintec Systems Ltd Plant Hire Contractors Lloyd Thomas Architects R Stafford Charles & Son Loveday & Davis Rapleys Lovejoy Rapleys LLP Lovejoy Partnership Redline Town and Planning Development Lovell Johns Consultants Lucas Land and Planning Consultants Ltd Redrow Homes (Midlands) Ltd Malcolm Judd & Partners Robco-Reed Ltd Malcolm Scott Consultants Ltd Robert Doughty Consultancy Mansford Holdings Plc Robert Hitchins Ltd Marchfield Developments Robert Turley Associates Marriott Hardcastle Robinson & Hall Marrons Rockingham Forest Housing Association Marston St Lawrence Estate Roger Coy Marston's Plc Roger Mason Planning Martin Grant Homes (UK) Ltd Roger Tym and Partners Martin Pendered Royal Mail Marwalk Royal Mail Group Mason Richards Planning Royal Mail Group c/o Atisreal McCann Homes Royal Mail Operations West Territory McCarthy and Stone Royal Mail Property Holdings McGowan Investments RPS ix Rudding Esate Office White Young Green Planning Rugby Cement Whites Estates Agents Samuel Rose Ltd Wilbraham Associates Ltd Savills Wilcon Homes Midlands Ltd Second Site Property William Davies Ltd Servite Houses Willow Inns Limited Shaftsbury Society Wilson Bowden Properties Shoosmiths Wilson Connolly (Home Counties) Shortland King Wimpey Homes Slough Estates Wimpey Homes (East Midlands) Smith Stuart Reynolds Wm Morrison Supermarket Plc Smith Woolley Woods Hardwick Planning Limited Smiths Gore Woolf Bond Planning Stamford Homes Ltd WSP Group Ltd Stansgate Planning Consultants Star Planning & Development Adjoining Councils: Steer Ethelston Aylesbury Vale District Council Stepnell Estates Limited Buckinghamshire County Council Strangford Property Consultancy Ltd Borough Council of Wellingborough Strategic Land Partnerships Cherwell District Council Strutt & Parker Corby Borough Council Stuart Michael Associates Ltd East Northamptonshire Council Stuart Ross Associate Harborough District Council Taylor New Homes Kettering Borough Council Taylor Williams Properties Leicestershire County Council Taylor Woodrow Developments Ltd Milton Keynes Council Taywood Homes Ltd North Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit Tenscentral Ltd Oxfordshire County Council Terence O'Rourke Rugby Borough Council Tesco Stores Ltd Stratford upon Avon District Council Tetlow King Planning Warwickshire County Council Tew and Smith TFM Readers The Bell Cornwell Partnership The Planning Bureau Ltd The Planning Inspectorate Topaz Developments Ltd Towcester Vetinary Surgery Town Planning Consultancy TPK Consulting Trevor Jolley Design Turley Associates Turweston Flight Centre Ltd Twigden Homes Twigg & Associates Ltd Underwoods Vartec Telecom Europe Verres De Vin Wines Company Video Inn Production WA Fairhurst and Partners Walker Morris Warmingtons Watermead Homes Ltd Westbury Homes (Holdings) Ltd Westleigh Developments Ltd Weston Favell Shopping Centre White Mitchell Charterd Surveyors

x Appendix 2 – List of public inspection locations

Council/ Development Corporation Offices Daventry District Council - One Stop Shop Northampton Borough Council – One Stop Shop Northamptonshire County Council – County Hall South Northamptonshire Council – Springfields West Northamptonshire Development Corporation

West Northamptonshire Libraries Northamptonshire Central Library, Northampton Abington Library Brackley Library Brixworth Library Daventry Library Deanshanger Library Duston Library Far Cotton Library Hunsbury Library Kingsthorpe Library Long Buckby Library Middleton Cheney Library Moulton Library Roade Library St James Library Towcester Library Weston Favell Library Woodford Halse Library Wootton Library

Adjoining Councils Libraries Banbury Library Buckingham Library Desborough Library Dunchurch Library and Information Centre Earls Barton Library Kettering Library Market Harborough Library Milton Keynes Central Library Newport Pagnell Library Olney Library Rothwell Library Rugby Library and Information Centre Stony Stratford Library Wellingborough Library Wolverton Library

xi Appendix 3 – Summary of responses

The responses are summarised in the following table. A full version of each response is available via the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit website at: http://ldfconsultation.westnorthamptonshirejpu.org/consult.ti/WN_CIL_PDCSs_Cons ultation/listRespondents

xii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Question 1 Having considered the evidence base (in terms of the CIL Economic Viability Assessment) do you agree that the proposed CIL rates achieve an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure from CIL and the potential effects of the charge on the economic viability of development across the local authority area? AnglianWater Funding of water andwastewater unlikely Response noted. n/a to form part of CIL provisions. Arthingworth Parish  Do not agree. Will have detrimental The proposed CIL charges will partially n/a Council effect on those wishing to get onto the replace existing charges already property ladder. negotiated via s106 agreements.  Housing market too fragile to sustain charge. Asda Stores Ltd  Propose flat rate across all Viability evidence illustrates that not all n/a development across its boundaries. use classes are able to sustain a CIL  Provide draft instalment policy. charge. The Partner Councils are  No evidence presented of s106 required to introduce charges which contributions. would not put delivery of the Joint Core  Underestimate s106 and s278 Strategy as a whole at risk. contributions from retail schemes. Aynho Parish Proposed CIL rates will achieve a viable Response noted. All development has n/a Council balance to achieve investment in the some impact on the need for necessary infrastructure to support the infrastructure, services and amenities or development target as stated and that benefits from them so it is fair that such those proposed rates will not be development pays a share of the cost. detrimental to the economic viability of the CIL is the government’s preferred method planned development across the local of seeking contributions to all but directly authority area. site related infrastructure and will largely replace the need for S106 agreement xiii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

contributions.

The viability evidence demonstrates that the proposed rates support the delivery of the Joint Core Strategy without undermining the overall economic viability of delivery across its area. Barwood Land & Without a firm housing number to consider Response noted. n/a Estate Ltd the CIL against in terms of delivering the necessary infrastructure for the area, we consider that it would be premature to comment on the proposed rates at this time. Boughton Parish The Parish Council is extremely concerned CIL is collected by the Charging Authority Draft R123 List Council that the majority share of the CIL will go to and annual monitoring of receipts and prepared for next the charging authorities and be retained for spend will illustrate how funds are being consultation. expenditure in other parts of the directed. The R123 List (a list of projects County/Borough/District. that will benefit from CIL funds) will form part of the Draft Charging Schedule consultation and stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment at that stage. It is also noted that the CIL Regulations provide for 15 to 25% of the levy arising from developments within parish council areas to be passed directly to those parish councils. In parishes with a neighbourhood plan in place, the

xiv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

proportion will be 25% uncapped. In parishes without a neighbourhood plan the proportion will be 15% and capped at £100 per dwelling in the parish per year. In unparished areas the council will be able to use the proportion for local priorities in consultation with local residents. Brixworth Parish Affordable housing of 40% in rural areas is Viability evidence for Affordable Housing n/a Council excessive. has been completed by Three Dragons. This work has been examined independently by a Planning Inspector at the Joint Core Strategy hearings. Cherwell & South CIL must leave a buffer and cannot be CIL Guidance states that all approaches n/a Northants DC charged at the maximum headroom. must be explained clearly. The viability work has been updated and continuous work by the Partner Councils illustrates improving house prices providing a robust support to the approach taken. Coventry and Supports the evidence and has no further Response noted. n/a Warwickshire Local comments to make. Enterprise Partnership DNeale Theevidencebaseisflawedassalesrates Viability evidence has been undertaken Charging authorities in rural areas are nowhere near £220 per by professional consultants GVA. They will increase the rate sq ft. In Crick they are £170 per sq ft. are assured that appropriate assumptions for smaller sites have been made in support of their work. which fall below the

xv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

The viability work has been updated and affordable housing continuous work by the Partner Councils threshold. illustrates improving house prices providing robust support to the approach taken. It was previously recognised by our consultants that smaller sites, without the requirement of supply affordable housing, are more capable of sustaining a higher CIL rate. Previous CIL Regulations and Guidance did not support this approach. Duston Parish Monies should be spent on community Response noted. The R123 List (a list of Draft R123 List Council amenities. projects that will benefit from CIL funds) prepared for next will be available alongside the Draft consultation. Charging Schedule consultation and stakeholders will have an opportunity to comment at that stage. It is also noted that the CIL Regulations provide for 15 to 25% of the levy arising from developments within parish council areas to be passed directly to those parish councils. In parishes with a neighbourhood plan in place, the proportion will be 25% uncapped. In parishes without a neighbourhood plan the proportion will be 15% and capped at £100 per dwelling in the parish per year.

xvi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

In unparished areas the council will be able to use the proportion for local priorities in consultation with local residents. Framptons Information is not sufficient and robust. Key Response noted. Infrastructure need is CIL Background infrastructure costs not included. shown in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan paper to be made and is further supported by the CIL available during Background Paper to be made available consultation on Draft alongside the Draft Charging Schedule Charging Schedules. consultations. Francis Jackson EnsureCILlevelsarenottoohigh. GVAareconfidentthattheproposedCIL n/a Homes Ltd rates are at a level which would not put (Gladman overall development across West Developments) Northamptonshire at serious risk. Gladman CIL rates must not threaten Local Plans. GVA are confident that the proposed CIL n/a Developments rates are at a level which would not put overall development across West Northamptonshire at serious risk. Hampton Brooks CILmustnothinderdevelopment. GVAareconfidentthattheproposedCIL n/a Estate Ltd rates are at a level which would not put overall development across West Northamptonshire at serious risk. HBF Consortium HBF Consortium express these concerns Viability evidence has been undertaken CIL Viability Study through specific analysis of key by professional consultants GVA. They update to provide assumptions within the GVA CIL Economic are assured that appropriate assumptions further clarification. Viability Assessment relating to matters have been made in support of their work. including Development Profit; Professional The CIL Viability Study has been updated

xvii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Fees (specifically on SUEs); Section 106 to provide more clarification on the work Assumptions; Contingency; Viability assessed. Buffers; Planning Promotion Costs; Affordable Housing; Benchmark Land Values (specifically for SUEs); and the resulting Interpretation of Results in setting the proposed CIL rates. Highcross Strategic Insufficient evidence to demonstrate these CIL Guidance states that all approaches n/a Advisers Ltd assumptions. No appropriate buffer, rates must be explained clearly. The viability appear to be at the maximum level. work has been updated and continuous work by the Partner Councils illustrates improving house prices providing a robust support to the approach taken. Highways Agency Welcoming of a CIL charge. Response noted. n/a

Kimbell Trust GVA assessment of the house prices is GVA are confident that the proposed CIL n/a flawed largely because of it reflects the rates are at a level which would not put same methodology of the Three Dragon’s overall development across West study which is flawed. Northamptonshire at serious risk.

Viability work completed by Three Dragons has been examined independently by a Planning Inspector at the Joint Core Strategy hearings. Kleinwort Benson Evidence base ignores realistic build costs. Viability evidence has been undertaken n/a as Trustees of the by professional consultants GVA and Muriel Jackson- adheres to national guidance on viability.

xviii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

StopsSettlement Theyareassuredthatappropriate assumptions have been made in support of their work. Mr. Moore New development should be targeted at Response noted. The Joint Core Strategy n/a brownfield sites. aims to maximise the urban capacity across West Northamptonshire. National Farmers CIL should be reduced for rural areas. Viability evidence has been undertaken The Partner Councils Union by professional consultants GVA. Their propose a higher rate work illustrates that residential for rural sites below development in rural areas is capable of the affordable meeting a higher CIL rate. housing threshold. CIL Guidance states that all approaches must be explained clearly. The viability work has been updated and continuous work by the Partner Councils illustrates improving house prices providing a robust support to the approach taken. They further propose a higher CIL rate for sites which fall below the affordable housing threshold. The approach to differential charging based on size is now supported by the CIL Regulations (as amended 2014). Natural England Local Plan should be Habitat Regulation Response noted. n/a Assessment compliant. Northampton The level of affordable contributions from The Partner Councils must balance the The Partner Councils County Council – both CIL and s106 identified in the cost of funding infrastructure with the will present evidence

xix Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Highways, consultation documentation raise serious viability of development. The CIL charges of historic s106 Transport and concerns about the deliverability of the key proposed, combined with assumptions for agreements and Infrastructure elements of transport infrastructure s106 contributions, are comparable with provide information to necessary to open up the Sustainable current s106 negotiations. support their Urban Extension for development. judgement on the appropriate balance for Examination.

The Partner Councils will continue to work collectively with service providers to identify alternative and supplementary funding mechanisms and ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure. Northampton Affordability of other infrastructure and The Joint Core Strategy has been subject n/a County Council – modal shift measures necessary to to Examination and the Infrastructure Planning and Policy mitigate the impact of development on Delivery Plan (IDP) forms part of the existing communities and in particular to evidence base in support of the Plan. The reduce the level of congestion which would IDP is updated annually and is a living otherwise be forecast to achieve the draft. Both documents have been made ambition of Joint Core Strategy must be available during consultations. seriously called into question. All relevant service providers have

xx Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

agreed that the infrastructure projects identified within the IDP will accommodate the levels of growth across West Northamptonshire. Site promoters have not indicated any issues regarding the deliverability of sites. Pegasus Group It is clear that an appropriate balance The Joint Core Strategy has been subject The Partner Councils between the desirability of funding to Examination and the Infrastructure will present evidence infrastructure from the levy and the Delivery Plan (IDP) forms part of the of historic s106 potential effects of the levy upon the evidence base in support of the Plan. The agreements and economic viability of development across IDP is updated annually and is a living provide information to West Northamptonshire has not been met draft. Both documents have been made support their with regard to the majority of the SUEs as available during consultation. judgement on the they are situated within low value areas. appropriate balance All relevant service providers have for Examination. agreed that the infrastructure projects identified within the IDP will The Partner Councils accommodate the levels of growth across will continue to work West Northamptonshire. Site promoters collectively with have not indicated any issues regarding service providers to the deliverability of sites. identify alternative and supplementary The CIL charges proposed, combined funding mechanisms with assumptions for s106 contributions, and ensure the timely are comparable with current s106 delivery of negotiations. infrastructure.

xxi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Persimmon Homes/ CIL rates do not achieve an appropriate The Joint Core Strategy has been subject The Partner Councils Bloor Homes/ balance between the desirability of funding to Examination and the Infrastructure will present evidence Barratt Homes infrastructure from CIL and the potential Delivery Plan (IDP) forms part of the of historic s106 effects of the economic viability of evidence base in support of the Plan. The agreements and development. IDP is updated annually and is a living provide information to draft. Both documents have been made support their available for consultation. judgement on the appropriate balance All relevant service providers have for Examination. agreed that the infrastructure projects identified within the IDP will The Partner Councils accommodate the levels of growth across will continue to work West Northamptonshire. Site promoters collectively with have not indicated any issues regarding service providers to the deliverability of sites. identify alternative and supplementary The CIL charges proposed, combined funding mechanisms with assumptions for s106 contributions, and ensure the timely are comparable with current s106 delivery of negotiations. infrastructure. Portfutures & UKSL We consider that progress with CIL should Response noted. The Joint Core Strategy n/a be postponed until the JPU has progressed Part I has been examined independently further work with the local plan SA/SEA by a Planning Inspector. and housing needs assessment work that has to be carried out or alternatively that, given the current debate at the local plan EIP over infrastructure and viability.

xxii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Prologis UK Limited Mainly agree with the questionnaire. Response noted. n/a

Ropemaker Respondent concludes that Northampton Response noted. The Partner Councils n/a Properities Limited Borough Council should be mindful of are mindful of legislative changes. The forthcoming legislative changes in the Draft Charging Schedules have been progression of their CIL and so we reiterate prepared in line with Guidance and our view that further evidence must be legislation. given. Rugby Borough Supportstheevidence. Responsenoted. n/a Council Sport England We are concerned that the infrastructure The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is Partner Councils to delivery plan may be based on evidence updated annually to reflect the continuous ensure that work to that is out of date or indeed not available. engagement with service providers. This update infrastructure plan will also be informed by new evidence in support evidence produced in support of the Part of the Part II Local II Local Plans. Plans is reflected in future iterations of the IDP. The Theatres Trust We support the nil rate for ‘all other uses’ Response noted. n/a for Daventry DC, Northampton BC and South Northampton DC. University of Imposing a CIL charge for retail Viability evidence has been undertaken Northampton developments in a fragile market makes it by professional consultants GVA. Their less likely developers will be able to afford work illustrates that retail development is these uses which provide amenity and capable of meeting a CIL rate. employment. It will make some development unviable.

xxiii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Walgrave Parish We do not agree with the proposed level of Infrastructure to be wholly or partly Draft R123 List Council investment as a general rule. This is delivered by CIL will be available for prepared for next because the context is different for different consultation within the R123 List at the consultation. communities. Infrastructure in rural same time as the Draft Charging localities is not well provided. Schedule. It is also noted that the CIL Regulations provide for 15 to 25% of the levy arising from developments within parish council areas to be passed directly to those parish councils. In parishes with a neighbourhood plan in place, the proportion will be 25% uncapped. In parishes without a neighbourhood plan the proportion will be 15% and capped at £100 per dwelling in the parish per year. In unparished areas the council will be able to use the proportion for local priorities in consultation with local residents. West Haddon Principle interest is in Residential Rural Increasing the complexity of the charge Following Parish Council Zone levy rate, so have some concerns makes CIL calculation and collection amendments to the with the possible effect of having one rate increasingly difficult. The Regulations CIL Regulations in for whole of the Daventry District Council provide that CIL should not be overly 2014, the Partner Rural area given that there are one or two complex. Whilst some rural areas might Councils are house price hotspots identified. This price viably be able to afford a higher CIL proposing a higher hotspot and the flat rate for the district will charge, the Charging Authorities have rate for sites below quite clearly have a greater attractiveness simplified the charging zones to maintain the affordable

xxiv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

to swing development to these areas given a balance between projected returns and housing threshold. a greater margin will be accrued. administrative burden. However, it was previously recognised by our consultants that smaller sites, without the requirement of supply affordable housing, are more capable of sustaining a higher CIL rate. Previous CIL Regulations and Guidance did not support this approach. Whittlebury Parish The Council has insufficient information to Response noted. The Charging Partner Councils to Council form a judgement as to whether the Authorities are able to provide support provide support and proposed preliminary draft charging and assistance to Parish Councils at any assistance as schedule at section 7 of the consultation stage to provide more information on the requested and paper is either acceptable or sufficient to CIL process. required for Parish provide the necessary support for new Councils. development. William Davis Ltd Concerned that the approach towards Viability evidence has been undertaken CIL Viability Study assessing acceptable uplift from by professional consultants GVA. They updated. ‘benchmark’ land values, in the Viability are assured that appropriate assumptions Assessment, is unrealistic. have been made in support of their work. The CIL Viability Study has been updated to provide more clarification on the work assessed. WNDC The balance between the desirability of Government guidance suggests a review Adopted CIL Charing funding infrastructure from CIL and the of CIL as economic conditions improve or Schedules will be potential effects of the charge on the worsen. It is intended that the Partner monitored annually. economic viability of developments needs Councils will monitor the implementation

xxv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

to be kept when/if economic conditions of CIL alongside delivery of residential improve/worsen. The CIL rates therefore and retail development. need to be flexible.

Question 2 Do you agree that the West Northamptonshire Infrastructure Delivery Plan (July 2012) demonstrates a funding gap that provides sufficient justification for the introduction of CIL within each of the local authority areas? Asda Stores Ltd There is a concern that as local authorities Local authorities cannot seek site-specific n/a will still seek site- specific commitments commitments under S.106, for under the s106 regime as well as CIL that infrastructure that is to be provided the two charges together represent an through CIL. unreasonable double levy for infrastructure The Viability work completed by GVA which is seemingly being placed onto a provides evidence as to which types of very limited category of development. development are able to sustain a CIL charge. Barwood Land & Needs to be sure of objective assessment Comments can therefore only be made n/a Estates Ltd of housing needs number before once West Northamptonshire Joint Core comments can be made on CIL. Strategy is adopted. To ensure the timely provision of infrastructure it is necessary for the Partner Councils to pursue the CIL charging regime in advance of adoption. Brixworth Parish I feel that we have to rely on the statement Agreed.Responsenoted. n/a Council that there is a funding gap here although quantifying it is beyond our ability. The projected increase in housing completions over the years 12/13 to 24/25 would

xxvi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

certainly seem to create a funding gap. Cherwell & South Any CIL charging rate would to be It is not expected that CIL rates will be n/a Northants DC appropriate, tested and viable. If viable CIL set so low as to be uneconomic to collect. rate were to be so low (e.g. £5-£10) as to However, if viable CIL rates were to be be uneconomic to collect, then it might be set so low as to be uneconomic to collect, better to simply secure this through s.106 then local authorities have the option of means, and consider the option of not not adopting use of CIL. adopting the use of CIL. The Partner Councils also recognise that there are strategic infrastructure projects required to support the Joint Core Strategy Part I. Some of these projects would not be capable of delivery under the pooling restrictions for s106 to be imposed from April 2015. Duston Parish Money should be spent on community CIL receipts will be spent in accordance n/a Council amenities etc. with the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Reg123 Lists. Parish Councils will receive a percentage of CIL receipts to spend on community amenities, etc. English Heritage Should recognise the importance of Response noted. n/a historical sites. Framptons The information which has been provided Have not specified in what way the n/a is not sufficient and robust. information is considered insufficient and not robust. Viability evidence has been undertaken by professional consultants GVA. They are assured that appropriate assumptions xxvii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

have been made in support of their work. The CIL Viability Study has been updated to provide more clarification on the work assessed. Gladman Funding gap - The Council needs to Not agreed. The costs of infrastructure CIL Background Developments ensure that they have a full understanding needed to serve new development have Paper to be made of the potential costs of infrastructure been identified sufficiently through the available alongside projects needed to meet the infrastructure IDP, to clearly identify a significant the Draft Charging needs. Gladman believe that it is funding gap and allow setting of Schedules. inappropriate to set the levy based on a appropriate and viable CIL charging partial understanding of these rates. This work is further supplemented infrastructure costs and in particular if the by the CIL Background Paper available total money needed for infrastructure is alongside the Draft Charging Schedule unknown. consultations. Hampton Brook Further work on objectively assessed need Comments can therefore only be made n/a Estates Ltd and SA work is required before they make once West Northamptonshire Joint Core a comment. Strategy is adopted. To ensure the timely provision of infrastructure it is necessary for the Partner Councils to pursue the CIL charging regime in advance of adoption. HBF Consortium CIL rates should be based on accurate CIL rates are based on viability n/a estimates of known site-specifics. assessment. Site-specific requirements will continue to be provided for under the S.106 regime, but only if they have not been funded through a CIL charge.

xxviii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Highcross The Infrastructure Needs Assessment Not agreed. The costs of infrastructure CIL Background Strategic Advisers does not seek to identify accurate costs of needed to serve new development have Paper to be made Ltd projects. There is a lack of clarity and been identified sufficiently through the available alongside justification and therefore a sound funding IDP, to clearly identify a significant the Draft Charging gap has not been justified in this instance funding gap, and allow setting of to justify the levels of CIL set out. appropriate and viable CIL charging Schedules. rates. This work is further supplemented by the CIL Background Paper available alongside the Draft Charging Schedule consultations. Highway Agency The HA considers that the evidence Agreed. This work is further CIL Background presented by the authorities demonstrates supplemented by the CIL Background Paper to be made that there will be significant infrastructure Paper available alongside the Draft available alongside funding gap across the West Charging Schedule consultations. the Draft Charging Northamptonshire area and in each Schedules. separate charging authority. Kimbell Trust It is impossible to verify as only the JPU CIL rates are based on GVA viability The updated has access to the background information. assessment, which is available on-line. presentation of the What is not clear is whether the funding Site-specific requirements will continue to CIL related funding gap takes into account existing s.106 be provided for under S.106 regime, but gap to be presented agreements? And future s.106 agreements only if they have not been funded through in a Background between now and when CIL is adopted and CIL charge. Paper. enforced? Kleinworth Benson Charging rates for the land owned by the CIL charging rates are applied uniformly. n/a as Trustee of the Trustees should be lower to reflect the Issues of viability for individual sites will Muriel Jacks- requirements for developments. continue to be addressed through the

xxix Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

StopsSettlement S.106regime.

Litchborough Did not feel competent to challenge any of Noted. There will be a further chance to Partner Councils to Parish Council the figures or assumptions presented. comment when the Draft Charging provide support and Schedule is consulted on. assistance as requested and required to Parish Councils. Mr. Moore Should be spent on more schools, A draft R123 List is to be provided for the Draft R123 List to be healthcare and roads. Draft Charging Schedule consultation. provided at consultation. NHS Property A funding gap of 9.3m for healthcare was S.106 contributions are not being phased n/a Services Ltd identified in the IDP. This is a significant out, and can still be sought on individual sum, and with the phasing out of s.106 sites, provided that developers have not contributions from April 2014, there is no contributed towards healthcare through other viable planning mechanism which CIL charge. can help to adequately address this deficit. Northamptonshire Northamptonshire County Council, as Agreed and response noted. The Partner Councils County Council – highway authority agrees that there is a will continue to work Highways and large funding gap in the monies available collectively with Infrastructure for infrastructure provision. Worryingly this service providers to funding gap is largest with regard to identify alternative highway infrastructure; therefore the and supplementary introduction of CIL as one of the measures funding mechanisms to support funding of infrastructure is and ensure the timely welcome. delivery of infrastructure. xxx Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Northamptonshire The county council agrees that there is a Agreed and response noted. The Partner Councils County Council large funding gap in the monies available will continue to work Planning and for infrastructure provision. Worryingly this collectively with Policy funding gap is largest with regards to service providers to highway infrastructure; therefore the identify alternative introduction of CIL as one of the measures and supplementary to support funding of infrastructure is funding mechanisms welcome. and ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure. Pegasus Group It is necessary to ensure that the s106 Agreed, but note that any S.106 n/a Ltd requirements sought by the JPU in addition requirements will continue to be sought to the proposed CIL charges are not by the individual Partner Councils, not the onerous and are also “carefully considered JPU. in the context of viability”. Persimmon Pegasus considers that the proposed CIL In accordance with the Regulations, CIL n/a Homes/Bloor rates do not achieve an appropriate rates have to be set so as to leave Homes/ Barratt balance between the desirability of funding development viable. Homes infrastructure from CIL and the potential effects of the economic viability of development. Portfutures and We consider that progress with the CIL CIL cannot be adopted until after the Joint n/a UKSL should be postponed until the JPU has Core Strategy has been adopted. progressed further work with the local plan SA/SEA and housing needs assessment work that has to be carried out or alternatively that, given the current debate

xxxi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

at the local plan EIP over infrastructure and viability.

Sports England We are concerned that the infrastructure The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) is Partner Councils to delivery plan may be based on evidence updated annually to reflect the continuous ensure that work to that is out of date or indeed not available. engagement with service providers. This update infrastructure plan will also be informed by new evidence in support evidence produced in support of the Part of the Part II Local II Local Plans. Plans is reflected in future iterations of the IDP. Walgrave Parish DDC needs are underestimated due to Not agreed, as DDC ‘needs’ form part of n/a Council apparent lack of budget for cultural viability assessment and IDP. development and public realm. West Haddon The delivery plan doesn’t drive down into Not agreed, as ‘infrastructure need n/a infrastructure need potential in light of potential’ forms part of viability development progress throughout life of a assessment and IDP. plan as any patterns emerge. Little account of social infrastructure needs alongside structural infrastructure at macro level. Whittlebury Parish The Council has insufficient information to Noted. There will be a further chance to Partner Councils to Council form a judgement as to whether the comment when the Draft Charging provide support and proposed preliminary draft charging Schedule is consulted on. assistance as schedule at section 7 of the consultation required to Parish paper is either acceptable or sufficient to Councils. provide the necessary support for new xxxii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

development.

Wildlife Trust We would like to make sure that Noted. Final allocation of any CIL n/a investment into Green Infrastructure and receipts will be decided by the partner the natural environment is given authorities, at the appropriate stage. comparable weighting when deciding which of the competing infrastructure types will receive funding through mechanisms such as CIL. WNDC Transport and Education infrastructure Noted. Final allocation of any CIL n/a require the most funding out of all types receipts will be decided by the partner suggested in each authority’s preliminary authorities, at the appropriate stage. drafting schedule. The drafting schedule also shows these two types of infrastructure have the largest funding gaps. There is an estimated overall gap of £439.6m. Improving infrastructure is a catalyst for further development. Question 3 Do you agree with the Proposed Residential Charging Rates: Urban Zone (Including Strategic Urban Extensions (SUEs) - £50 per sqm? Brixworth Parish These charges seem to be rationally Response noted. N/a Council based.

xxxiii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Cherwell and South Please refer to response to Question 1, The CIL Viability Study acknowledges N/a Northants District above. Any CIL charge rate would have to that the urban areas of Northampton and Councils be viable, and if a viable rate were to be so Daventry are predominantly ‘low value’ low (e.g. £5-£10) as to be uneconomic to areas. Therefore a nominal rate of collect, then might be better to consider the £50/sqm is proposed. option of not adopting use of CIL. It is not expected that CIL rates will be set so low as to be uneconomic to collect. However, if viable CIL rates were to be set so low as to be uneconomic to collect, then local authorities have the option of not adopting use of CIL. The Partner Councils also recognise that there are strategic infrastructure projects required to support the Joint Core Strategy Part I. Some of these projects would not be capable of delivery under the pooling restrictions for s106 to be imposed from April 2015. Deanshanger Deanshanger Parish Council tried to The different charging zones reflect Partner Councils to Parish Council complete the response form but felt they differences in residential values within the provide support and could not answer the questions. They are sub-region. This approach is informed by assistance as very specific and the information provided evidence and is supported by guidance. required to Parish is not sufficient to answer properly. There It is regrettable that Deanshanger Parish Councils. is concern about different bands for rural Council felt they were unable to fully and urban – surely the levy should be respond to the consultation. However uniform across the county. town and parish councils were supplied with all relevant documentation necessary

xxxiv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

to provide a response to the consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. Framptons It is considered that further justification for The guidance requires Charging n/a the proposed charging rates should be Authorities to use an area-based provided as the document progresses approach which involves a broad test of towards adoption. The charging rates viability across the area to underpin their should differentiate between Previously charge. A range of development Developed Land and Greenfield sites. scenarios has been tested. Future Presently it is considered that insufficient development is expected to come forward justification has been included in on a range of sites including both consultation document and evidence base brownfield and greenfield land. papers. The CIL Economic Viability Study anticipates that based on the Joint Core Strategy, the majority of development (excluding the SUEs) will be brought forward on previously developed land. This includes rural areas where development is expected to be predominantly within settlement boundaries and has either been previously developed or has significant hope value due to planning policy allocation. Where the current use is agricultural or horticultural, the study assumes the landowner will require a xxxv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

minimum land price of £247,000 per hectare.

It is therefore considered that the range of scenarios tested broadly reflect the likely form of future development as indicated by the Joint Core Strategy. Gladman Local planning authorities need to be able On behalf of the Partner Councils, the Draft R123 to be Developments to demonstrate the infrastructure need and Joint Planning Unit publishes an annual available at subsequent gap and must ensure that the update of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan consultation. level of total CIL receipts that could be (IDP). The IDP identifies infrastructure Background Paper to generated through the levy reflects these necessary to implement the Joint Core outline CIL related true needs and the proposals in the Local Strategy and indicates a funding gap. funding gap in more Plan. The CIL should not be used by Due to the funding gap, the Partner detail. Council’s as a mechanism for creating an Councils feel it is justified and appropriate unrealistic ‘wish list’ of infrastructure to implement a CIL charge. projects in their area. The Charging Authorities intend to publish draft Regulation 123 Infrastructure Lists alongside the Draft Charging Schedule. The authorities’ Infrastructure Lists will be informed by the IDP. Hampton Brook Ensure that CIL does not stifle The CIL Economic Viability Study n/a Estate Ltd development. identifies the urban areas of Northampton and Daventry as ‘low value’ and Brackley and Towcester as ‘medium value’. The

xxxvi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

study acknowledges that much of the development in West Northamptonshire will be brought forward at Strategic Urban Extensions (SUEs) and that the SUEs may experience higher enabling costs.

In light of the evidence, the partner authorities are proposing a nominal CIL charge of £50/sqm in the urban zone. HBF Consortium Certain elements of the evidence need to The CIL is being worked up alongside the CIL Viability Study be revised and made readily available. preparation of the Joint Core Strategy updated. and informed by an up-to-date evidence base. The documentation relating to the CIL is available via the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit’s website.

Viability evidence has been undertaken by professional consultants GVA. They are assured that appropriate assumptions have been made in support of their work. The CIL Viability Study has been updated to provide more clarification on the work assessed. Litchborough Parish Did not feel competent to challenge any of It is regrettable that Litchborough Parish Partner Councils to Council the figures or assumptions presented. Council felt they were unable to fully provide support and respond to the consultation. However all assistance as xxxvii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

town and parish councils were supplied required to Parish with all documentation necessary to Councils. provide a response to the consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule.

Moulton Parish Charges should be £150 sq m for all The evidence presented in the CIL n/a Council developments, rural and SUE. economic viability study does not support a £150 per sqm rate in the urban zone including SUEs. Residential sales values are lower in the urban zone than the rural zone. In addition, development at SUEs is expected to require higher enabling costs than other sites. Mr. Moore The areas identified as SUE should be It is estimated that the SUEs will n/a treated the same as rural areas and experience sales values in line with the charged at £150 per sqm. adjoining current market areas in Northampton, Daventry, Brackley and Towcester and are therefore included within the Urban Zone. Northamptonshire CIL rate proposed seems fair for Northants The evidence suggests that Brackley and n/a County Council and Daventry however; it seems low for Towcester command higher residential Planning and Policy Towcester and Brackley. values than Northampton and Daventry. The CIL Economic Viability Study identifies Towcester and Brackley as ‘medium value’. The SUEs adjoining each may therefore benefit from the higher prices. However as they will have xxxviii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

the same issues concerning enabling costs, it is believed there is a strong case to treat those SUEs in the same way as the SUEs located at Northampton and Daventry. Pegasus Group Ltd It is considered that the boundary line for It is noted that the boundaries of the Amend Urban and the Rural Zone and the SUE should also SUEs are subject to review through the Rural Charging be reviewed following the WNJCS examination process. The Joint Planning Zones to reflect SUE Examination. Unit presented Proposed Modifications to boundaries following the Joint Core Strategy in March 2014. the Joint Core Those modifications do include Strategy examination. amendments to the boundaries of certain SUEs. The CIL Viability Study has been reviewed accordingly.

The Urban and Rural Charging Zones must therefore reflect the boundaries of the SUEs indicated in the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (should the document be found sound and adopted by the partner authorities). Persimmon Pegasus considers that the proposed CIL The CIL Economic Viability Study The Partner Councils Homes/Bloor rates do not achieve an appropriate identifies the urban areas of Northampton will present evidence Homes/ Barratt balance between the desirability of funding and Daventry as ‘low value’ and Brackley of historic s106 Homes infrastructure from CIL and the potential and Towcester as ‘medium value’. The agreements and effects of the economic viability of study acknowledges that much of the provide information to development. development in West Northamptonshire support their

xxxix Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

will be brought forward at the Strategic judgement on the Urban Extensions (SUEs), and that the appropriate balance SUEs may experience higher enabling for Examination. costs. The Partner Councils In light of the evidence, the partner will continue to work authorities are proposing a nominal CIL collectively with charge of £50/sqm in the urban zone. service providers to identify alternative and supplementary funding mechanisms and ensure the timely delivery of infrastructure. Protfutures and Refertoquestion1. TheCILisbeingworkedupalongsidethe n/a UKSL preparation of the Local Plan (i.e. the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy) as recommended by national policy. University of Imposing a CIL charge for retail In working up a CIL the authorities have Northampton developments in a fragile market makes it adopted an area-based approach which less likely developers will be able to afford involves a broad test of viability across these uses which provide amenity and their area as evidence to underpin the employment. It will make some charge. Inevitably there is a risk that development unviable. some development proposals may be unviable. In setting a CIL, the Partner Councils are seeking to strike a balance

xl Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

between securing additional investment for infrastructure to support development, and the potential economic effect of imposing the levy upon development across the area. West Haddon Little account for social infrastructure The Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) n/a Parish Council needs alongside structural infrastructure at supports the Joint Core Strategy and a macro level. identifies the infrastructure required to deliver new development over the plan period. The IDP has been prepared through consultation with service providers. It should be noted that many service providers are working up strategic plans of their own to meet future needs. Furthermore the ‘duty to pass CIL to local councils’ will empower local communities to spend CIL funds on locally important infrastructure projects. William Davis Ltd Concerned that the approach towards The 20% uplift from benchmark land Review additional assessing acceptable uplift from values employed by the study is informed evidence if/when ‘benchmark’ land values, in the Viability by the findings of recent examinations on received. Assessment, is unrealistic. other CIL studies; from national guidance (Viability Testing Local Plans, Local Housing Group, 2012); the consultants’ (GVA) own experiences; and, the approach adopted by neighbouring authorities.

xli Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

The partner authorities would encourage the respondent to submit additional evidence of current land values and landowner’s expectations. WNDC The identified SUE’s differ in land value Response noted. n/a because of the different locations; however there are issues of enabling costs which create challenge to viability and sustainability. £50 per sqm for each CIL is consistent across West Northamptonshire. Therefore implementing a fixed rate for all SUE’s allows for certain SUE’s to contribute more within s106 in addition to CIL. Question 4 Do you agree with the Proposed Residential Charging Rates: Rural Zone - £150 per sqm?

Cherwell & South Please refer to response to Question 1, Noted. Agreed that a low charge would n/a Northants DC above. Any CIL charge rate would have to not be viable to collect, however at the be viable, and if a viable rate were to be so rates proposed it would be viable. Partner low (e.g. £5-£10) as to be uneconomic to Councils can determine not to adopt a collect, then might be better to consider the CIL at any time. option of not adopting use of CIL. D Neale Totally unviable as demonstrated by JPU’s Viability evidence has been undertaken Charging authorities own study. Will prevent development by professional consultants GVA. will apply an coming forward in rural areas as will not increased the rate for

xlii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

stack up financially. Rates need to be It was previously recognised by our smaller sites which much lower. Neighbouring Rugby’s rate consultants that smaller sites, without the fall below the £50 per sqm in rural areas. requirement of supply affordable housing, affordable housing are more capable of sustaining a higher threshold. CIL rate. Previous CIL Regulations and Guidance did not support this approach. Deanshanger Not enough information provided. The respondent has not indicated what Partner Councils to Parish Council information is lacking. provide support and assistance as required to Parish Councils. Framptons Information is not sufficient and robust. The respondent has not indicated what n/a information is lacking.

Viability evidence has been undertaken by professional consultants GVA. They are assured that appropriate assumptions have been made in support of their work. The CIL Viability Study has been updated to provide more clarification on the work assessed. Francis Jackson Assumes all areas are homogenous. It is necessary to make broad n/a Homes Ltd assumptions , otherwise the system wold become more complex to evidence and more expensive to operate (if there were many different zones and rates for example)

xliii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Gladman Lower CIL rates would provide flexibility See section 1 above n/a Developments and reflect a more sustainable District. Gladman Differential charging rates - It is integral Noted. In defining areas for different n/a Developments when setting differential rates for different rates it is necessary to strike a balance geographical areas that these differential between reflecting local variations in rates are based on accurate, up to date values and setting up a system which is housing market intelligence forming the not overly complex. evidence base for this decision. Hampton Brooks Rural sites could have higher costs. No evidence has been provided to n/a Estates Ltd support this view HBF Consortium Certain elements of the evidence need to In response to the consultation, GVA has GVA update Viability be revised and made readily available. updated the viability study which will be Study. available during the next consultation. Kimbell Trust  As demonstrated in Section 1), the See section 1 above n/a viability evidence is flawed and despite this the testing demonstrates that £150 per sqm of CIL is not viable.  The maximum levy under the optimum scenario of £100 per sqm and it is considered that if £100 per sqm was adopted that would still be a major challenge and still generate double the receipts currently being generated by s.106 agreements if say looking at an average 100 sqm house on a medium sized development (Three Dragons study says s.106 average is £5k so

xliv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

£10k would be double.  A £100 per sqm rate would also be in line with Rugby with similar land values/house prices etc. as confirmed by GVA. In fact, the rural area charge in Rugby is £50 per sqm. Kleinwort Benson Charging rates for SUEs are too high. The respondent has not provided any n/a as Trustees of the evidence to support this view Muriel Jackson- Stops Settlement Litchborough Parish Did not feel competent to challenge any of Response noted Partner Councils to Council the figures or assumptions presented. provide support and assistance as required to Parish Councils. National Farmers CIL should be reduced in rural areas. Viability evidence has been undertaken Charging authorities Union by professional consultants GVA. will apply an increased rate for It was previously recognised by our smaller sites which consultants that smaller sites, without the fall below the requirement of supply affordable housing, affordable housing are more capable of sustaining a higher threshold. CIL rate. Previous CIL Regulations and Guidance did not support this approach. Northamptonshire The proposed charging rates do reflect the Noted. A review will be undertaken in n/a County Council current market which is currently due course, but there is no precise Planning and Policy depressed. To ensure that uplift in the timetable currently.

xlv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

rising market is captured provision should be made for an early review when conditions change. Pegasus Group Ltd Prices for CIL for the rural zone are too See section 1 above n/a high. Portfutures and See question 1. -- UKSL Walgrave Parish Cost of private transport and the Response noted. n/a Council inadequacies of public transport. The current cost of private transport and the inadequacies of public transport which has caused migration from rural areas. Should development take place this will need addressing. West Haddon The answers don’t provide the necessary In defining areas for different rates it is Partner Councils Parish response option. Given prior answers, necessary to strike a balance between propose to increase price Hotspot in West Haddon would make reflecting local variations in values and the rate for smaller development here more attractive as setting up a system which is not overly sites which fall below greater margins for residual land value are complex. the affordable possible – is it sensitive enough? housing threshold, However, it was previously recognised by this approach clarified our consultants that smaller sites, without through CIL the requirement of supply affordable Regulations (as housing, are more capable of sustaining a amended 2014). higher CIL rate. Previous CIL Regulations and Guidance did not support this approach.

xlvi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

William Davis Ltd Concerned that the approach towards See section 1 above n/a assessing acceptable uplift from ‘benchmark’ land values, in the Viability Assessment, is unrealistic. Question 5 Do you agree with the Proposed Retail Charging Rates - £100 per sqm (excluding central zones in Daventry and Northampton)?

ASDA Stores Ltd  ASDA often can revitalise and The partner authorities intend to publish a Partner Councils to rejuvenate areas where it sets up. draft Instalment Policy for consultation review retail  Propose flat rate across all alongside the publication of the draft proposals to confirm development across its boundaries. Charging Schedule. that in broad terms  Provide draft instalment policy. s106 costs are nil, or  No evidence presented of s106 The CIL Economic Viability Study low. contributions. assumes that there are no s106  Underestimate s106 and s278 obligations in respect of the schemes and Partner authorities to contributions from retail schemes. that costs, such as s278 agreements are undertake review of absorbed into the site enabling costs planning obligations and/or CIL payment. However, in testing policies. scenarios the study incorporates assumptions as to compliance with the BREEAM ‘Very Good’ standard and site preparation costs.

The adoption of the CIL and changes to regulation regarding pooling of s106 contributions will require the partner authorities to review their policies for

xlvii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

imposing planning obligations through s106 agreements. Framptons Information is not sufficient and robust. The CIL Economic Viability Study tests a Review retail charge range of retail scenarios. It is not clear if/when additional from the respondent what additional evidence is supplied. information is required. The respondent is invited to supply additional evidence to ensure the CIL is robust. Gladman Differential charging rates - It is integral The CIL Economic Viability Study uses Explore the Developments when setting differential rates for different land registry data for all sold property, requirement to geographical areas that these differential and is therefore considered accurate. update study, to rates are based on accurate, up to date However it is acknowledged that such ensure current values housing market intelligence forming the data may require regular review to ensure are reflected. evidence base for this decision. it is kept up to date. Hampton Brook Retail is important for both economic Response noted. n/a Homes growth and employment. Highcross Strategic Setting CIL levels at the maximum will not A nil rate is proposed in the town centre n/a Advisers Ltd ensure viability and does not meet the for retail uses. Different retail scenarios funding gap. provide a broad range of viability scenarios. National Farmers Support a nil levy on all other development Planning permission is not normally Partner authorities to Union but we object to the proposed CIL for retail required if an existing building is used as provide clarity on the development of £100 per sqm. This a farm shop only for the sale of application of CIL. proposal would include marginal rural unprocessed goods produced on that development like farm shops which I’m farm. However, where a farm shop sells sure were not supposed to be included in significant amount of produce from the CIL proposals. elsewhere, planning permission may be xlviii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

required.

In the first scenario, CIL is unlikely to be chargeable (perhaps the activity could be considered either ancillary or de minimis). Furthermore where there is no net gain to the floorspace of the existing building, CIL would not be applicable.

In the second scenario, where planning permission is required, CIL is likely to be chargeable on any additional floorspace created from the proposal. Northamptonshire The proposed charging rates do reflect the It is intended that CIL will be subject to n/a County Council current market which is currently regular review to ensure rates Planning and Policy depressed. To ensure that uplift in the appropriately reflect development rising market is captured provision should viability. be made for an early review when conditions change. Portfutures and Refer to question 1. Refer to question 1. n/a UKSL Ropemaker Please see answer to question 1 – the The proposed rate for ‘other uses’ is nil. n/a Properties Limited rates proposed for different ‘intended uses’ A range of development scenarios are cannot be supported by reference to Reg tested indicating low viability. 14, without significantly more thorough and clearly evidenced justification being provided in an updated Economic Viability

xlix Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Assessment.

University of Imposing a CIL charge for retail In working up a CIL the authorities have n/a Northampton developments in a fragile market makes it adopted an area-based approach which less likely developers will be able to afford involves a broad test of viability across these uses which provide amenity and their area as evidence to underpin the employment. It will make some charge. Inevitably there is a risk that development unviable. some development proposals may be unviable. In setting a CIL, the partner authorities are seeking to strike a balance between securing additional investment for infrastructure to support development, and the potential economic effect of imposing the levy upon development across the area.

A nil rate is proposed in the town centre for retail uses. Different retail scenarios provide a broad range of viability scenarios. West Haddon The retail market will decide and the CIL Response noted. n/a Parish Council rate will have little impact. WNDC The evidence base recognises there are Response noted. n/a higher development costs in the town centre of Northampton and Daventry; however a CIL rate of £100 per sqm is a reasonable contribution for outside the

l Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

town centre.

Question 6 Do you agree with the proposed charging zones (see Section 7 of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule documents)?

DNeale Notsurewhethertheyarelawfulasper Schedules have been prepared in n/a. advice in GVA study. accordance with CIL Regulations and guidance. Deanshanger They are very specific and the information The zones attempt to reflect variations in n/a Parish Council provided is not sufficient to answer the value of development across the properly. There is concern about different area, but as noted above a balance has bands for rural and urban – surely the levy to be struck between reflecting local should be uniform across the county. variations in values and setting up a system which is not overly complex. Francis Jackson Evidence is required to demonstrate the A balance has to be struck between n/a Homes Ltd proposed CIL level is flexible and will not reflecting local variations in values and act as a barrier to housing and affordable setting up a system which is not overly housing delivery across the charging/plan complex. area with more worked examples on a District by District basis. Gladman Areasarenothomogenous. Noted n/a Developments Hampton Brook Current zoning appears to be overly A balance has to be struck between n/a Estates Ltd simplistic and to the potential detriment of reflecting local variations in values and some sites especially falling within the setting up a system which is not overly higher charged rural zone. Drastic change complex. in the price of zones (rural/urban).

li Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

KimbellTrust Noobjectionpersqmbutquestionsthe Different rates per charging zone are n/a legality of this method - There have been permitted, provided this is supported by high profile cases where supermarket evidence operators have successfully challenged differential rates and been successful. The courts have ruled that you can only have one rate per land use, so just one flat rate for residential development. Most authorities with adopted CIL only have one rate and not charging zones. Kleinwort Benson Wood Burcote Court, Towcester should be The Partner Councils will consider n/a excluded from the charging zone to reflect responses before considering whether to special circumstances. adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond the statutory relief set out in the Regulations. This would address concerns regarding site specific viability. Litchborough Parish Did not feel competent to challenge any of Noted Partner Councils to Council the figures or assumptions presented. provide support and assistance as required to Parish Councils. Moulton Parish Allzonesshouldbeequal. Thisisnotsupportedbytheevidence n/a Council Mr. Moore SUEs should be charged the same as the Thisisnotsupportedbytheevidence n/a rural sites. Pegasus Group Ltd Review the boundary line of rural and Agree that this would be sensible Review boundary urban zones following the Core Strategy between SUEs and lii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

examination. rural areas following examination. Portfutures and Refer to question 1. - - UKSL Ropemaker Refer to question 1. - - Properties Limited University of Imposing a CIL charge for retail In working up a CIL the authorities have n/a Northampton developments in a fragile market makes it adopted an area-based approach which less likely developers will be able to afford involves a broad test of viability across these uses which provide amenity and their area as evidence to underpin the employment. It will make some charge. Inevitably there is a risk that development unviable. some development proposals may be unviable. In setting a CIL, the partner authorities are seeking to strike a balance between securing additional investment for infrastructure to support development, and the potential economic effect of imposing the levy upon development across the area.

A nil rate is proposed in the town centre for retail uses. Different retail scenarios provide a broad range of viability scenarios. West Haddon Wholly in line with Core Strategy – whether Noted n/a Parish Council the zones will bring about the desired effect is pure speculation.

liii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

WNDC The current mapping is in keeping with the Noted n/a CLG requirements of avoiding an overly complex operation of CIL. This is particularly relevant to the rural zone because it is made of up of many different Parishes. The CIL is therefore operating at a strategic rather than local level. If the Parishes were to be changed individually issues surrounding time, efficiently and confusion my arise, as further appraisals would need to take place and developers might find certain Parishes preferable to them based on lower CIL rates. Question 7 Do you agree that the CIL Economic Viability Assessment has assessed the overall economic viability of the development types most likely to occur in West Northamptonshire in the foreseeable future? If not, what other development types should be tested and what is your justification for this? Anyho Parish Negative impact of new neighbourhood New ‘neighbourhood developments’ have n/a Council developments. been assessed. DNeale Hasnottestedforlowerdensity All likely densities of development have n/a development. Most developments in been tested for. Daventry District are below 30 dwelling per hectare (dph). Framptons Why have certain development sites have Does not specify which (major) sites have n/a been omitted? been ‘omitted’. Hampton Brook Abnormal development costs not taken into Any abnormal development costs can still n/a Estates Ltd account. be taken into account through the S.106 liv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

regime, and assessing the viability of individual development sites. Highcross Strategic Assessment has been undertaken at a Economic viability assessment has been n/a Advisers Ltd very broad level. undertaken to a sufficient level, to enable the setting of viable CIL rates. Kimbell Trust No minimum density is required anymore. Agreed, but developments must still make n/a best and most efficient use of land. Litchborough Parish Did not feel competent to challenge any of Noted – there will be a further chance to Partner Councils to Council the figures or assumptions presented. comment when the Draft Charging provide support and Schedule is consulted on. assistance as required to Parish Councils. Moulton Parish Road improvements – infrastructure over Response noted. n/a Council DDC area is in need of review. National Farmers Agricultural and rural workers’ dwellings This is not a matter for local authorities, n/a Union should be exempted from CIL. but could only be addressed through Government changes to the CIL Regulations. NHS Property Pleased that PDCS will not impose a CIL Response noted. n/a Services charge on any new healthcare facilities. Pegasus Group Ltd All major land uses assessed. Agreed. n/a

Persimmon Pegasus considerations that the proposed See Q2. n/a Homes/Bloor CIL rates do not achieve an appropriate Homes/Barratt balance between the desirability of funding Homes infrastructure from CIL and the potential effects of the economic viability of lv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

development.

Portfutures and Refer to question 1. Response noted. n/a UKSL Prologis UK Limited Mainly agree with the questionnaire. Response noted. n/a

The Theatres Trust We support the nil rate for ‘all other uses’ Agreed. n/a for Daventry DC, Northampton BC and South Northampton DC. Theatre uses are generally unable to bear the cost of CIL for viability reasons. The Theatres Trust therefore supports either the setting of a nil rate, the application of charitable or discretionary reliefs, applying D1/D2 rates where differential rates are proposed, or recycling the charge to the theatre development where a single rate is proposed. West Haddon Agreeinthemain. Responsenoted. n/a Parish Council Question 8 Do you consider the charging authorities should adopt a scheme of discretionary relief, so that in exceptional circumstances of economic viability developments that meet the essential criteria can be exempted from paying CIL? ASDA Stores Ltd Decision is welcomed. The Partner Councils will consider n/a responses before considering whether to adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond the statutory relief set out in the lvi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Regulations.

English Heritage Do not put heritage sites at risk as a result The Partner Councils will consider n/a of CIL. responses before considering whether to adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond the statutory relief set out in the Regulations. Framptons Provide flexibility for major developments. The Partner Councils will consider n/a responses before considering whether to adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond the statutory relief set out in the Regulations. Kleinwort Benson A planning application for land at Wood The Regulations as amended allow for n/a Burcote Court, Towcester includes the payments in kind. creation of a new town park and the transfer of the land to Towcester Town Council together with a commuted sum for future management. It is considered that the gross value of the park and the commuted sum should be included in the calculation of CIL for any development proposed on the balance of the site. Litchborough Parish Did not feel competent to challenge any of Response noted. n/a Council the figures or assumptions presented. Moulton Parish Additional developments should carry Response noted. CIL allows for a charge n/a Council responsibility for infrastructure additions. to be set against developments which might not previously have been required lvii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

to contribute via a s106 agreement. This ensures that smaller developments contribute towards the cumulative impact on infrastructure. Mr. Moore Everyone will ask for discretionary relief The Partner Councils will consider n/a which will cost the courts a great deal. responses before considering whether to adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond the statutory relief set out in the Regulations. Northamptonshire To strike a balance which ensures that The Partner Councils will consider n/a County Council – relief is given where appropriate but is not responses before considering whether to Highways, at the expense of the delivery of the new adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond Transport and improved infrastructure needed to support the statutory relief set out in the Infrastructure future development. Regulations. Northamptonshire A scheme of relief should not be adopted The Partner Councils will consider n/a County Council by any local authorities or for SUE’s. responses before considering whether to Planning Policy adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond the statutory relief set out in the Regulations. Pegasus Group Ltd Highly likely schemes will experience The Partner Councils will consider n/a difficulties and should have the option to be responses before considering whether to viability tested for relief and where adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond necessary exemption, especially where the statutory relief set out in the schemes are required to provide a number Regulations. of planning obligations through s106 agreements. Portfuturesand Refertoquestion1. --

lviii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

UKSL TheTheatresTrust Refertopreviousquestion. - - West Haddon There should be a scheme of discretionary The Partner Councils will consider n/a Parish Council relief for Social housing and charitable responses before considering whether to purposes. These are not precursors for adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond exceptional circumstances. Exceptional the statutory relief set out in the circumstances relief will only lead to lack of Regulations. clarity, delay and expense to manage given everyone will want a go at it. WNDC The need for a scheme of relief should be The Partner Councils will consider n/a rare based upon the viability assessment responses before considering whether to of the CIL however to comply with Regs 56 adopt any CIL discretionary relief, beyond the scheme should be provided. The the statutory relief set out in the scheme of relief can be removed if Regulations. necessary if it appears the need to use the scheme increases. Question 9 Do you consider that the charging authorities should have a policy for paying the chargeable amounts in instalments? If so, do you have a preference for how such a policy should be set, for example by percentages of the total amount and the length of time period in days? Asda Stores Ltd Phasing and an instalment policy would A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment work well. prepared for consultation. policy is available for the next consultation. Brixworth Parish We recommend quarterly instalments by A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment Council equal percentages and capable of being prepared for consultation. policy is available for apportioned by days.

lix Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

the next consultation.

Framptons Instalment would be very similar to phasing A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment under s106. prepared for consultation. policy is available for the next consultation.

Gladman Council should adopt an instalment policy. A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment Developments prepared for consultation. policy is available for the next consultation.

Hampton Brooks Introduce an instalment policy. A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment Estates Ltd prepared for consultation. policy is available for the next consultation.

HBF Consortium Monitoring of CIL should take place on a 6- The Regulations require Annual Reports Adopted CIL Charing monthly basis. to be made available for inspection. Schedules will be However, the Partner Councils recognise monitored annually. that CIL monitoring is an ongoing process. Kleinwort Benson Payment by instalments should be allowed. A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment prepared for consultation. policy is available for the next consultation. Litchborough Parish Did not feel competent to challenge any of Response noted. n/a Council the figures or assumptions presented. Mr.Moore Instalmentsshouldberelatedtothe Adraftinstalmentpolicyhasbeen A Draft Instalment

lx Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

completion of each dwelling. prepared for consultation. policy is available for the next consultation.

Northamptonshire Instalment will result in delays in the A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment County Council – provision of infrastructure. prepared for consultation. policy is available for Highways, the next consultation. Transport and Infrastructure Northampton For all areas an instalments policy should A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment County Council be considered in order to avoid the upfront prepared for consultation. policy is available for Planning Policy costs of CIL becoming a barrier to new the next consultation. housing. Pegasus Group Ltd CIL paid by instalments should be allowed. A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment prepared for consultation. policy is available for the next consultation.

Portfutures and Refer to question 1. - A Draft Instalment UKSL policy is available for the next consultation.

Walgrave Parish On cash payments: On approval of A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment Council planning permission or receipt of liability prepared for consultation. policy is available for notice – 33% Start of building (on the next consultation. commencement notice) – 33%,Completion – 34% ,On a land Transfer: All land transferred at approval – 100%

lxi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

West Haddon Benefit to community for CIL funds should A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment Parish Council impact as soon as possible and moreover prepared for consultation. policy is available for where certain infrastructure projects the next consultation. inevitably will precede CIL income. Larger development schemes are almost always phased over time and pace fluctuates with scales, hence leading to unpredictability over cash flow emanating from CIL levies, if in fact they actually are delivered in full. Compounding effect on inflation on value over time should be avoided. Instalments should not be offered. WNDC Instalments should reflect the type of A draft instalment policy has been A Draft Instalment development, for example the size, the prepared for consultation. policy is available for location, the timescale for delivery etc. the next consultation. There should be checks and balances in The Regulations provide the legislation place to mitigate such risks as unpaid CIL. necessary to initiate proceedings to recover unpaid CIL. Question 10 Infrastructure projects required to support new development, especially those identified in the West Northamptonshire Infrastructure Delivery Plan, may be candidates for receiving any CIL obtained. This first stage of consultation will help inform the projects that may be prioritised for funding through CIL. Suitable projects may be identified on the Councils’ Regulation 123 List (the list of infrastructure projects and/or infrastructure types that CIL monies will be spent on). What do you consider should be included within the Councils Regulation 123 list? Aynho Parish  Traffic impact relief projects to divert The County Council, as Highways Draft R123 List Council traffic induced by SNC and Cherwell Authority, and the Highways Agency, prepared for next Development Plans. In that traffic responsible for the Strategic Road consultation.

lxii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

through Aynho will double on top of the Network, have advised the Joint Planning existing heavy burden we would like to Unit and Partner Councils on highway see the provision of a relief road round improvements necessary as a result of the village. growth outlined within the Joint Core  The village already suffers acute noise, Strategy. These agencies work closely to vibration and pollution impacts from the identify cross boundary issues. current volume of traffic. Bicester and Banbury combined have a plan for the The draft R123 list will be made available provision of in excess of 16,000 new for consultation and provides scope for homes and 6 large industrial/retail different schemes to be identified developments by 2031, traffic volumes throughout the plan period. into and through the village will grow significantly exacerbated by the traffic flows from the SNC development plan. Boughton Parish CIL must strike a balance within Government legislation provides a Draft R123 List Council communities. proportion of CIL to be spent on areas prepared for next directly impacted by development. The consultation. Partner Councils will work with communities to identify locally specific projects alongside those required across the strategic area of West Northamptonshire. The operation of CIL will require a percentage to be provided directly to Parish Councils. Brixworth Parish Priority should be given to roads and Response noted. Highways projects from n/a Council footways. the largest section of the Infrastructure

lxiii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Delivery Plan.

Environment The Environmental Agency would welcome Response noted. The Joint Planning Unit n/a Agency the opportunity to meet with the JPU and has actively engaged with the the Lead Local Authority to: Update the Environment Agency (EA) throughout IDP to include the findings and development of the Joint Core Strategy. recommendations of the SFRA’s; Water The EA is contacted prior to each update Cycle Studies; Nene flood storage study; of the IDP and the Partner Councils are Northampton Standard of Protection review actively engaged with several strategic – Final Oct 2010; River Nene Catchment projects to identify green, water and flood Flood Management Plan; Anglian River risk projects. Basin Management Plan; and Local Flood Risk Management Study. Agree which green; water; and flood risk (fluvial and surface water) management infrastructure projects are most suitable for inclusion on the Councils’ Regs 123 List. Framptons Costs should be accurate. Costs are made available by service n/a providers and are the best cost estimates for works available at the time of publication. Some projects, such as large Sustainable Urban Extensions, require masterplans prior to the completion of detailed infrastructure estimates. As plans advance, costs will become more detailed. Hartwell Parish Extension to school, Local Safety The County Council, as Highways Draft R123 List

lxiv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Council initiatives. Authority and Local Education Authority, prepared for next and the Highways Agency, have advised consultation. the Joint Planning Unit and Partner Councils on highway and education improvements necessary as a result of growth outlined within the Joint Core Strategy.

The draft R123 list, now available for consultation, provides scope for different schemes to be identified throughout the plan period. HBF Consortium Highlight the importance of Regs 123 List. The draft R123 list is now available for Draft R123 List consultation and will be part of the prepared for next package of documents available at consultation. Examination. Highways Agency NGMS to be included in the Regs 123 List. Response noted. The NGMS is included. n/a Kimbell Trust Transport, Health and Education. Response noted. The draft R123 list is Draft R123 List now available for consultation. Some prepared for next service providers consider that their consultation. service area might best be delivered via site specific s106 agreements. The R123 list reflects the discussions we have had with service providers. Litchborough Parish Did not feel competent to challenge any of Response noted. n/a Council the figures or assumptions presented.

lxv Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Moulton Parish CIL’s should be used for the areas Some of the infrastructure impacts of n/a Council accepting new developments only, not for development will be addressed by site town centre improvements etc. specific s106 agreements. CIL is intended to address the cumulative impact of development and it is recognised that whilst this will include local projects such as road improvements, the cumulative development proposed across West Northamptonshire will have a significant impact on infrastructure items such as the strategic road network, service centres and green infrastructure networks. Mr. Moore Roads, sustainable transport plans, Response noted. The draft R123 list is Draft R123 List schools, hospitals, emergency services, now available for consultation. Some prepared for next provision of recreational and open space service providers consider that their consultation. etc. service area might best be delivered via site specific s106 agreements. The R123 list reflects the discussions we have had with service providers. Natural England  Local Plan should be Habitat A Habitat Regulation Assessment has n/a Regulation Assessment compliant. been completed for the Joint Core  CIL plays an important role in Strategy. Response noted. delivering such a strategic approach. Nene Valley Nature  Accessible natural green space should Response noted. The draft R123 list, now Draft R123 List Improvement Area be included in all Regs 123 list. available for consultation, provides scope prepared for next  CIL is good way to fund some green for different schemes to be identified consultation. infrastructure. throughout the plan period.

lxvi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

NHS Properties  The type of healthcare infrastructure Response noted. The Partner Councils Continuation of that should be funded should not be and Joint Planning Unit are actively collaboration with limited to primary care but should also engaged with healthcare providers to healthcare providers. include mental health and acute identify projects. secondary care. Northamptonshire  Highways, transport, education, health, Response noted. The draft R123 list is Draft R123 List County Council – utilities, community and leisure, open now available for consultation. Some prepared for next Highways, space and green infrastructure. service providers consider that their consultation. Transport and  All the various elements of service area might best be delivered via Infrastructure infrastructure mentioned above are site specific s106 agreements. The R123 necessary to support the principles of list reflects the discussions we have had sustainable development. with service providers. Northamptonshire  Transport and highways, education, Response noted. The draft R123 list is Draft R123 List County Council flooding, fire and rescue, library now available for consultation. Some prepared for next Planning and Policy services, mineral, waste and culture. service providers consider that their consultation. These are county council service areas service area might best be delivered via that are directly affected by new site specific s106 agreements. The R123 development. list reflects the discussions we have had  All various elements of infrastructure with service providers. mentioned above are necessary to support principles of sustainable development. Portfutures and We consider that progress with the CIL Response noted. n/a UKSL should be postponed until the JPU has progressed further work with the local plan SA/SEA and housing needs assessment work that has to be carried out or

lxvii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

alternatively that, given the current debate at the local plan EIP over infrastructure and viability. Sport England Sport England does not wish to raise any Response noted. n/a issues with regard to the Draft Charging Schedule. West Haddon  IT should be included. There are certain restrictions to projects n/a Parish Council  Broadband & mobile access in rural which could be identified for funding areas is an issue. through CIL. Due to State Aid rules, the  Business location and hence localised Partner Councils are unable to provide employment opportunities are being significant funding to private, profit severely impacted currently by IT. generating, companies.  BT has local monopoly. Wildlife Trust  Importance of Biodiversity. Response noted. The Partner Councils Draft R123 List  It is disappointing to see that wider and Joint Planning Unit are actively prepared for next partners have been involved in helping engaged with green infrastructure consultation. compiling this list. sponsors and developers to identify projects. The R123 list, now available for consultation, provides flexibility to identify projects throughout the plan period. WNDC  WNDC thinks that these should be on Utilities Draft R123 List the R123 list. Funding for Utilities projects is identified prepared for next Utilities: from service providers and developers consultation.  In the Infrastructure Delivery Plan utility will be expected to procure site specific projects make up 5 of the 12 key service provisions directly with each utility Continuation of infrastructure projects. The key company. collaboration with infrastructure projects are considered Transport service providers.

lxviii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

to be significant to all of West Transport projects form the largest Northamptonshire. There is also section of the IDP. The Partner Councils utilities infrastructure cost of £116m. will work with the local Highways Transport: Authority and Highways Agency to  In the infrastructure Delivery Plan prioritise funding and promote schemes transport projects make up 4 of the 12 for external funding throughout the plan key infrastructure projects. The key period and beyond. infrastructure projects are considered Green Infrastructure to be significant to all of West The Partner Councils and Joint Planning Northamptonshire. There is a known Unit are actively engaged with green transport infrastructure cost of £270.5 infrastructure sponsors and developers to m. There is also a substantial funding identify projects. The R123 list, now gap for transport which is estimates at available for consultation, provides £184.1m across West flexibility to identify projects throughout Northamptonshire. the plan period. Green Infrastructure: Education  Linked-up green space throughout Noted. Some service providers consider West Northamptonshire. There is a that their service area might best be funding gap across all three local delivered via site specific s106 authorities to provide for green agreements. The R123 list reflects the infrastructure. discussions we have had with service Education providers.  Education is worth considering as a type of infrastructure to be considered on under the 123 list because although primary education is localised and can be contributed to within S106,

lxix Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

secondary education could be considered as this is less localised. Question 11 Do you have a view on how the District/Borough Councils should coordinate and work with other infrastructure providers to ensure the delivery of infrastructure projects funded by CIL? Aynho Parish Don’t just focus on the impacts of Service providers work closely to identify Draft R123 List Council developments within the West cross boundary issues and many prepared for next Northamptonshire area. Where a village agencies have their own strategic consultation. abuts the eco system of a neighbourhood infrastructure plans. council these infrastructure plans must also take account of the Development Plans of The draft R123 list, now available for that neighbouring authority and the impact consultation, provides scope for different that those plans will have in villages lying schemes to be identified throughout the within the West Northamptonshire area. plan period. Boughton Parish CIL must strike a balance within See Question 10 Response. - Council communities. Deanshanger Money should be spent on community The draft R123 list, now available for Draft R123 List Parish Council amenities. consultation, provides scope for different prepared for next schemes to be identified throughout the consultation. plan period. It is recognised that some community facilities will be provided directly via s106 agreements. The operation of CIL will require a percentage to be provided directly to Parish Councils. HBF Consortium Regs 123 List is very important. Response noted. n/a

lxx Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Highways Agency The task of developing a forward Response noted. n/a infrastructure programme with diverse infrastructure and an uncertain funding stream will represent a significant challenge for the authorities. Kimbell Trust Infrastructure that crosses boundaries. Service providers work closely to identify Draft R123 List cross boundary issues and many prepared for next agencies have their own strategic consultation. infrastructure plans.

The draft R123 list, now available for consultation, provides scope for different schemes to be identified throughout the plan period. Kleinwort Benson Setupaworkinggroup. Responsenoted.ThePartnerCouncils Continuation of as Trustees of the are currently considering options for the development of Muriel Jackson- future Governance of CIL. internal processes Stops Settlement and procedures for the governance of CIL. Litchborough Parish Did not feel competent to challenge any of Response noted. n/a Council the figures or assumptions presented. Moulton Parish Consult with, and give adequate Noted – there will be a further chance to Partner Councils to Council consideration to local views, parish comment when the Draft Charging provide support and councils in particular. Schedule is consulted on. assistance as required to Parish Councils.

lxxi Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

NHS Properties NHS would welcome regular liaison Response noted. The Partner Councils Continuation of through infrastructure delivery meetings and Joint Planning Unit are actively collaboration with and if the JPU circulated regular reports on engaged with healthcare providers to healthcare providers. how CIL monies are being spent. identify projects. Northamptonshire Unclear how CIL will be spilt when it comes Response noted. The Partner Councils Continuation of County Council – to the provision of infrastructure. are currently considering options for the development of Highways, future Governance of CIL. internal processes Transport and and procedures for Infrastructure the governance of CIL. Northamptonshire It is unclear what the administration and Response noted. The Partner Councils Continuation of County Council governance arrangements of CIL. are currently considering options for the development of Planning and Policy future Governance of CIL. internal processes and procedures for the governance of CIL. Pegasus Group Ltd Ensure CIL payments fund projects The IDP provides a list of key Draft R123 List outlined in the IDP. infrastructure projects required to deliver prepared for next the growth outlined within the Joint Core consultation. Strategy. The prioritisation of funds will be considered further as the Partner Continuation of Councils consider options for the future development of Governance of CIL. internal processes and procedures for the governance of CIL.

lxxii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

Portfutures and We consider that progress with the CIL Response noted. n/a UKSL should be postponed until the JPU has progressed further work with the local plan SA/SEA and housing needs assessment work that has to be carried out or alternatively that, given the current debate at the local plan EIP over infrastructure and viability. Sport England  I can advise Sport England does not Response noted. Some service providers Draft R123 List wish to raise any issues with regard to consider that their service area might best prepared for next the draft charging schedule. We are be delivered via site specific s106 consultation. however concerned that the agreements. The R123 list reflects the infrastructure delivery plan may be discussions we have had with service based on evidence that is out of date providers. or indeed not available.  Sport England contends that evidence which is in excess of three years old without significant review could be considered out of date and therefore not robust. I can also advise that I understand Northampton Borough Council are considering plans for Leisure centre redevelopment along with the Trust. I am unsure of the funding package and if therefore the facility should be included in the IDP.

lxxiii Respondent Comment Partner Council Response Action

West Haddon Do they have any capacity to coordinate? I Response noted. Partner Councils to Parish Council don’t see much. Certainly not with NCC or provide support and Parish Councils. assistance as required to Parish Councils. Wildlife Trust Wildlife Trust would like to emphasis the Response noted. The Partner Councils Draft R123 List multiple benefits that the natural and Joint Planning Unit are actively prepared for next environment provides such as to health engaged with green infrastructure consultation. and wellbeing, the economy and wider sponsors and developers to identify ecosystem services. projects. Continuation of collaboration with service providers.

WNDC Four of Northampton’s SUE’s overlap into Response noted. The Partner Councils Continuation of neighbouring authorities. There should be are currently considering options for the development of an opportunity for infrastructure providers future Governance of CIL. This includes internal processes such as NNC, Highways Agency, the ongoing work to identify specific and procedures for Environment Agency, Anglian Water and projects and the collaborative work the governance of energy suppliers to have a collaborative required to deliver the SUEs. CIL. approach to delivering infrastructure requirements. This would allow for funding to be coordinated in a way that could assist with delivering infrastructure for the Regs123 list.

lxxiv lxxv APPENDIX 3 FOR CONSULTATION

Daventry District Council Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft CIL Regulation 123 List

For consultation alongside the Draft Charging Schedule.

Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 (as amended) restricts the use of planning obligations for infrastructure that will be funded in whole or in part by the Community Infrastructure Levy. Infrastructure types or projects that are listed below will not be secured through planning obligations. However, it should be noted that the parish element of CIL is not subject to the R123 list.

The list below sets out those infrastructure elements that Daventry District Council currently intends will be, or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL. The inclusion of projects in this list does not signify a commitment from the Council to fund all the projects listed, or the entirety of any one project, through CIL. The order in the table does not imply any order of preference for spend and the Council will review this list at least once a year, as part of its monitoring of CIL collection and spend.

Item

A. Education, excluding primary schools (but including primary special needs which require specialist provision)

B. Walking and cycling routes, including crossings – excluding that directly serving the needs of a development site

C. Public transport – excluding that directly serving the needs of a development site

D. A45 Northampton Growth Management Scheme

E. Northampton North-West Bypass (A428 to A5199)

F. A45 Daventry Development Link (between east of Dodford and M1 junction 16) FOR CONSULTATION

G. A43 Northampton to Kettering improvements

H. Canal and other waterway network improvements and extensions, including water supply

I. Indoor sports

J. Outdoor sports – excluding that directly serving the needs of a development site

K. Cemeteries

L. Public realm (including public art)

M. Green infrastructure, including biodiversity measures – excluding that directly serving the needs of a development site

N. Strategic waste infrastructure (depots, waste transfer stations and the like) – excluding that directly serving the needs of a development site

O. Town centre car parking

P. Fire and Rescue service buildings and equipment

Note: For the purposes of this list, an item of infrastructure is “directly serving the needs” of a development site if, irrespective of whether it is located outside the formal (red line) site boundary, it is close to the site and reasonably forms an integral part of the site-specific infrastructure. APPENDIX 4

The Community Infrastructure Levy

Background document

June 2014 Contents

Page Number

1.0 Introduction 1

2.0 Consultation 3

3.0 How the CIL rates have been set 4

4.0 Infrastructure 5

5.0 Viability 7

6.0 Operating CIL 10

7.0 The Future for s106 12

8.0 Exemptions and Discretionary Relief 13

9.0 Programme for the three West Northamptonshire CILs 15

Appendix 1 Infrastructure Projects set out in the Infrastructure Delivery i Plan (IDP)

Appendix 2 Secured funding sources for projects likely to be wholly or viii partly funded by CIL

1 1.0 Introduction

The West Northamptonshire Partnership

1.1 The three Councils of Daventry District, Northampton Borough and South Northamptonshire have worked together through the West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit to produce a strategic planning framework for the West Northamptonshire area. The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy (JCS) provides strategic planning guidance for the areas of Daventry District, Northampton Borough and South Northamptonshire for the period to 2029 and sets out the requirements for new development including housing and employment growth. The JCS is supported by the West Northamptonshire Infrastructure Delivery Plan Update 2013. This sets out the infrastructure required to support the new development to 2029 and its estimated costing.

1.2 The three Councils are also working together to provide a coordinated approach to the implementation of CIL. However, each of the district/borough Councils’ within West Northamptonshire will be an independent CIL Charging Authority for their area and each district/borough has its own charging schedule. The Councils share the evidence base. The West Northamptonshire Joint Planning Unit is coordinating the Draft Charging Schedule consultations on behalf of the partner Councils.

The Community Infrastructure Levy

1.3 This document has been prepared in support of the Community Infrastructure Levies (CILs) being progressed by the partner Councils across West Northamptonshire. This document sits alongside the Viability Assessment and the Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) as part of the evidence base. It sets out the considerations the Council has taken into account in determining the appropriate rate at which to set CIL.

1.4 Most new development will have some impact on infrastructure in the area. Across West Northamptonshire many elements of community and physical infrastructure are operating at full or near full capacity. Therefore, to be sustainable, new development needs to be accompanied by the facilities that are needed to support it. CIL provides a means by which development can share the costs of this provision.

1.5 CIL is set at a fixed rate and charged per net additional square metre of floor space. It will apply to most new development. Further details of the proposed CIL rates in West Northamptonshire, the types of development to which it will apply and how the charge will be calculated are provided in the CIL Draft Charging Schedules available via the following link: [add web link when website set up for consultation].

1.6 In the past, development contributions towards infrastructure have been secured largely through section 106 agreements (S106) as part of planning consents. Although limited use of s106 will continue alongside CIL, the Government has restricted how s106 can be used. The Councils believe that introducing CIL as a mechanism to raise funding for strategic infrastructure is essential. This has a number of benefits:

 The cost of funding infrastructure will be shared across a range of developments.  CIL receipts can be pooled to pay for strategic infrastructure - this will be restricted with S106 from April 2015.  It will provide more certainty for developers - they will know from the outset how much they have to pay.

2  It is a simpler and quicker process for both the Council and developer – it will not delay development.  Part of the funds raised can be used by local communities to address the impacts of new development in their neighbourhood (see Chapter 4).

3 2.0 Consultation

The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultations

2.1 In accordance with Regulation 15(7), responses to the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule consultations undertaken by the JPU on behalf of the partner Councils of West Northamptonshire have been taken into account in preparing the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) documents. Following public consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule in April/May 2013, the Councils have further developed work on the infrastructure requirements of the Joint Core Strategy. They have also worked further with viability consultants to determine the most appropriate approach for each CIL.

2.2 Details of the consultation methods used and issues raised during consultation of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule are available in the Statement of Consultation available via the following link: [add web link].

2.3 The following consultations were taken into account in preparing the DCS submission documents:

 Stakeholder workshops July 2012, January 2013 and May 2014;  Consultation on Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule April-May 2013;  Representations to the Proposed Main Modifications to the Joint Core Strategy, in Public Examination, January 2014; and  Ongoing meetings and discussions with key stakeholders and service providers.

Next Steps

2.4 After this consultation the partner Councils will consider the consultation responses and will decide whether to make further changes. Significant changes may need to be subject to a further round of public consultation. Should the Councils consider that significant changes are not required then they intend to submit the Charging Schedules, with any minor amendments, for joint independent examination in October 2014.

Post adoption

2.5 The process of setting and revising a charging schedule requires the local authority to monitor sales values, build costs and developer activity (i.e. planning applications, site purchases etc.), to indicate the health of the market, its reaction to CIL and whether a CIL charge needs changing.

2.6 The overall Charging Schedule will be reviewed to take account of changes in viability; this will be when changes to sales values, build costs and developer activity are sufficient to indicate that a review is required.

4 3.0 How the CIL rates have been set

3.1 In setting the rate of CIL, regard has been had to the Planning Act 2008, the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010 as amended in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 and the Community Infrastructure Levy Guidance.

3.2 The proposed CIL rate has been determined by considering, on the one hand, the cost of required infrastructure and, on the other, the viability of development. The infrastructure requirements are based on the Joint Core Strategy assessment of what is needed to support planned development as outlined in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).

3.3 Development viability has tested the types of development that are likely to arise across West Northamptonshire and taken into account policy requirements set out in the Joint Core Strategy.

3.4 The Councils are seeking to set rates which do not threaten the ability to develop, viably, the sites and the scale of development identified in the Joint Core Strategy. Regard has been had to ensuring that strategic objectives set out in the Core Strategy are not undermined. This relates both to the development and the infrastructure that is needed to achieve the Joint Core Strategy objectives. The CIL Regulations require that the charging authority determines an appropriate balance for its local area taking into account the desirability of CIL to contribute towards the infrastructure costs of planned development, and other potential sources of funding versus the potential effects (taken as a whole) on the viability of development in the area.

5 4.0 Infrastructure

4.1 To ensure that the CIL rate is reasonable in relation to infrastructure requirements, the cost of providing the necessary infrastructure to support development has been calculated. The calculation is based on the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) as updated 2013.

4.2 The IDP is a supporting document to the Joint Core Strategy. It sets out social, physical and green infrastructure needed to support planned development for the period to 2029. Funds raised through CIL are not expected to fully fund all identified infrastructure but will be one element in a package of funding sources.

4.3 The West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy will provide the up to date local plan requirement. The West Northamptonshire Infrastructure Delivery Plan Update 2013 shows a significant funding gap across the West Northamptonshire area.

4.4 Regulation 123 of the CIL Regulations requires each charging authority to publish a list of infrastructure to be delivered via the CIL. The partner Councils are consulting on the Regulation 123 Lists (commonly known as R123 Lists) and they can be found via the following link: [add web link]. It is intended that site- specific infrastructure will still be secured via s106 agreements, see Chapter 7.

4.5 It should be noted that a number of the Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUEs) will have outline permission, and be subject to full S106 agreements before CIL is introduced. They would not therefore be anticipated to pay CIL. Once CIL is in place, it would be anticipated, broadly, that SUEs would provide site-related infrastructure on site and contribute towards strategic infrastructure through CIL. See Chapter 5 for further details.

4.6 The partner Councils recognise that there are a number of projects which will be wholly or partly funded by CIL in the future.. It is anticipated that as these projects progress, amendments to the R123 Lists will be made as necessary to reflect the need to deliver further strategic infrastructure projects.

4.7 Table 1 presents an indicative list of the cost of all schemes currently identified within the IDP that are likely to be funded, in whole or part, through CIL. Appendix 1 lists each project within the IDP and shows which projects are intended to be delivered via CIL. A number of CIL related schemes do not have indicative costs at this time, the costs and funding gap illustrated in Table 1 should therefore be regarded as a minimum.

Table 1 – Indicative CIL funding gap across West Northamptonshire authorities in £m based on all strategic projects within the IDP identified for CIL funding. Infrastructure type Northampton Daventry District South Northants cost funding funding cost funding fundin cost funding funding est. secured gap est. secured g gap est. secured gap Transport 39.2 1.3 37.9 70.4 4.9 65.52 42.1 3.1 39.0 Education 44.8 27.2 17.6 7.4 3.0 4.40 16.3 2.1 14.2 Emergency services 7.3 0.0 7.3 5.0 0.1 4.9 4.4 0.16 4.24 Cultural development 8.1 0.0 8.1 2.4 0.0 2.4 1.7 0.0 1.7 Community halls 0.00 0.0 0.00 5.0 0.0 5.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 Indoor/outdoor sports 3.9 0.0 3.9 7.1 0.5 6.6 7.0 0.0 7.0 Public realm 1.9 0.0 1.9 0.6 0.0 0.6 0.4 0.0 0.4 Green infrastructure 3.4 0.0 3.4 16.0 0.0 16.0 2.2 0.07 2.13 TOTAL (rounded) 108.6 28.5 80.1 113.9 8.5 105.42 74.1 5.43 68.67

6 NB. Several of the strategic infrastructure projects required as a result of growth in the Northampton Related Development Area (NRDA) will require joint contributions across the partnership. Broad assumptions have been made on strategic project contributions based on the proportion of development apportioned to each district within the NRDA. Further information on joint working arrangements is given in Chapter 6.

4.8 Appendix 2 illustrates each project within the IDP likely to be wholly or partly funded by CIL and the funding already secured for each project. The minimum funding gap for likely CIL related infrastructure across West Northamptonshire totals £296.7m. The total projected revenue for CIL across the plan period to 2029 for West Northamptonshire is £102m, assuming all affordable housing targets are met. Although the amount of CIL revenue is therefore likely to be well short of the aggregate funding gap, it is clear that the introduction of CIL into West Northamptonshire would make a significant contribution and is fully justified.

4.9 The Regulations include a duty to pass CIL to local neighbourhoods. This requires each charging authority to pass on a proportion of CIL receipts (between a capped 15% to an uncapped 25%) arising from development within the area of a parish council or other local areas. Table 2 provides an illustration of this. The definition of infrastructure for neighbourhood purposes is much broader than that for the R123 Lists. Also, whilst neighbourhoods may choose to use their allocation to support infrastructure on the 123 List, this is not guaranteed. Therefore, using an illustrative figure of 15% across all areas, the total projected revenue for CIL available for use on ‘strategic’ infrastructure across the plan period to 2029 is £87m.

4.10 A number of respondents at the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule consultation expressed concerns that CIL may divert future funding from more locally based infrastructure initiatives. The duty to pay a proportion of CIL to parish councils (and to use it in consultation with the local community in areas without a parish council) will ensure that at least a proportion of funding will be retained locally in order to fund infrastructure that is locally required to service the needs of development.

Table 2 – An illustration of neighbourhood funding allocations

Parish Council with Neighbourhood Plan Non Parish Council with Neighbourhood Plan

25% passed to the Parish Council 25% spent on priorities following engagement with the local community

Parish Council without Neighbourhood Non Parish Council without Neighbourhood Plan Plan

15% passed to the Parish Council 15% spent on priorities following engagement with the local community

Capped at £100 per Council tax dwelling Capped at £100 per Council tax dwelling per per year. year.

4.11 At the proposed rates, CIL will provide an important contribution towards closing the funding gap. A significant contribution is to be made by already committed funding, including agreed s106 contributions and public funding. Substantial additional funding will, however, be required from a range of sources such as the New Homes Bonus, Business Rates Retention and other public funding initiatives. The Councils are also seeking to work

7 with Northamptonshire County Council to develop innovative mechanisms including forward funding against future revenue receipts.

4.12 Maximising the potential contribution from CIL, whilst ensuring that development remains broadly viable in the area, will provide greater certainty that essential infrastructure to support development can be achieved. Uncertainty, or failure to deliver the infrastructure, could put the delivery of development at risk or result in impacts from developments which are unacceptable.

Infrastructure Delivery Workshop

4.13 In May 2014, the partner Councils hosted a workshop event to discuss infrastructure delivery, the prioritisation of projects and alternative funding mechanisms. The workshop was open to developers and service providers in and around the Northamptonshire area.

4.14 In total 194 stakeholders were invited and 28 people attended. Of the 28 which attended the meeting, 15 people represented developers and 13 people represented service providers. The meeting followed a formal structure which included an introduction, a presentation on CIL and work being completed by the partner Councils and concluded with a debate on issues arising.

4.15 Attendees raised issues and concerns they have with regards to CIL in more general terms although most discussion focused on the delivery of infrastructure in support of the Joint Core Strategy. Developers and service providers discussed possible issues associated with the implementation of CIL in terms of viability, flexibility and funding. In terms of infrastructure delivery, some of the key views expressed included:

 Attendees felt that a prioritisation of projects would be helpful to determine which projects will realistically be delivered through CIL.  The R123 lists should be short and focused on strategic projects.  The provision of investment plans from service providers would be desirable in identifying specific projects for inclusion on the R123 Lists.  Some service providers were sceptical about the benefits of CIL to their infrastructure delivery.  Developers would welcome assistance with early start-up costs for sites.

4.16 The partner Councils have considered the comments made at the workshop. The partner Councils recognise that assistance in the early stages of development could be facilitated through the introduction of an instalment policy. A draft instalment policy is included alongside the Draft Charging Schedule consultations [add web link].

8 5.0 Viability

5.1 CIL regulations require that the viability of development is taken into account in setting the charge. GVA were appointed by the Councils to give viability advice on potential CIL rates for different uses and locations across West Northamptonshire. Following consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, the Viability Assessment (referred to as the Study) has been updated to provide additional information on the viability assumptions. The further findings have enabled review of the proposed levy rates and potential impacts of CIL on development in the area.

5.2 The Study is strategic in nature and provides generalised results. It is not intended to determine viability of individual schemes as these may vary according to the specific circumstances of the site. The Study is based on planned development set out in the Joint Core Strategy. It has assessed a range of future development scenarios appropriate to the area of West Northamptonshire in order to test the margin available for CIL. The scenarios are set out at p.16 of the Study. The scenarios take into account submission Joint Core Strategy policies as proposed to be modified.

5.3 The base case for the scenarios assumed the levels of affordable housing provision as set out in Policy H2 of the Joint Core Strategy, and that there would no grant available towards affordable housing in mixed housing schemes. In line with other viability assessments, it is expected that if grants were to become available, viability would improve significantly.

5.4 The scenarios tested have resulted in a range of CIL rates at which development would be viable. Further scenarios have been provided to gauge the impact of CIL on viability when considering a change in sales values and build costs. Government guidance advises that CIL rates should be set in a way which avoids undue complexity. In recommending CIL rates, the consultants, therefore, amalgamated the scenarios into broader bands of intended uses and locations of development, where this was compatible with viability outcomes.

5.5 The recommended CIL rates have been determined with consideration to the nature of planned development across West Northamptonshire and its impact on existing infrastructure.

Sustainable Urban Extensions

5.6 In responses to the Preliminary Draft CIL consultations, concern was expressed that viability of large strategic residential sites would be affected by the proposed CIL rate. Some consultees proposed setting a nil rate for these developments. Given the wide ranging strategic infrastructure required as a result of planned growth in the Joint Core Strategy, the impact these larger residential sites have on the existing infrastructure and the restrictions on pooling S106 contributions from April 2015, it is clear that these larger sites should contribute towards key pieces of strategic infrastructure via CIL. The consultants have reviewed the assumptions and consider the nominal £50 per m2 residential Sustainable Urban Extension CIL rate to be appropriate. They consider that this rate will not put the viability of these sites at risk. The proposed instalments policy would also assist.

5.7 Whilst a generous level of additional costs associated with bringing sites of this nature forward has been assumed, the Councils recognise that in some cases there may be abnormal costs which affect viability. A number of actions could be considered in these situations:

 Being flexible in negotiating affordable housing requirements. The Councils already apply a flexible approach in S106 negotiations, with consideration of different 9 affordable housing tenures or deferment of affordable housing to later phases of a scheme when there is improved viability. Sites of this nature are likely to take a number of years to be built out thus providing the potential for improved viability in later phases of a scheme. This more flexible approach is advocated by the Government.  Provision of an instalment policy to ease cash flow burdens (as proposed).  Appropriate phasing of development granted outline permission. The CIL Regulations state that “each phase of development is a separate chargeable development” where outline permission is granted. This will enable the CIL contributions to be spread over a longer period.  Opportunities to offer exceptional circumstances relief. The partner Councils will consider the option to offer this relief. This can be reviewed at any time.  Offsetting of CIL in land or infrastructure provision. Developers may consider that they are able to provide land or infrastructure in lieu of their CIL liability, in conformity with Regulations 73 and 73A of the CIL Regulations.

5.8 The draft R123 Lists set out future requirements and Appendix 1 ensures that there will be no duplication of funding (CIL and s106 / s278) for any specific item of infrastructure. The list indicates those components that will continue to be subject to s106 at specific strategic sites and those that in future will be funded through CIL.

Small sites

5.9 Our consultants, GVA, have previously shown that smaller residential schemes in the rural areas that do not have to provide affordable housing (as they are under the threshold) could afford to pay a higher rate of CIL. However, at the time of the consultation into the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule there was conflicting advice on whether charging separately for residential development in this way was permissible. The amended Regulations have now clarified that this is permissible.

5.10 Investigations show that these sites have provided a considerable amount to the overall development across the rural areas in recent years. Their cumulative impact has significant implications for the ongoing provision of supporting infrastructure. Without the additional financial obligation of affordable housing these sites are more viable. Based on viability evidence, the Councils have therefore decided to include a higher CIL rate for these sites at the Draft Charging Schedule stage.

Retail development

5.11 The consultants, GVA, tested a large number of different retail typologies to seek to establish whether there is any difference in the outcome as a result of the location, the form or the size of the development. No alternative viability scenarios have been provided by respondents during the consultation.

5.12 Conditions in some of the town centres will remain challenging and no significant improvement in the short term is anticipated. Scenarios in these locations did not perform well in testing and, therefore, a nil CIL charge is still proposed for Daventry and Northampton central areas.

10 Other development types

5.13 The consultants can see no case for suggesting that a CIL be charged for the other uses that have been tested, except in the case of any for the private leisure schemes and private care homes that may come forward during the life of the CIL that can be classified as Use Class C3. We note that there may be a potential to charge a CIL for student housing but the scheme proposed by the University of Northampton already has outline approval and would therefore not be liable for CIL. It may also be able to show that the specific circumstances of its scheme, as a charitable trust, effectively preclude a payment.

5.14 The updated 2014 report completed by GVA is available via the following link: [add web link].

11 6.0 Operating CIL

6.1 Receipts raised will be spent on infrastructure needed to support new development across West Northamptonshire. The receipts will not cover the full costs of all the essential infrastructure and other sources of funding will need to be secured. The partner Councils have an established approach to joint working and will continue to work closely with infrastructure providers such as Northamptonshire County Council to prioritise and allocate funds in a way which supports development and is cost effective. Work is underway to develop an operational framework between the Councils to ensure the effective use of CIL funds, particularly in relation to the delivery of strategic and cross boundary infrastructure.

6.2 Each Council will be the Collecting Authority for the purpose of Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008 and the CIL Regulations (as amended). When planning permission is granted the relevant authority will issue a liability notice setting out the amount payable and the payment procedures. A simplified procedure is set out in the figure below.

Figure 1: Planning permission granted for A simplified CIL charging procedure. chargeable development

Those liable to pay CIL issues the collecting authority with a Notice of Chargeable Development

Collecting authority determines the amount of CIL payable and issues to the liable party a Liability Notice

The liable party submits to the charging authority a Commencement Notice identifying when the development is to commence.

The charging authority issues a Demand Notice reminding the liable party how much they owe and by when.

The liable party pays the required CIL charge to the charging authority.

6.3 A list of infrastructure to be funded wholly or in part by CIL will be published within the R123 Lists once a Charging Schedule is adopted. Draft R123 Lists have been identified for

12 consultation purposes – see [add web link]. The R123 Lists may change over time in response to monitoring of development delivery and its demands on infrastructure work.

6.4 In line with CIL Regulations, the Councils will report annually on:

 How much CIL monies have been collected;  How much CIL revenue has been spent and on which projects and other expenditure; and  The amount retained at the end of the reporting year.

6.5 The effect of CIL will be monitored. Although it is likely that a review of rates would take place in 5 years from introduction this could be brought forward if monitoring indicates that CIL rates are impeding planned development, if existing development scenarios are likely to change significantly or if other unidentified changes occur in the economic climate.

13 7.0 The future for Section 106 (Planning obligations)

7.1 Once a CIL charging schedule is adopted (or after April 2015), no more than 5 developments can make S106 contributions to one piece of infrastructure. In West Northamptonshire, development contributions will need to be pooled to provide new facilities such as strategic transport improvements. Publication of the R123 List will help ensure that ‘double dipping’1 does not occur2.

7.2 On site provision or improvement of facilities, such as pedestrian and cycle routes or a children’s play area will be required as part of a scheme, as at present. These requirements may be secured through s106 agreements and will be in addition to CIL. Appendix 1 provides a list of the infrastructure likely to be required through s106 after the introduction of CIL as derived from the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, 2013, that accompanies the West Northamptonshire Joint Core Strategy and supports planned developments in that Plan.

7.3 Comments made at the Infrastructure Delivery Workshop (see page 7) suggest that developers would prefer to deliver site specific infrastructure where possible as it provides more control and enables them to plan more effectively for the delivery of each site trajectory. West Northamptonshire has a number of Sustainable Urban Extensions with s106 agreements requiring site specific infrastructure, such as schools, where the demand arises directly from the site. This infrastructure has been excluded from the R123 Lists.

7.4 The partner Councils intend to update their s106 Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs) in due course. In any interim before these documents are revised items in them which relate to R123 headings would cease to apply in any event.

1 ‘Double dipping’ is a term used to reflect the potential for a developer to pay for the same item of infrastructure twice, once through a site specific s106 agreement and then again through CIL.

2 However, it is legitimate for the parish element of CIL to be used for the same scheme as S106 contributions.

14 8.0 Exemptions and discretionary relief

8.1 The CIL Regulations allow the following types of development to be exempt or to obtain relief from CIL:

1. Where the gross internal area of new build is less than 100m2 unless the floorspace involves the creation of a new dwelling (Regulation 42).

2. Where the development is a residential annex or extension subject to conditions (Regulation 42A).

3. Development on land owned by a charity and where the development is to be used for charitable purposes, subject to conditions. (Regulation 43).

4. Where the development includes affordable housing, subject to conditions (Social housing relief - Regulation 49).

5. Where a development comprises self-build housing or self-build communal development subject to conditions (Regulation 54A).

8.2 In addition charging authorities may permit discretionary relief from CIL. Discretionary charity relief may cover the following circumstances:

1. Development on land owned by charities where the chargeable development is held as an investment to support the charitable purposes, subject to conditions (Regulation 44).

2. Development by charities which are exempt under Regulation 43 but where the exemption would constitute State aid, subject to conditions (Regulation 45).

3. Discretionary relief for exceptional circumstances may be granted where the charging authority considers that to require payment of the CIL would have an unacceptable impact on the economic viability of the development. Relief cannot constitute State aid. (Regulation 55).

8.3 Northampton Borough Council is considering the option to offer this relief and South Northamptonshire Council intend to offer exceptional relief from adoption of a CIL. Daventry District Council is not intending to introduce exceptional relief. This can be reviewed at any time. It is likely that such relief will be rare and must be given within the Regulation procedure and in accordance with State aid rules.

Payment in Kind

8.4 The CIL Regulations allow a charging authority to accept land or infrastructure in lieu of the CIL charge. Valuation of this land and/or infrastructure and procedures for this are set out in the CIL Regulations. Partner Councils will consider this form of payment in the appropriate circumstances.

15 Phasing of Payments

8.5 Payment of the charge is due when the development commences and must be made within 60 days of commencement, unless the charging authority introduces alternative arrangements. The partner Councils intend to introduce payment by instalments to assist larger developments, in order to aid viability. The proposed draft instalment policies are available via the following link [add web link] and are being consulted on alongside the Draft Charging Schedules.

8.6 In the case of outline planning permission which is to be developed in phases, each phase of development is charged separately. A charge does not apply to phases of development where the outline permission has been granted in advance of CIL adoption.

16 9.0 Programme for the three West Northamptonshire CILs

9.1 Figure 2 outlines the proposed project programme timeline for the CILs across West Northamptonshire.

Figure 2: Project Programme.

July 2012 Stakeholder workshops - rate setting

September 2012 Viability work and research undertaken

December 2012 Viability report produced

January 2013 Stakeholder workshops - rate setting

April/ May 2013 Preliminary Draft Charging Schedules Consultations

August to December 2013 Infrastructure support work completed

April 2014 Updated viability report produced

May 2014 Stakeholder workshops - infrastructure delivery

June/ July 2014 Draft Charging Schedule Consultations

October 2014 Submission of Charging Schedules

December 2014 Examination in Public

April 2015 Adoption of CILs across the Partnership

17 Appendix 1 – Infrastructure Projects set out in the West Northamptonshire Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) i.i Projects identified in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (Update 2013) and potential funding sources once CIL is adopted are set out in the Table below. The table is intended to show the intended relationship between CIL and s106 agreements to avoid ‘double dipping’. All projects have the ability to be supplemented by additional funding as priorities and future funding streams are identified. i.ii Public sector funding is identified where known bidding streams are being actively pursued.

IDP Description Potential funding Ref. source Transport Northampton and NRDA T1 A45/M1 Northampton Growth Management Scheme CIL/ Public sector T2 North West Bypass Phase 1 (A428 to Grange Farm) NBC & DDC: SNC: CIL S106 T3 North West Bypass Phase 2 (Grange Farm to A5199) CIL T4 Sandy Lane Relief Road Phase 2 related to Upton Lodge S106/ Public sector Norwood Farm developments funding T6 New Railway Transport Interchange at Northampton Castle Funded Station T7 Kingsthorpe Corridor Improvements CIL T9 Plough Junction Improvements CIL T10 Ransome Road Nunn Mills Link Road CIL T12 Bedford Road Bus Priority Improvements CIL T13 Wellingborough Road Bus Improvements CIL T14 Inter Urban Bus Service Improvement CIL T15 Cycle and Walking Routes, and Crossing CIL T16 A43 Corridor Improvements S106/ Public sector funding T17 Round Spinney Interchange & St Gregorys Rd Roundabout S106/ Public sector Improvements funding T18 Local Multi Modal Interchange and Bus Route S106 Improvement/Provision T19 Kettering Road Bus Priority S106 T20 Walking and Cycling Improvement (Northampton North SUE) S106 T21 Potential Junction Provision/ Improvements S106 T22 Bus Route Improvement S106 T23 Walking and Cycling Improvement (Northampton West SUE) S106 T24 Towcester Road Bus Priority related to Northampton South S106 T25 Bus Route Improvement related to Northampton South S106 T26 Walking and Cycling Improvement (Northampton South SUE) S106 T27 London Road Bus Priority S106 T28 Bus Route Improvement S106 T29 Walking and Cycling Improvement (Northampton South of S106 Brackmills SUE) T30 Harlestone Road/Mill Lane Junction Improvements S106 T31 Dallington to Kings Heath Road Improvements S106 T32 Bus Route Improvement S106 i IDP Description Potential funding Ref. source T33 Walking and Cycling Improvement (Northampton Kings Heath S106 SUE) T34 Bus Route Improvement S106 T35 Walking and Cycling Improvement (Northampton North of S106 Whitehills SUE) T36 Bus Route Improvement S106 T37 Walking and Cycling Improvement (Northampton Upton Park S106 SUE) T64 Spencer Bridge Road Corridor Improvements S106 Daventry T38 A5/A45 Weedon Junction Improvements Funded T39 Daventry Development Link - A45 Daventry to Northampton DDC/NBC: SNC: Corridor Improvements CIL/ Public S106/ sector Public funding sector funding T40 Relocation or Restructure of Bus Station CIL T41 Improvements to Long Buckby Station Facilities CIL T42 Long Buckby to Daventry Bus Route CIL T43 Improvements to Public Transport Provisions CIL T44 Cycling Improvements within the Town CIL T45 A5/B5385 Junction Improvement S106 T46 B4036 Realignment S106 T47 Norton Traffic Calming S106 T48 Public Transport Provision to Town Centre and Long Buckby CIL T49 Walking and Cycling Provision (Daventry North East SUE) S106 Towcester T50 Walking and Cycling Improvements in the Existing Urban CIL Area T51 Tove Roundabout (A5/A43 Junction) Improvements Funded T52 Abthorpe Roundabout (A5/A43 Junction) Improvements S106/ Public sector funding T53 A5 Relief Road and Junction associated with SUE S106/ Public sector funding T54 Improvements to Public Transport Provisions S106 T55 Walking and Cycling Provision (Towcester South SUE) S106 T56 A43 and A5 Improvements and Junction Improvements S106 associated with Silverstone Circuit Expansion Brackley T57 Walking and Cycling Improvement in Existing Urban Area CIL T58 Halse Road Link – Road/Bus Link between Brackley North S106 and Urban Area T59 Bus Route Improvement S106 T60 Traffic Calming at Halse Village S106 T61 Bus Route Improvement S106 T62 Traffic Calming at Turweston Road S106 T63 Improvements to A43 junctions at Brackley. S106 Junction 16 Strategic Employment Site n/a Junction 16 improvements S106 (as a result of the Main Modifications to the Joint Core ii IDP Description Potential funding Ref. source Strategy)

Health Northampton and NRDA H1 Contribution to improving Local Health Centres at Wootton S106 Medical Centre and Grange Park Medical Centre H2 Contribution required to develop a 9 GP practice within multi- S106 purpose building located on Kings Heath SUE. (Approx 1,000sqm building required). H3 Contribution towards Internal Refurbishment of existing GP S106 practice. H4 Relocation of existing GP practice and expansion to cater for S106 patient Increase. Daventry H5 New Primary Care Health Centre incorporating relocation of S106/Public funding existing GP practice(s) at Town Centre location Towcester H6 Funded new GP surgery on site. S106 Brackley H7 New Primary Care Centre (2 relocated GP Surgeries, S106 Pharmacy, NHS Dental Facility and 60 Bed Care Home). Education - Primary Northampton and NRDA E1 Extensions to Existing Primary Schools in Northampton CIL Urban Area E2 New two form entry Primary School at Avon Nunn S106 Mills/Ransome Road E3 New two form entry Primary School at Upton Lodge S106 (to also include additional 1 x three form entry Primary School as a result of the Main Modifications to the Joint Core Strategy) E4 New two form entry Primary School at Pineham S106 E5 New two form entry Primary School at Northampton South S106 SUE E6 New two form entry Primary School at Northampton South of S106 Brackmills SUE E7 Two x new two form entry Primary Schools at Northampton S106 Kings Heath SUE E8 New two form entry Primary School at Northampton Upton S106 Park SUE E9 New two form entry Primary School at Northampton North of S106 Whitehills SUE E10 New three form entry Primary School at Northampton North S106 SUE (to also include additional 1 x two form of entry Primary School as a result of the Main Modifications to the Joint Core Strategy) E11 New two form entry Primary School at Northampton West S106 SUE (to also include additional 1 x two form of entry Primary

iii IDP Description Potential funding Ref. source School as a result of the Main Modifications to the Joint Core Strategy) E26 New two form entry free school at Duston Secondary School Funded to provide an all-through school E27 New two form entry free school at Malcolm Arnold town Funded centre site Daventry E12 New two form entry Primary School at Monksmoor S106 Development E13 Two x new two form entry Primary Schools at Daventry North S106 East SUE to 2026 E28 New one form entry free school at Middlemore Development. S106 Towcester E14 Two new two form entry Primary School at Towcester South S106 SUE to 2026 Brackley E15 New two form entry Primary School at Brackley North SUE S106 Education - Secondary Northampton and NRDA E16 New Secondary School (located at Northampton Kings Heath S106 SUE) 8 to 10 form entry E18 Special Needs Unit CIL E29 New eight form entry Secondary School (Former Royal Mail Funded Sorting Office on Barrack Road under consideration) E30 New eight to ten form entry Secondary School (John Dryden CIL House under consideration) E31 New Northampton UTC Funded Daventry E19 New Secondary School (located at Daventry North East SUE CIL (if required) - 8 form entry) E21 Special Needs Unit CIL/ Public funding Towcester E22 Extended and Modified Sponne Secondary School to CIL accommodate an additional one form entry and supporting facilities.

E24 Special Needs Unit CIL Brackley E25 Extended Magdalen College School at Brackley. Additional CIL one form entry. Community and leisure infrastructure – community halls/centres Northampton and NRDA C1 Multi Use Community Building (Avon/Nunn Mills) S106 C2 Multi Use Community Building (Northampton Kings Heath S106 SUE) C3 Multi Use Community Building (Northampton West SUE) S106 C4 Multi Use Community Building (Northampton North SUE) S106 Daventry C5 Community Space within Town Centre Multi Use Facility S106 C6 Multi Use Community Building (Daventry North East SUE) S106 iv IDP Description Potential funding Ref. source Towcester C7 Community Space within Moat Lane Multi Use Facility Funded C8 Multi Use Community Building (Towcester South SUE) S106 Community and leisure infrastructure - emergency services Northampton and NRDA ES1 Fire and Rescue Infrastructure CIL/S106* ES2 Police and Safer Community Infrastructure CIL/S106* Daventry ES3 Fire and Rescue Infrastructure CIL* ES4 Police and Safer Community Infrastructure S106 South Northants ES5 Fire and Rescue Infrastructure CIL/S106* ES6 Police and Safer Community Infrastructure CIL/S106* *Site specific emergency services provision (such as fire hydrants) to be funded via S106. Strategic provision to be addressed via CIL as projects are identified. Community and leisure infrastructure – cultural development Northampton and NRDA CD1 Upgrades to existing Libraries and opportunities for relocation NBC & DDC: of Library provision within multi use buildings associated with SNC: S106 SUEs and large developments CIL CD2 Refurbishment and extension at Northampton Library NBC & DDC: SNC: S106 CIL Daventry CD3 Daventry Library Plus – Located within Multi Use Building S106/Funded Towcester CD4 Towcester Library Plus relocated to Moat Lane Development Funded Community and leisure infrastructure – indoor and outdoor sports Northampton and NRDA S1 Provision of New 8 Court Sports Hall CIL S2 Provision of New Swimming Pool CIL S3 Improvements to existing Rugby facilities in Northampton. CIL Daventry S4 New 4 Lane 25m Swimming Pool CIL S5 Sports Hall CIL S6 2 Synthetic Turf Pitches CIL Towcester S7 16ha to provide for Football Pitches CIL S8 Pursue use of Tove Flood Plain for Informal Sports Pitches, CIL Outdoor Gym and Walking Routes S9 1 x Synthetic Sports Pitch CIL Brackley S10 Replace Brackley Pool with 6 Lane x 25m Pool CIL S11 3ha Additional Playing Pitch (Football) CIL S12 1 x Synthetic Playing Pitch CIL Community and leisure infrastructure – public realm Northampton and NRDA PR1 Public Realm Improvements Abingdon Street CIL PR2 Public Realm Improvements Bridge Street CIL PR3 Public Realm Improvements Drapery /Bus Interchange CIL v IDP Description Potential funding Ref. source PR4 Public Realm Improvements Silver Street/Access to the CIL Derngate Theatre PR5 Public Realm Improvements Angel Street/Access to Mercers CIL Row PR6 Other Public Realm Improvements through ongoing CIL regeneration of the Town Centre Daventry PR7 Public Realm Improvements through ongoing regeneration of CIL the Town Centre Towcester PR8 Create “Town Centre Fund” to enable Physical Improvement CIL and Promotion of Towcester Town Centre PR9 Physical Improvements to Northern and Southern Gateways CIL of the Town Centre PR10 Alterations to Market Square Car Park and Public Realm CIL Improvements Brackley PR11 Create “Town Centre Fund” to enable physical improvement CIL and promotion of Brackley Town Centre PR12 Physical Improvements to Northern and Southern Gateways CIL of the Town Centre PR13 Public Realm Improvements to Market Place, Market Street, CIL Halls Lane and Draymans Walk Open space and green infrastructure Northampton and NRDA OP1 Beckets Park Improvements CIL OP2 Abington Park Improvements CIL OP3 Racecourse Park Improvements CIL OP4 River Nene Regional Park - Improvements to riverside CIL walkways. OP5 Harpole Country Park - 37 ha to serve residents of Upton S106 Lodge. OP5 District Park to serve the Wider Area. S106 Daventry OP6 Urban Park Linking Town Centre Sites to Wider Urban Area CIL OP7 Borough Hill Country Park extensions/enhancements as CIL formal Country Park OP8 Canal Park Linking the Expanded Country Park and CIL Boundary Park OP9 Extension of Canal to Town Centre and Interconnect with CIL Green Space Network. OP10 Daventry Country Park Expansion. S106 Towcester OP11 Allocate Land for New Allotments in Towcester. S106 OP12 Improving all Existing Green Infrastructure in the Town – inc. CIL New Green Corridor from Sponne School to Bickerstaffs Rd. Improvements to Islington Rd Rec Ground. OP13 New 11ha Town Park at Wood Burcote to be provided as part S106 of the SUE development. Brackley

vi IDP Description Potential funding Ref. source OP14 Allocate land for New Allotments CIL OP15 Provide New Open Space by extending St James Park to the CIL North West OP16 Enhancement of disused railway embankment off Glebe Drive CIL Utilities - energy Northampton and NRDA U1 Replacement of transformers with higher rated units or install Provider Secondary Substation U2 132kv Cable from Grendon to Nunn Mills – General upgrade Provider and potential undergrounding U3 Move Substation and upgrade connections to grid. Developer*/ Provider U4 One new 33/11kv Primary Substation plus reinforcement in Developer*/ local 11kv grid Provider U5 Upgrade to Brackmills Primary Substation Developer*/ Provider

Daventry U6 New Primary Substation for full 4,000 homes development Developer* Towcester U7 New Primary Substation Developer* U8 New cabling from Brackley Substation to Silverstone Circuit Developer* Utilities – waste water Northampton and NRDA W1 Waste and Surface Water Infrastructure, Requirement and Developer* Cost Subject to Ongoing Discussions with Anglian Water W2 Extension to Great Billing Waste Water Treatment Works Provider W3 Connection to the Waste Water Network from SUEs and Developer* Other Developments. Towcester W5 Upgrading Towcester Waste Water Treatment Works. Provider Brackley W7 Upgrading Brackley Waste Water Treatment Works. Provider W8 New Sewer from the East of Brackley Town Developer* *Site specific works for utilities subject to developer negotiations with service providers.

vii Appendix 2 – Secured funding sources for projects likely to be wholly or partly funded by CIL

IDP Infrastructure Projects Wholly or Partly Funded by CIL - Split between the Three Local Authority Areas Element of joint funding attributed* (£million) Comments Total Secured Ref Project DDC Secured NBC Secured SNC Secured Notes Cost funding source Project required for s106 T1 NGMS 2.448 0 8.078 1.3 2.45 0 12.24 growth across the agreements. NRDA. Project required for growth across North West Bypass s106 T3 3.26 1.0 10.76 0 2.28 0 16.3 Northampton West Phase 2 agreements. which includes sites in SNC and DDC. Project required for growth across s106 T7 Kingsthorpe Corridor 0.44 1.5 1.452 0 0.31 0 2.2 Northampton West agreements. which includes sites in SNC and DDC. Project required for Plough Junction growth at Northampton T9 0 0 3 0 0 0 3 Improvements St Johns area therefore NBC only. Project required for Ransome Road / Nunn growth at Avon Nunn T10 0 0 0 0 17.6 0 17.6 Mills link Mills therefore NBC only. Project required for growth at Northampton T12 Bedford Road Bus 0 0 2.2 0 0 0 2.2 Town Centre therefore NBC only.

viii Total Secured Ref Project DDC Secured NBC Secured SNC Secured Notes Cost funding source Project required for growth at Northampton T13 Wellingborough Road Bus 0 0 1.4 0 0 0 1.4 (East) within NBC area only Project required for T14 Inter Urban Bus 0.24 0 0.792 0 0.17 0 1.2 growth across the NRDA Project required for T15 Walking and Cycling 2.8 0 9.24 0 1.96 0 14 growth across the NRDA Daventry Development s106 T39 54.0 2.3 n/a n/a n/a n/a 54.0 Link agreements. T40 Bus station (Daventry) - 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a - Costs unknown Long Buckby Station s106 T41 1.2 0.08 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.2 Facilities agreements. Long Buckby to Daventry T42 2.0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.0 Bus Route Improvements to Public T43 1.0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.0 Transport Daventry Cycling T44 2.35 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.35 Improvements Walking and Cycling s106 T50 Improvements in Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a 2 0.06 2.0 Towcester agreements. Urban Area Tove Roundabout Pinch Point T51 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.0 3.0 3.0 (A5/A43) Funding Abthorpe Roundbaout T52 n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.0 0 6.0 (A5/A43) Walking and Cycling T57 Improvement in Existing n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.8 0 5.8 Brackley Urban Area

ix Total Secured Ref Project DDC Secured NBC Secured SNC Secured Notes Cost funding source Project required for T64 Spencer Bridge Road 0.7 0 2.31 0 0.49 0 3.5 growth across the wider NRDA area s106 (£1.6m) NCC Capital Project required for Programme & Extensions to Primary growth in existing E1 n/a n/a 27 17.3 n/a n/a 27.0 Grant from Schools urban area therefore Department for NBC only Education (£14.7m) Special Needs Unit E21 2.0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.0 Free school bid Daventry E22 Sponne extensions n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.0 0 7.0 Special Needs Unit South E24 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.0 0 2.0 Northants Magdalen College 1 x E25 n/a n/a n/a n/a 3.5 0 3.5 form entry Project required for Secondary School Department for E29 3.0 3.0 9.9 9.9 2.1 2.1 15.0 growth across the (Barrack Road) Education NRDA Project required for Secondary School (John E30 2.0 0 6.6 0 1.4 0 10.0 growth across the Dryden House) NRDA Daventry town centre s106 C5 5.0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a multi use facility agreements. Project required for Fire and Rescue ES1 0.56 0 1.848 0 0.39 0 2.8 growth across the Northampton NRDA Police and Safer Project required for ES2 Communities 1.64 0 5.412 0 1.15 0 8.2 growth across the Northampton NRDA x Total Secured Ref Project DDC Secured NBC Secured SNC Secured Notes Cost funding source ES3 Fire and Rescue Daventry 0.9 0.1 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.9 Police and Safer ES4 1.9 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.9 Communities Daventry Fire and Rescue South ES5 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.95 0.06 0.95 Northants Police and Safer ES6 Communities South n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.9 0.1 1.9 Northants Project required for CD1 Library Upgrades general 0.3 0 0.99 0 0.21 0 1.5 growth across the NRDA Project required for Library Upgrade CD2 2.14 0 7.062 0 1.498 0 10.7 growth across the Northampton NRDA Project required for S1 New 8 Court Sports Hall 0.54 0 1.782 0 0.38 0 2.7 growth across the NRDA Project required for S2 Swimming Pool 0.64 0 2.112 0 0.45 0 3.2 growth across the NRDA New 4 lane 25m s106 S4 2.5 0.18 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.5 swimming pool (Daventry) agreements. s106 S5 Sports hall (Daventry) 2.2 0.28 n/a n/a n/a n/a 2.2 agreements. 2 synthetic sports pitches S6 1.2 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.2 (Daventry) 16ha to provide for S7 football pitches n/a n/a n/a n/a - 0 - Costs unknown (Towcester)

xi Total Secured Ref Project DDC Secured NBC Secured SNC Secured Notes Cost funding source Tove Flood Plain - Informal Sports S8 n/a n/a n/a n/a - 0 - Costs unknown. (Towcester)

1 x Synthetic Sports Pitch S9 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.6 0 0.6 (Towcester) Replace Brackley Pool s106 S10 n/a n/a n/a n/a 5.0 0 5.0 with 6 Lane x 25m Pool agreements secured 3ha Additional Playing S11 n/a n/a n/a n/a - 0 - Costs unknown. towards Pitch (Football) Brackley strategic sports provision. 1 x Synthetic Playing S12 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.6 0 - Awaiting Pitch - Brackley distribution. Project required for PR1 Abington Street 0.26 0 0.858 0 0.18 0 1.3 growth across the NRDA. Project required for PR2 Bridge Street 0.08 0 0.264 0 0.06 0 0.4 growth across the NRDA. Project required for Drapery / Bus PR3 0.12 0 0.396 0 0.08 0 0.6 growth across the Interchange NRDA. Project required for PR4 Silver Street / Derngate 0.04 0 0.132 0 0.03 0 0.2 growth across the NRDA. Project required for Angel Street / Mercers PR5 0.08 0 0.264 0 0.06 0 0.4 growth across the Row NRDA.

xii Total Secured Ref Project DDC Secured NBC Secured SNC Secured Notes Cost funding source Town centre Public PR6 Realm Improvements n/a n/a - - n/a n/a - (Northampton) Town centre Public PR7 Realm Improvements - - n/a n/a n/a n/a - Some funds (Daventry) have been Towcester town centre Costs are unknown secured through PR8 n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - fund against these projects. s106 Towcester gateway Secured funding is not commitments PR9 n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - projects illustrated as inclusion but are not Towcester Market Square would misrepresent shown as PR10 n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - car park and public realm funding gap. estimated project costs PR11 Brackley town centre fund n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - unavailable. PR12 Brackley gateway projects n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - Market Place, Market PR13 Street, Halls Lane, n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - Draymans Walk Project required for OP1 Beckets Park 0.1 0 0.33 0 0.07 0 0.5 growth across the NRDA Project required for OP2 Abington Park 0.48 0 1.584 0 0.34 0 2.4 growth across the NRDA Project required for OP3 Racecourse 0.36 0 1.188 0 0.25 0 1.8 growth across the NRDA Project required for OP4 River Nene RP 0.1 0 0.33 0 0.07 0 0.5 growth across the NRDA

xiii Total Secured Ref Project DDC Secured NBC Secured SNC Secured Notes Cost funding source Urban Park Linking Town OP6 Centre Sites to Urban 0.5 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.5 Area Borough Hill Country Park OP7 1.5 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.5 extensions/enhancements OP8 Canal Park 1.0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.0 Extension of Canal to OP9 12.0 0 n/a n/a n/a n/a 12.0 Town Centre £120,000 Allocate land for OP14 n/a n/a n/a n/a - - - Costs unknown secured against allotments (Brackley) s106. Extend St James Park to OP15 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.5 0 0.5 north west Enhancement of disused OP16 n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.5 0 0.5 railway embankment Totals 113.98 8.44 108.60 28.50 74.09 5.39 296.67

*Where projects are required by wider growth within the whole NRDA as specified in the IDP the costs are split between the three local authority areas based on the percentage of NRDA growth expected to take place within each of the three areas as follows: Northampton Borough = 66%, Daventry District = 20% and South Northamptonshire = 14%.

xiv APPENDIX 5 FOR CONSULTATION

Daventry District Council Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Instalment Policy

For consultation alongside the Draft Charging Schedule.

Regulation 70 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended by the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011) sets out the requirements that must be complied with in order to benefit from a CIL Instalment Policy.

The Council proposes to allow the payment of CIL by instalments as set out in the table below.

Amount of Number of Payment Periods and Amounts CIL Liable Instalments Up to Total amount payable within 60 days of 1 £59,999 commencement of development. Amounts between 1) 60 days after commencement 25% 2 £60,000 to 2) 360 days after commencement 75% £999,999 Amounts between 1) 60 days after commencement 20% £1,000,000 3 2) 360 days after commencement 30% to 3) 540 days after commencement 50% £1,999,999 Amounts 1) 60 days after commencement 15% equal to or 2) 360 days after commencement 15% 4 over 3) 540 days after commencement 20% £2,000,000 4) 720 days after commencement 50%

The CIL Instalment Policy will only apply in the following circumstances:

1. Where the Council has received a CIL Assumption of Liability form prior to commencement of the chargeable development (Regulation 70(1)(a)), and 2. Where the Council has received a CIL Commencement Notice prior to commencement of the chargeable development (Regulation 70(1)(b))

If either of the above requirements are not complied with, the total CIL liability will become payable within 60 days of the commencement of the chargeable development. In addition, surcharges may apply due to the CIL Assumption of Liability Form and / or the CIL Commencement Notice not being submitted to the Council prior to the commencement of the chargeable development. FOR CONSULTATION

Once the development has commenced, all CIL payments must be made in accordance with the CIL Instalment Policy. Where a payment is not received in full on or before the day on which it is due, the total CIL liability becomes payable in full immediately (Regulation 70(8)(a)).

In calculating individual charges for the levy, the Council will be required by the Regulations to apply an annually updated index of inflation to keep the levy responsive to market conditions. The index will be the national All-In Tender Price Index of construction costs published by the Building Cost Information Service of The Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors. Report Reference: SG.120614/6 Page 30

Wards affected:

Abbey South, Abbey North, Drayton, Hill, Weedon

Strategy Group – 12th June 2014

Closure of the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation

Economic, Regeneration and Employment Issues

1. Purpose of Report

To update Members on arrangements for the closure of the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (WNDC) and seek approval for an approach to residual matters.

2. Advice

That it be RECOMMENDED: That in relation to the agreements for which DDC is has become responsible for the rights and liabilities of the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (WNDC): 1. DDC will not seek to enforce the understanding in the New Daventry Library Agreement that Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) would be required to surrender future planning obligation (Section 106) payments for library development to reimburse the grant value. 2. DDC will apply the spirit of the New Daventry Library Agreement in securing improved library provision for Daventry even though it is no longer legally obliged to do so. 3. DDC will not seek to enforce the understanding in the Daventry University Technical College Capital Programme Funding Agreement that NCC would be required to surrender future planning obligation (Section 106) payments for education development to reimburse the grant value.

3. Introduction

WNDC operated for ten years, seeking to fulfil its statutory remit of regenerating the towns of Daventry, Northampton and Towcester. It has now closed, and only remains in existence for the purposes of winding up its affairs. Under Statutory Instrument 2014 No. 217, the Secretary of State has transferred almost all of the remaining rights and liabilities of WNDC to other bodies, including two agreements to the Council. The implications of this are discussed below. Report Reference: SG.120614/6 Page 31

4. Information

4.1 WNDC

The West Northamptonshire Development Corporation operated from April 2004 to March 2014. For much of that time it was also the local planning authority for development control for larger-scale development in the three towns it served.

WNDC has published a summary of the lessons learned from its experience. This is included in the Annex to this report and seem a fair assessment of the both the achievements and difficulties over the ten years. In the case of Daventry specifically, it is worth pointing to WNDC’s valuable contributions to the town centre regeneration programme through the provision of Growth Area Fund monies, and especially to WNDC’s leading role in securing and implementing the iCon Centre. WNDC also helped assist with plans for better library facilities in Daventry, and in gaining the University Technical College. The latter two projects still have active agreements in which the WNDC part has now been taken by DDC. Government does not consider that any other agreements entered into by WNDC in relation to Daventry are still active.

4.2 New Daventry Library Agreement

WNDC contributed £626,000 to towards the enlargement of the proposed new Daventry Library. This was a fairly complex three-party agreement in which DDC granted NCC space for the Children and Families Service in the lower ground floor of the Civic Offices, for which WNDC paid. DDC correspondingly agreed with WNDC to enlarge the new library when it was provided as part of the development agreement with Henry Boot, and NCC agreed to fit-out that larger library. The Children and Families Service has now been at the Civic Offices for some years, and the arrangement has worked well.

WNDC’s role in this agreement is now taken by DDC, with the slightly confusing result that DDC now owes itself the duty to provide the larger library. In short, legally DDC could choose not to provide a larger library. However, it would seem inappropriate not to fulfil the purpose for which the grant was given, and the Council has in any event an aspiration to provide a better library facility for the area. It is therefore proposed that DDC continues to honour the spirit of the grant agreement, even if the letter no longer applies.

In addition, there is some background correspondence to the agreement in which NCC agreed with WNDC to, in effect, repay the grant from future planning obligation (Section 106) funds which otherwise would have been used on new library provision. This arrangement was come to during a time when WNDC was proposing to implement a “roof tax” of around £20,000 per house constructed and decide how to spend the monies raised later. This approach never actually applied in Daventry, and is now unlawful by virtue of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010. This is because planning obligation funds can only be raised for something directly relevant to the development to be permitted. Report Reference: SG.120614/6 Page 32

The repayment arrangement WNDC and NCC had come to is therefore inapplicable, even if DDC had wanted to pursue it. For clarity, it is therefore proposed that DDC formally decides not to pursue this matter.

4.3 Daventry University Technical College Capital Programme Funding Agreement

WNDC provided £300,000 towards the Daventry UTC, which is now open and functioning. Background correspondence sought to establish a duty on NCC to, in effect, repay this sum from planning obligation funds.

For the same reasons as relate to the Library agreement, it is considered that it would be unlawful to pursue this approach. It is therefore proposed that DDC makes no attempt to do so.

5. Implications

5.1 Financial – Not seeking to recover monies in relation to the new library and UTC might in theory represent a lost opportunity, but it is considered that it would be unlawful to seek to do so, and the Council had no expectation of receiving the money involved in any event. Not pursuing an enlarged new library would probably generate a slightly higher return for DDC via the development agreement with Henry Boot. However, for the reasons set out in the report this approach is not recommended.

It is not considered that the replacement of WNDC by DDC in the two agreements outlined poses any material financial risk to DDC.

5.2 Personnel – The proposals do not require additional actions on the part of officers, and as such no personnel implications arise.

5.3 Legal/Constitutional – Under the West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Transfer of Property, Rights and Liabilities) Order 2014 (SI 2014 No. 217) DDC has taken on the rights and liabilities of WNDC in the two agreements outlined in the body of the report.

Given the proposals in the report are, in effect, to take no action other than that already decided upon, it is not necessary to consider here the legal basis on which action is to be taken. The two “non-recovery” positions are considered necessary to comply with the requirements of Regulations 122 of the Community Infrastructure Regulations 2010.

5.4 Environmental – Given the proposals are, in effect, to take no action other than that already approved, no environmental implications (including biodiversity implications) arise.

5.5 Policy – Given the proposals are, in effect, to take no action other than that already approved, no policy implications arise.

5.6 ICT – No new, additional or reduced ICT would be required as a result of the proposed course of action. Report Reference: SG.120614/6 Page 33

5.7 Crime and Disorder – Given the proposals are, in effect, to take no action other than that already approved no crime and disorder implications arise.

5.8 Human Rights – Given the proposals are, in effect, to take no action other than that already approved no human rights implications arise.

5.9 Equalities – It does not appear that the proposals would result in any meaningful differential impact on any of the protected characteristics, especially given the limited scope of action legally open to the Council. Continuing with the intention to provide a larger replacement library should be of general benefit including, perhaps most significantly, to people with certain disabilities who may find the current building hard to use.

6. Conclusions

WNDC has performed a useful service to the town of Daventry, and thus to much of the District, during its operational life. In its closure two agreements that WNDC was a party to have been assigned to DDC, and the Council therefore needs to consider what action to take in relation to them. Given the circumstances, it is proposed that it does not seek to recover for itself sums which might theoretically have been due to WNDC, and retains the intention to deliver a larger library serving the Daventry area.

S P Bowers Business Manager

Background papers: None.

Previous minutes: None.

Contact Officer: Simon Bowers Extension 2435 Report Reference: SG.120614/6 Page 34

Annex: WNDC’s “What We’ve Learned”

The following text is taken from the legacy website of WNDC.

After a decade of delivery, spanning three towns and a myriad of projects, much can be learned from WNDC’s experiences.

To capture these lessons in an independent and informative way, the European Institute of Urban Affairs conducted some research towards the end of WNDC’s existence. It included interviews with over 30 key stakeholders from the public and private sectors, as well as data analysis and a literature review. The results were illuminating.

Based on the evidence, WNDC had mixed fortunes in its first five years. It started to make an impact in Daventry and Towcester town centres, but made slower progress in Northampton, while struggling to meet its overall housing targets. However, the following five years saw widespread improvements being delivered in unison as the regeneration of the area exploded into life. There were several reasons for this, including a re-focusing of the Corporation on urban regeneration projects at its midway point. New leadership and better partnership working were also crucial factors.

But the research was about more than WNDC; it offered important insights about Urban Development Corporations in general. In the light of these findings, The European Institute of Urban Affairs recommended to Government that:

 UDCs remain part of the urban regeneration policy ‘toolkit’ as there will still be instances when they are the most appropriate policy response.

 UDCs are likely to be needed where there is a tightly definable urban challenge of such complexity, specialised nature, scale or intensity that a special purpose vehicle of this type is necessary.

 Other types of vehicle are likely to be more appropriate in planning and developing major new settlements and delivering comprehensive growth programmes.

 UDCs should preferably be locally initiated and controlled but given favourable access to Government resources.

 UDCs that are local authority-led can still be attractive to the private sector and deliver results.

 UDCs could be part of a menu of options offered to urban areas as part of City Deals. Report Reference: SG.120614/7 Page 35

Wards affected:

General

Strategy Group – 12th June 2014

Superfast broadband – request for DDC contribution

Access and Communications Issues

1. Purpose of Report

To advise Members of the request from Northamptonshire County Council (NCC) for a contribution towards the provision of additional “superfast” broadband and seek a decision on this.

2. Advice

That it be RECOMMENDED: 1. That in the absence of sufficient clarity about what a contribution from the Council would result in, no contribution to the Northamptonshire superfast broadband programme is made at this time. 2. If, however, the Council determines to make a contribution towards superfast broadband in the District, this should be on the basis of priority being given to coverage of business parks/industrial estates (excluding DIRFT), and subject to that maximising rural coverage, and should not exceed £200,000.

3. Introduction

NCC has requested the district and borough councils in Northamptonshire to make contributions towards the provision of additional ‘superfast’ broadband connectivity across the county. The initial general indication of a request was made to the district and borough councils in December 2013. It proved challenging to obtain information to clarify the request made of DDC in particular, and what it would obtain for the District’s residents and businesses. Accordingly, Council in February last was advised not to contribute when it considered its 2014/15 budget. Since that time NCC has pursued its request, including a meeting between the Leader and County Council Deputy Leader Councillor Heather Smith (with officer presence) which sought to clarify the benefits for Daventry District. At various times, NCC has also expressed the urgency of a formal decision being taken. Report Reference: SG.120614/7 Page 36

4. Information

4.1 Connections to the Internet

Members will be aware that the development of Internet access has come in various stages. Initially the Internet was a tool for academic and some other users, with most access via universities and similar institutions. From the mid- 1990s home and business access developed and the ‘world wide web’ started its growth. At that stage access was often by “dial up” modems, which, as the name implies, worked by dialling up an internet service provider (ISP). These reached speeds of around 56kbps (kilobits per second).

As uses of the Internet grew these access speeds became very restrictive. Telecoms providers worked out ways of greatly increasing Internet connection speeds, and which had the added benefit of allowing Internet access at the same time as normal telephone calls could be made. These were known as ‘broadband’ and typically offered speeds of a few mbps (megabits per second, 1 mbps is roughly 18 times faster than a 56kbps dial up connection). In rural areas even broadband rates can, however, be less than one 1mbps and parts of the District have suffered from this.

What may be regarded as the fourth generation of Internet access is known as “superfast” broadband and is typically defined as access speeds exceeding either 24 or 30mbps (definitions vary). This allows for fast steaming of live video and other data-intensive applications. It involves a change of technology, largely moving from the traditional copper wire used on telephone lines to fibre optic cable, either to the nearest cabinet (hence, “fibre to cabinet”) or to each property (“fibre to premises”). Fibre connections to premises are more expensive but also offer higher speeds.

Given the progress of technology, there will presumably come a point at which “superfast” broadband is itself replaced by newer approaches which deliver even higher connection speeds. However, what and when these will be is not yet known.

4.2 Delivery of superfast broadband

Internet access, including broadband and superfast broadband, is generally treated as a commercial product delivered by the market according to demand. As such, European Union rules on state aid, designed to prevent unjustified interference with the operation of a competitive market, would normally prevent public subsidy being provided to secure broadband deployment.

However, the European Union identified access to the Internet as an important economic and social priority and therefore put in place programmes to facilitate roll out of higher-speed connections. Whilst the UK, in European terms, is fairly well provided for, the European Commission nonetheless put in place a legal regime which allows public sector funding to assist deployment which might otherwise be deemed illegal state aid. The UK Government in turn has created a unit of the Department of Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) known as Broadband UK (BDUK) which provides funding to support superfast broadband rollout where Report Reference: SG.120614/7 Page 37 it is not commercially viable. BDUK works with individual or clusters of county or unitary local authorities to actually procure non-commercial superfast deployment. The local authorities are required to (at least) financially match the money provided by BDUK. For Daventry District, the local authority in question is NCC.

BDUK has provided funding in rounds. The first funding road provided cash which, when matched, was intended to achieve national coverage of 90% of premises having superfast broadband. A second funding round is designed to achieve a national position of 95%. NCC was granted £4.08 million for the first round and £3.64m for the second round, with provisional approval for up to £5.50m if match funding is provided; this will, on NCC’s estimation, achieve 98% coverage of the county. An additional £0.3 million was secured for the Northampton Waterside Enterprise Zone. NCC has allocated £2.00m for local match in its capital programme and in the Northamptonshire Enterprise Partnership Strategic Economic Plan a further £2.00m appears as a high priority project. On the basis of a BDUK contribution of £5.50 million, NCC’s £2.00 million and NEP’s £2.00 million, contributions totalling £1.50 million would be needed from the seven districts to achieve full local match. This averages at £214,000 per district, or a match of 6.3:1 for each district council’s contribution.

To actually obtain provision, NCC is using a framework procured by BDUK, on which BT is the only active tenderer (technically, there is another tenderer, Fujitsu, but they do not tender). This situation has given rise to concerns about the process and the value for money it offers. The House of Commons Public Accounts Committee recently noted that

“…the Department’s [DCMS’s] … design of the rural broadband programme … has therefore failed to deliver the intended competition for contracts, with the result that BT has strengthened its already strong position in the market. The Department accepted contract terms that were overly generous to BT and do not promote value for money…”1

However, NCC has sought to assure district and borough councils, including DDC, that it has processes in place to secure value for money in its use of the framework. These include the use of consultants to verify the costs claimed by BT.

After the first phase is complete NCC expect to have achieved 90% coverage of the county. NCC has chosen to maximise the total degree of coverage achieved with the money available. This does mean that areas with higher levels of properties that are more expensive to serve have lower coverage rates. This particularly affects rural areas. The coverage for Daventry District is expected to be 79%. Figure 1, appended, illustrates areas of coverage.

4.3 Costs and Options

NCC have made it clear that the costs to the public sector of providing additional superfast broadband coverage is a complex matter and cannot be definitively determined until it receives a tender. It is, however, expected that costs per

1 House of Commons Committee of Public Accounts. The rural broadband programme, Summary (p3). http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmselect/cmpubacc/474/474.pdf Report Reference: SG.120614/7 Page 38 property will rise as 100% coverage is approached, as the properties which are more difficult to serve will be included only after those which are less difficult to serve. The rule of thumb which is being applied by NCC is that the per-property cost to the public sector is £250 (with an indicative range of £240 to £300 per property), which applies up to 98% coverage. Beyond this, costs are assumed to rise very substantially and use of this mechanism to achieve coverage is not likely to be value for money.

NCC has just prepared a ‘market position statement’, which is an assessment of the superfast broadband coverage which will be provided commercially and by the first round of the BDUK/NCC/BT contract within the next three years. This indicates that there are 35,010 premises (houses, business properties and the like) in the District, of which 7,320 (21%) are unlikely to be served by commercial and phase 1 NCC contract arrangements.

NCC has stated that if DDC does not make a contribution towards this round of broadband provision, Daventry District will not be included in the forthcoming contract and the resources NCC has access to will be used elsewhere in the county. Conversely, if DDC makes a contribution NCC would at least match DDC’s contribution with other public sector monies. NCC is unwilling to commit to greater than 1:1 match of a DDC contribution. Table 1 shows the potential implications.

Additional public sector DDC cost at assumed 1:1 Coverage cost, £,000s match, £,000s % No. Lowend Highend Lowend Highend 79% 27,690 0 0 0 0 84% 29,321 391 489 196 245 89% 30,984 791 988 396 494 93% 32,647 1,190 1,487 595 744 98% 34,310 1,589 1,986 795 993 Table 1: Indicative costs for different coverage levels Note: “High end” costs are £300 public sector spend per property, “Low end” are £240 per property. Neither is definitive.

It is stressed that the figures in Table 1 are only indicative. The costs are not modelled specifically for Daventry District and may vary. Moreover, the table shows the costs on a ‘straight line’ basis – that is, the cost per property remains the same up to 98%. It is more likely that the cost per property would be higher at the higher levels of coverage. NCC originally suggested a figure of £800,000 as a DDC contribution, but subsequently made it clear that a contribution anywhere in the range £200,000 to £800,000 would be welcome.

In practice, the way NCC intends to operate the process is that DDC would specify the amount of money it wishes to contribute, and this would result in a certain number of properties being served (rather than DDC specifying a number of properties and then the cost being identified). It is also not clear, given the nature of the tender process, which areas of the District would be served. That said, the Leader has secured a meeting with BT, which will take place prior to the Report Reference: SG.120614/7 Page 39

Council meeting. The outcomes of this, if relevant, will be reported verbally to the Council meeting.

Finally, NCC has been asked to indicate the prospects for proportionate refund of DDC monies should a refund be due to NCC. NCC has agreed to this, but with the assessment of any refund due to DDC being made, in the current draft agreement, at NCC’s sole judgement.

4.4 Other options

A detailed examination of other options has not taken place, as the Council does not have the resources allocated to carry this out. However, regard has been had to work carried out for South Northamptonshire Council which is likely to be broadly applicable in Daventry District. This did not establish a clearly deliverable alternative solution to delivering additional superfast broadband. It also identified that the typical ‘community’ broadband schemes tied users to one provider. One advantage of the BT solution is that, as a condition of state aid compliance, the network infrastructure provider has to allow all operators to use it, so that customers have choice.

It has also been identified that West Oxfordshire District Council (WODC) have an alternative model which involves a combination of BDUK grant funding and WODC loan funding, each of £1.6 million, to an alternative provider. This is anticipated by WODC to move them from 90% to 100% superfast coverage using a range of technical solutions including wireless. It would also provide open access for other providers to offer their services to customers. WODC acknowledge, however, that this route is not verified and whilst they are fairly confident, success is by no means guaranteed. WODC is also aware of a risk of commercial failure meaning that its loan would not be returned.

4.5 Assessment

Fundamentally, it has not been possible to obtain certainty about the extent of any Daventry district coverage and what the District would get for DDC’s contribution. This has been an important quest for such a large sum of money that is not related to any specific DDC policy or programme. Instead, NCC has included a clause in the funding agreement that it expects district and borough councils to sign which rather than committing NCC to acting in good faith, commits the district or borough council to accept NCC is doing so.

One area of choice for DDC is therefore whether, and if so how much, it wishes to contribute. As it is not possible to confirm what DDC’s money would deliver in Daventry District, a contribution is not able to be justified by Officers.

However, if a contribution is deemed appropriate by Members, given the potential for lower value for money at higher coverage levels, it is recommended that the contribution be limited. Having regard to the other pressures and risks facing the Council’s financial position, no more than £200,000 is suggested.

The other area of choice, should DDC decide to make a contribution, is that of areas of focus. NCC’s advice is to keep these as minimal as possible, as directing Report Reference: SG.120614/7 Page 40 investment in any particular direction is likely to increase the cost per property served. This is as opposed to the default position of asking BT to price the properties it can serve most cheaply. It will, however, be noted that Figure 1 indicates a number of industrial/commercial estates that are currently not anticipated to be covered. Given the particular importance of superfast broadband for economic purposes, hence NEP’s support, it is recommended that any contribution should have these as a focus. One exception to this is justified – the Daventry International Rail Freight Terminal (DIRFT). This very large development is capable of providing its own Internet connectivity and presumably will do so. Obviously, requiring a focus on industrial/commercial estates would reduce the coverage of rural areas which is achieved.

5. Implications

5.1 Financial – If no contribution is made, no financial effects are expected. If Members choose to make a contribution, the financial effect would be the use of the chosen sum in that way. Any decision to take such action would need to take into account the Council’s overall financial position and the fact that monies used in this way cannot be used again to deliver other objectives. Whilst currently the Council has achieved reasonable financial stability, there remain considerable risks to the Medium Term Financial Plan.

5.2 Personnel – If no contribution is made, no personnel impacts are expected. If a contribution is made, an investment of officer time will be required to negotiate the terms of the agreement with NCC and oversee the use of the money. This is not currently planned for.

5.3 Legal/Constitutional – the Council has the power to incur expenditure, if it chose to do so, under various powers including the general power of competence provided by Section 1 of the Localism Act 2011.

There are a number of aspects of the draft agreement provided by NCC for district and borough councils which would be of concern, if it was determined that DDC should make a contribution. If Strategy Group recommends to Council take a contribution should be made, officers would work on the agreement with NCC and report on this matter before or at the Council meeting.

5.4 Environmental – No appreciable environmental impact, including impact on biodiversity, appears likely, whether the Council decides to make a contribution or not.

5.5 Policy – Should the Council choose to make a contribution, this could be considered to relate to a number of Community Strategy and Corporate Strategic Plan priorities.

5.6 ICT – No appreciable impact on its own ICT systems appears likely, whether the Council decides to make a contribution or not.

5.7 Crime and Disorder – No appreciable impact on crime or disorder appears likely, whether the Council decides to make a contribution or not. Report Reference: SG.120614/7 Page 41

5.8 Human Rights – No impact on Convention rights is considered likely. The only right which might realistically be considered to be affected is that conveyed by Article 1 of the First Protocol, on the protection of property. However, since the property concerned (the local telecoms network) is owned by BT, and BT are also the sole active tenderer on the framework NCC would be using, the issue does not arise.

5.9 Equalities – No material differential impact on any of the protected characteristics appears likely, whether the Council decides to make a contribution or not. There are probably somewhat different mixes of the different protected characteristics in areas more or less likely to be served, but the detail of this is unknown and the impact would be modest and distant from the decision. Thus any differential impact, should it arise, would be legitimate by virtue of being a proportionate method of achieving a legitimate aim (either conserving public money for purposes considered more worthwhile, or enhancing broadband access, as appropriate).

6. Conclusions

Provision of ‘superfast’ broadband access across more of Daventry District is doubtless a worthwhile aim, with social and economic benefits. However, it remains unclear if, and to what extent, a contribution to the current NCC programme by DDC would increase coverage or the value for money it would obtain. NCC has a public commitment to maximise coverage – including an aspirational target of 100% coverage of the county. It may be considered that the District would eventually be covered by default in any event, either through further technical advances, the NCC commitment or private or community initiative, or a combination of these. Alternatively, Members may judge that the risk of the District being partially left out, or suffering a delay, is such that a contribution is justified.

S P Bowers Business Manager

Background papers: None

Previous minutes: None

Contact Officer: Simon Bowers Extension 2435 Report Reference: SG.120614/7 Page 42

Figure 1: NCC broadband coverage plan

Plan is as at 16 May 2014.