APPENDIX 2 Schedule of Representation Responses and Main Issues in Consultation Document Order
Paragraph Number General Comment ID CILPDCS64 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments There are a number of matters which need to be addressed in the Draft Charging Schedule, notably Greater clarity and transparency is needed in regard to how the list of infrastructure has been arrived at, how the costs have been calculated and the potential sources of funding; Review of the infrastructure list to ensure there is no double charging and that all elements included comply with the legal definition of infrastructure; Outline the necessary supporting documentation to ensure the effective implementation and operation of CIL (for example policy on relief and instalments). Outline a draft Regulation 123 List for Infrastructure which appropriately balances the infrastructure needed to support development (for example greater funding toward highways and community measures directly associated with planned growth). Provide clarity on whether administration costs have been factored into the CIL rate and whether this is in the spirit of the Regulations and CLG guidance. These matters would help nurture confidence with the implementation of CIL. In addition, it is strongly recommended that in pursuing CIL the Borough Council: Permits relief (which HBC has acknowledged it will do) Re runs the viability models with our assumptions Outlines a workable instalments policy based on site build out rates and not time Permits payments in kind to avoid strategic Greenfield sites effectively paying double. Main Issues • Need to review infrastructure planning evidence base • Set out a list of what infrastructure CIL will be spent on (Regulation 123 List) • An exceptional circumstances policy should be implemented • Instalments policy should be based on build out rates rather than time • Payments in kind should be permitted • No double counting of infrastructure
Paragraph Number General Comment ID CILPDCS72 Consultee Name and McCarthy & Stone Retirement Consultee ID 646846 Organisation Lifestyles Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr David Williams Agent ID 497305 The Planning Bureau Ltd Comments In respect to future planning policy the Strategy is clear as to the level of importance to be given to an ageing society, stating; 'Recent reforms to the planning system require regional and local plans to take proper account of ageing and the needs of older people. Future planning policy reform will reflect the high priority we are giving to the challenge of ageing.' It is considered that in light of the Government Strategy guidance that it is appropriate for the Community Infrastructure Levy to have regard to this objective. My Client's response to the preliminary draft charging schedule on the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy are based on meeting the Government's objective, set out in the National Strategy, to ensure that sufficient specialist housing is delivered to meet the growing needs of an ageing population. Main Issues • Specialist older persons housing should be treated differently from normal residential development
Paragraph Number General Comment ID CILPDCS101 Consultee Name and Mr Dominic Lawson Consultee ID 489173 Organisation Threadneedle Pensions Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr Dominic Lawson Agent ID 478925 Dominic Lawson Bespoke Planning Ltd Comments Threadneedle has an interest in responding to Chelmsford Borough Councils consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) as a major landowner in the Borough, ie. the Boreham Airfield site that lies partly within the North Chelmsford Area Action Plan (NCAAP) area. The site is currently being worked for gravel extraction and also includes other buildings in use by the police and ambulance services Threadneedle is concerned to ensure that the proposed levy is robustly justified and viable in all circumstances, and would be happy to participate in any future workshops to contribute its experience and expertise. Main Issues • CIL rates must be justified and viable
Paragraph Number General Comment ID CILPDCS106 Consultee Name and Mrs Sue Bull Consultee ID 311100 Organisation Anglian Water Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments I would not expect there to be provision within the CIL for wastewater infrastructure. We would be pleased to engage in further discussion should you want to give further consideration to wastewater infrastructure inclusion. Main Issues • Wastewater infrastructure is not expected to funded through CIL
Paragraph Number General Comment ID CILPDCS111 Consultee Name and Mrs Elisabeth Blyth Consultee ID 308536 Organisation Danbury Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Danbury Parish Council has no comments to make at this stage. Main Issues • None
2
Paragraph Number General Comment ID CILPDCS112 Consultee Name and Mr Glenn Whellams Consultee ID 309629 Organisation Essex County Fire & Rescue Service Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments No observations to make at this time. Main Issues • None
Paragraph Number 1.4 Comment ID CILPDCS91 Consultee Name and Inland Homes Ltd Consultee ID 648111 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Matt Corcoran Agent ID 647087 Inland Homes Comments We are grateful for the opportunity to comment on this Preliminary Drafting Schedule. However, paragraph 1.4 states that a Developer forum took place within the months of November and December 2011. Inland Homes were not invited to either presentation which is very disappointing given our site ownership status of the strategic St Johns Hospital site and the pre application commentary we were receiving during these months. Main Issues • Pre consultation should have been wider
Paragraph Number 2.2 Comment ID CILPDCS61 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments Greater clarity is needed regarding the items which the Council considers will be funded through S106. At present, the uncertainty makes it difficult to assess the impact of CIL. Main Issues • Set out a list of what infrastructure CIL will be spent on (Regulation 123 List)
Paragraph Number 2.2 Comment ID CILPDCS97 Consultee Name and Mr Keith Blackburn Consultee ID 311146 Organisation Essex County Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Para 2.2: This should make it clear that pooling of up to five planning obligations/financial contributions will remain acceptable Main Issues • Clarification on future pooling of Section 106 contributions required
3
Paragraph Number 2.6 Comment ID CILPDCS28 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments We welcome the clarity expressed at para. 2.6 that proposals with planning permission will not be liable for CIL; also that applications for the approval of reserved matters will be exempt. Main Issues • Developments with planning permission are not liable for CIL
Paragraph Number 2.7 Comment ID CILPDCS23 Consultee Name and Persimmon Homes Essex Consultee ID 646628 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mrs Gabrielle Rowan Agent ID 396131 Pegasus Planning Group Comments Additional clarification is required from the Council in relation to what will be funded by CIL and what will still be included in the site specific Section 106 agreements. It is necessary to ensure that there is no double counting in relation to education provision or healthcare provision. If these are to be included within strategic projects it should be made clear that additional financial contributions will not be requested for the provision of these as part of any Section 106 agreement. In paragraph 2.7, it is clear that where a new school or new healthcare provision is required as a direct result of a development, these will not be covered by CIL but included as part of the site specific Section 106. However, the costs associated with the provision of this strategic infrastructureshould be taken into account when calculating the level of CIL required for such a development resulting in a possible reduction in CIL taking into account the significant site specific improvements. Main Issues • Set out a list of what infrastructure CIL will be spent on to ensure no double counting (Regulation 123 List) • Site related infrastructure should be taken into account when setting the CIL
Paragraph Number 2.7 Comment ID CILPDCS29 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments We also welcome the on going role that Section106 agreements will have in dealing with site related infrastructure (paras. 2.2 and 2.7 refer). Main Issues • Welcome on going role of Section 106
4
Paragraph Number 2.8 Comment ID CILPDCS55 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments With regard to the relationship with Section 106 the CIL Charging Schedule should be clear that double counting of Section 106 contributions and CIL is not permitted by law The key tests of CIL Regulation 122 should be outlined within the supporting documentation. In practical terms, owing to the need to publish a Regulation 123 List, it is likely that only site specific or immediately adjacent measures will continue to be funded by Section 106 (i.e. site access or immediately adjacent open space). As outlined, the costs of this on site infrastructure will increase for larger scale development. The Governments position on the role of Planning Obligations is clearly outlined in the Overview document at paragraphs 59 and 60, notably the statutory basis that they must be directly related to mitigating the impact of development, and that CIL payments and planning obligations do not overlap. This is also made clear in the NPPF (paragraph 204). Main Issues • Section 106 and CIL should not fund the same infrastructure to ensure no double counting. • Set out a list of what infrastructure CIL will be spent on (Regulation 123 List)
Paragraph Number 2.9 Comment ID CILPDCS24 Consultee Name and Persimmon Homes Essex Consultee ID 646628 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mrs Gabrielle Rowan Agent ID 396131 Pegasus Planning Group Comments Additional clarification is required from the Council in relation to what will be funded by CIL and what will still be included in the site specific Section 106 agreements. It is necessary to ensure that there is no double counting in relation to education provision or healthcare provision. If these are to be included within strategic projects it should be made clear that additional financial contributions will not be requested for the provision of these as part of any Section 106 agreement. The required guidance in relation to the scope and content of planning obligations for site related infrastructure and mitigation as highlighted in paragraph 2.9 should be issued with the draft CIL Charging Schedule in order to provide clear and consistent guidance to a developer. Without this clear guidance as to what the Council expects Section 106 agreements to include, the developer may be surprised as to the level and costs of additional contributions required at the planning application stage. It is considered that site specific contributions should be as limited as possible with the majority of improvements funded by CIL in order to provide clarity and certainty to the developer in terms of the cost and viability of projects. Main Issues • Section 106 and CIL should not fund the same infrastructure to ensure no double counting. • Set out a list of what infrastructure CIL will be spent on (Regulation 123 List)
5 Paragraph Number 2.9 Comment ID CILPDCS30 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments We welcome the intention of the Borough Council to publish its own planning obligations guidance. This will help clarify the Council's approach as to how Section 106 and CIL contributions will interrelate and we would welcome the opportunity of on going involvement in the preparation of this guidance. Main Issues • Welcome commitment to produce planning obligations guidance
Paragraph Number 2.10 Comment ID CILPDCS31 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Where CIL receipts will be used to help support new development across the Borough (para2.10) it is quite clear that new neighbourhood development permitted alongside Section 106 Agreements will deal with the implementation of infrastructure requirements of that development. What is required here is some clarity as to the relationship between the '106 package' and any additional sums generated which might supplement that package. Where more than one developer is involved in neighbourhood development, there is required some assurance that the respective Section 106 Agreements address the principle of equitable and proportionate sharing of costs. Main Issues • Relationship between Section 106 contribution and CIL receipts
Paragraph Number 2.10 Comment ID CILPDCS46 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The objectives of CIL are fundamentally to assist with the delivery of developments as CIL receipts are used toward the funding of new major infrastructure (as per Regulation 59(1)). The CIL Charging Schedule and supporting documentation must therefore outline the positive actions proposed from the Borough Council to enable the actual delivery of major infrastructure, which may require additional top up funding, or the Council using its powers under the Local Government Acts (2000 and 2003) and CIL Regulations (2010 as amended 2011) to borrow money to forward fund infrastructure delivery (see CIL An Overview paragraphs 17 and 18). The Consortium would be supportive of the necessary investment to unlock and assist with development delivery. Main Issues • Strategy for the delivery of infrastructure should be included
6
Paragraph Number 2.10 Comment ID CILPDCS6 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Parish Councils could suffer detrimentally if specific arrangements are not in place to ensure that CIL receipts of new buildings and extensions (outside of arrangements/agreements relating to NCAAP for example) contribute infrastructure within the Parish as specified by the Parish Council. Main Issues • Infrastructure should be provided in the Parish of the development for infrastructure specified by Parish Councils.
Paragraph Number 2.12 Comment ID CILPDCS7 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Parish Council representatives should also have a seat at the table. Main Issues • Parish Councils should help decide on CIL spend
Paragraph Number 2.13 Comment ID CILPDCS8 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments In development area covered by NCAAP Parish Councils should have an input regarding CIL receipt usage. Main Issues • Parish Councils should help decide on CIL spend.
Paragraph Number 2.13 Comment ID CILPDCS32 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments It is not clear from para 2.13 what is meant by operational costs of providing infrastructure. This could be interpreted as incorporating management charges or administration costs otherwise dealt with through other local government funding streams Main Issues • Clarity required on definition of operation costs of infrastructure
7
Paragraph Number 2.13 Comment ID CILPDCS56 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments Retrospective Infrastructure It is also important to note that CIL monies can be effectively used retrospectively toward infrastructure already committed (Regulation 60(1)). Our clients suggest that the Borough Council outlines clear ground rules for the application of this, as the purpose of CIL is to support new development (i.e. be forward looking). There may however, be instances whereby development which is committed in planning terms (i.e. consented) would benefit from timely delivery of infrastructure improvements which could be commenced as capital spend in the short run against the predicted future CIL receipts. The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule is absent on details of retrospective funding measures; our clients urge consideration of this in moving forward. Administration Costs With regard to administration costs, the CIL Regulations and CIL An Overview (paragraph 11) outlines that up to 5% of CIL receipts can be used to administer the process. This is potentially a considerable element of funding and likely in excess of what is required. The Borough Council will also be in receipt of pre application fees, planning application fees and as outlined New Homes Bonus, all of which also need to be factored with resourcing of planning administration. The Borough Council should be efficient in the collection of CIL in order that the majority of funding be spent on Infrastructure. We note that the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and supporting documents are silent on this matter. We would encourage the Borough Council to comment on this in the Draft Charging Schedule. Main Issues • Silent on retrospective funding • Majority of money should be spent on infrastructure delivery not administration of CIL
Paragraph Number 2.14 Comment ID CILPDCS3 Consultee Name and Mrs Nicola Caton Consultee ID 636292 Organisation Galleywood Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments At the Galleywood Parish Council Planning and Highways Committee held on 23 March 2012 the following comments/questions were minuted for submission 7.1 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Consultation Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Deadline 26 April 2012. The Committee agreed to submit the following comments: CIL funds raised should be made available to Parish Council bodies as soon as possible. CIL Funds should be applied to locally identified needs. When will the term a meaningful proportion of CIL funds to be paid to Parish Council bodies be determined? Will current S106 funding be ring fenced and secure? If CIL funds are not passed quickly and efficiently to Parish Council Bodies, will accrued interest or a percentage of the interest be paid accordingly? Main Issues • CIL receipts should be passed quickly to Parish Councils and interest made payable • Term ‘meaningful proportion’ needs to be defined.
8 Paragraph Number 2.14 Comment ID CILPDCS9 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments The term meaningful proportion is likely to mean different things to Borough and Parish/Town Councils, to the detriment of the latter. The term should be replaced with an indicative percentage of the receipt. Main Issues • Term ‘meaningful proportion’ should be replaced with ‘indicative percentage’
Paragraph Number 2.15 Comment ID CILPDCS4 Consultee Name and Mrs Nicola Caton Consultee ID 636292 Organisation Galleywood Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments At the Galleywood Parish Council Planning and Highways Committee held on 23 March 2012 the following comments/questions were minuted for submission 7.1 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Consultation Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Deadline 26 April 2012. The Committee agreed to submit the following comments: CIL funds raised should be made available to Parish Council bodies as soon as possible. CIL Funds should be applied to locally identified needs. When will the term a meaningful proportion of CIL funds to be paid to Parish Council bodies be determined? Will current S106 funding be ring fenced and secure? If CIL funds are not passed quickly and efficiently to Parish Council Bodies, will accrued interest or a percentage of the interest be paid accordingly? Main Issues • CIL receipts should be passed quickly to Parish Councils and interest made payable • Term ‘meaningful proportion’ needs to be defined.
Paragraph Number 2.15 Comment ID CILPDCS10 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments This paragraph should be strengthened. Suggest in Parished areas, the receiving organisation will be the Parish or Town Council. Main Issues • Parish Councils should be the recipients of the ‘meaningful proportion’
Paragraph Number 3.2 Comment ID CILPDCS110 Consultee Name and Mr N Heath Consultee ID 495472 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments On page three under guiding principles it states the fundamental premise is that CIL must be set at a level so that it does not put at risk the overall development in an area. This appears to be a get out clause for the developer not to
9 agree to your CIL or a 106 agreement, an example is that Chancellor Park was developed about ten years ago and there are some roads that have not been adopted yet. Main Issues • Opportunity for developers to not provide infrastructure.
Paragraph Number 4.2 Comment ID CILPDCS51 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The Core Strategy was adopted in February 2008. However, it pre dates the East of England Plan (EEP) and makes provision for 14,000 homes to 2021, compared to a requirement in the EEP of 16,000 homes. Main Issues • Housing target in Core Strategy not in accordance with East of England Plan.
Paragraph Number 4.2 Comment ID CILPDCS71 Consultee Name and McCarthy & Stone Retirement Consultee ID 646846 Organisation Lifestyles Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr David Williams Agent ID 497305 The Planning Bureau Ltd Comments Para 159 [NPPF] also sets out that Strategic Market Housing Assessments (SHMAs) should assess full housing needs, the scale and mix of housing and the range of tenures that the local population is likely to need over the plan period, and plan for all types of housing, ...including ...older people's housing. This has not been adequately undertaken as part of the background research into the Core Strategy when considering owner occupier retirement housing. Main Issues • Council’s SHMA does not asses need for older persons accommodation adequately.
Paragraph Number 4.4 Comment ID CILPDCS98 Consultee Name and Mr Keith Blackburn Consultee ID 311146 Organisation Essex County Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Para 4.4 The Essex School Organisation Plan has been replaced by Commissioning School Places in Essex (current edition 2011 16). Main Issues • Evidence base for school places has been replaced.
10
Paragraph Number 4.5 Comment ID CILPDCS37 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments To the extent that the Infrastructure Planning and Funding Gap Assessment (February 2012) and the adopted Development Plan provides an evidence base to support the calculation of a funding gap (Appendix 1 Infrastructure Funding Gap List) it is clear that the inclusion of reference to a NE Chelmsford by pass inflates the funding gap by at least £34m. If no settlement from Government is forthcoming then the gap would increase. This raises a number of points: 1. The need for clarity in terms of how the funding gap is calculated 2. The need to adequately express the source and level of alternative funding 3. The need for realistic assessments of infrastructure requirements within the Development Plan period; for example, the NE Chelmsford by pass is unlikely to receive government funding in the short medium term and whilst reference is included to it CS Policy CP4, it is quite clear that the development strategy to 2021 is emerging without reference to the NE Chelmsford bypass. Main Issues • Inclusion of NE By pass in funding gap list inflates the gap which is unlikely to be provided in Plan period.
Paragraph Number 4.5 Comment ID CILPDCS47 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The Infrastructure Planning and Funding Gap Assessment, February 2012 lists the infrastructure required. However, it is unclear whether all the infrastructure listed will need to be funded by CIL. For example, Policy DC40 of the adopted Core Strategy sets out that open space is required on site unless a commuted sum is provided. There appears to be no assessment as to how much open space will be provided on sites and therefore, what the actual shortfall which it would be appropriate to fund by CIL. Accordingly, there is double charging. Notwithstanding that, in order to comply with Policy DC40, if a developer is not providing open space on site a commuted sum must be provided. However, once the CIL is in place a developer will not be able to provide a commuted sum as that would be contrary to the Regulations, and therefore the developer will have to provide open space on site in order to have a development which accords with the development plan. We consider that the £8.18m identified gap for open space is not justified. The list includes public realm improvements. These do not fall within the definition of infrastructure in Section 216 of the Planning Act 2008. Main Issues • Potential double counting on open space provision and public realm improvements should not be defined as infrastructure.
11
Paragraph Number 4.7 Comment ID CILPDCS33 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments We recognise that the charging schedule is not determined by reference to a specific list, but to demonstrate a funding gap. The February 2012 document (Infrastructure Planning and Funding Gap Assessment) goes some way towards demonstrating such a gap. However, there is uncertainty regarding the scale of this gap, particularly where the evidence base does not explore alternative funding sources. Para 4.7 affirms this uncertainty. Main Issues • The scale of infrastructure funding gap uncertain because of lack of assessment of alternative sources of funding.
Paragraph Number Table 1 Identified Infrastructure Comment ID CILPDCS34 Costs Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Table 1 (page 8) seeks to demonstrate that there is no alternative funding, but this must be taken at face value based on 'aggregate costs of known infrastructure needed to support new development'. Greater transparency in the content and use of the Council's evidence base is required. Main Issues • Greater transparency on calculation of infrastructure funding gap.
Paragraph Number Table 1 Identified Infrastructure Comment ID CILPDCS43 Costs Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments It is clear from the evidence that CIL alone will not be able to fund the predicted £130 million shortfall that is said to be required for infrastructure up until 2021 (see Table 1). This makes it more important to set the level of CIL based on what can be afforded rather than what may theoretically be desired, to reduce the risk of the shortfall being even greater. Main Issues • CIL rate should be set on what can be afforded rather than desired.
12
Paragraph Number Table 1 Identified Infrastructure Comment ID CILPDCS45 Costs Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The Consortium does not dispute the fact that an infrastructure funding gap exists, and hence that in principle CIL is justified in the Borough. It is however considered that the supporting evidence should consider and outline in greater detail the alternative funding sources which have been considered to reduce the gap in funding, including New Homes Bonus, Tax Increment Financing, congestion charging, workplace parking levy Main Issues • Alternative sources of funding should be considered to contribute toward infrastructure funding gap.
Paragraph Number Table 1 Identified Infrastructure Comment ID CILPDCS82 Costs Consultee Name and Asda Stores Limited Consultee ID 647080 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Carl Dyer Agent ID 647077 Thomas Eggar LLP Comments The stated purpose of CIL is to raise revenue for infrastructure necessary to serve development. The rationalisation for the imposition of CIL was that insufficient monies were being raised through the planning process to fund the infrastructure necessary to provide for the needs of development authorised by planning permissions. While revenue has historically been raised by Section 106 agreements (and Section 52 agreements before those) the revenue collected, it was argued, had been raised disproportionately from a limited number and class of developments, and the majority of (minor) developments that escaped the requirements to enter into a Section 106 Agreement were either effectively subsidised by larger developments, or were allowed to proceed, and individually and cumulatively contributed to infrastructure requirements, without being required to pay for them. The CIL was intended to remedy that imbalance. Against that background, we do not think it an unreasonable approach to seek a Community Infrastructure Schedule calculated on the basis of a district wide assessment of infrastructure needs, with the estimated total cost of those needs being calculated, and then the estimated total cost being divided between the total estimated or planned development anticipated for a district. That would at least have been a fair and potentially proportionate approach to the issue of raising the CIL and fixing the Charging Schedule. It is noteworthy that this is the approach that has already been adopted by some of the authorities who have already had their Charging Schedules approved. Instead, the Charging Schedule proposed exhibits a fundamental disconnect between the Community Infrastructure levy charges proposed and the infrastructure requirements of the developments upon which they are levied. Main Issues • Disconnect between infrastructure identified and CIL charges 13
Paragraph Number Table 1 1 Identified Infrastructure Comment ID CILPDCS105 Costs Consultee Name and Natural England Consultee ID 496893 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments We welcome the inclusion in Table 1 of a row dealing with Leisure, Sport and (in particular) Green Infrastructure, although that seems to be the only reference to GI in the document, and the Strategy/Policy context and the actions relating to GI is unclear. The main focus of the document seems to be about economic, funding and financial issues that are beyond our remit, so I have no further comments. Main Issues • Welcome inclusion of Leisure, Sport and (in particular) Green Infrastructure.
Paragraph Number Table 1 Identified Infrastructure Comment ID CILPDCS107 Costs Consultee Name and Mr Steve Beard Consultee ID 308459 Organisation Sport England Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Planning Contributions SPD provides the detailed breakdown of infrastructure costs and delivery responsibilities. It is agreed that this schedule provides an important reference point for the preparation of the CIL Funding Gap list. The funding gap analysis for the CIL has recognised that Leisure, Sport and Green Infrastructure should be included as necessary community infrastructure which could be funded under CIL Chelmsford also has an evidence base which includes: Parks and Green Spaces Strategy 2004 2014 A PPG 17 Open Spaces Assessment 2005 A Playing Pitch Strategy 2005 An Indoor Sport and recreation Facilities Assessment 2005 We consider that the evidence could be considered as robust but given the age of the various assessment listed above Sport England would recommend a programme of formal updates as it considered that the assessments are becoming out of date if older than 3 years. In conclusion Sport England supports the preliminary draft charging schedule with regarding to the inclusion of Leisure, Sport and Green Infrastructure as projects which could be funded under the Community Infrastructure Levy which builds upon the Planning contributions Supplementary Planning Document 2009, which secures contributions to sport Infrastructure. Main Issues • Support to CIL receipts directed towards sport and green infrastructure projects.
14
Paragraph Number Table 1 Identified Infrastructure Comment ID CILPDCS95 Costs Consultee Name and Mr Neil Dinwiddie Consultee ID 604680 Organisation Environment Agency Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments The current structure [Chelmsford Auto Gates] was built in the 1960s and its replacement by a new structure, or its demolition together with channel enhancements on the canalised River Can and River Chelmer plus a pumping station for the upper Navigation, will require funding. We believe that this is something that should be considered for inclusion in the CIL, bearing in mind that a significant percentage of the Chelmsford riverside regeneration and developments depend on the water amenity currently provided by this ageing structure. In the past a recreational water link between the Springfield Basin and the River Chelmer just upstream of the Chelmsford Auto Gates has been discussed. Whilst this would not be required by us as a flood risk asset, it is a Navigation initiative that we supported several years ago and one that if your Council or Essex Waterways wished to promote in the interests and to the benefit of the people of Chelmsford, then you may consider the raising of funds through CIL to be appropriate. Main Issues • Improvements to existing flood relief infrastructure will require future funding which CIL could contribute towards.
Paragraph Number 5.4 Comment ID CILPDCS11 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments There is a concern that developers will plead non viability of the development if CIL paid, resulting in the loss of much needed facilities/infrastructure in the development area. There should be an automatic assumption that if a developer wishes to undertake a development (e.g. within NCAAP) it is economically viable for them so to do otherwise they would not be seeking approval in the first place. Main Issues • Developers will only develop viable schemes, so there should not be opportunity for viability arguments to be used to not provide infrastructure.
Paragraph Number 5.4 Comment ID CILPDCS38 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Before being able to comment on whether the quantum of the potential Cil rates (table 3) are correct we would like to continue discussions with the Council in respect of some of the component parts of the CIL calculation. Initially they would centre around: 1) The derivation of the "baseline" land value. We are unsure as to how this has been
15 established. 2) The "Planning Risk" deduction in Appendix 4 Pg viii we would welcome detail of the definition of this term. 3) We would welcome clarification of the use of net and gross acreage and land value figures used in the HCA viability model as we believe there may be a mismatch therein. 4) We would wish to review with the Council the income assumptions relating to the affordable housing element as, looking forward, the levels currently assumed are, we believe, unlikely to be maintained. 5) As stated above, we have concerns over the application of a CIL rate to neighbourhood retail facilities (application reference: EIAl01314/09). We believe due note should be taken of the significant differences in the viability of large retail units to the smaller, neighbourhood, concerns. The burden of a CIL on the former is likely to be accommodated, however, the significantly different viability structure of the latter would, we suggest, render many unviable. Main Issues • Assumptions in dwelling baselines unclear • Viability assumptions need clarification • CIL on retail does not take into account effect on smaller neighbourhood scale development.
Paragraph Number 5.4 Comment ID CILPDCS67 Consultee Name and Tesco Stores Ltd Consultee ID 646828 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr James Cook Agent ID 646834 GL Hearn Limited Comments In order to ensure that future development is viable and deliverable, Tesco are concerned to ensure that the Community Infrastructure Levy does not, in accordance with the Regulations, put at serious risk the overall development of the area. Tesco have therefore reviewed the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule to seek to ensure that an appropriate balance has been struck between the desirability of funding infrastructure from the levy and the potential effects of the levy upon economic viability of development across the borough. Having reviewed the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, Tesco is concerned that the balance may not have been struck, and that the evidence may not fully justify the approach currently proposed. Main Issues • Evidence does not fully justify approach for retail rates.
Paragraph Number 5.4 Comment ID CILPDCS78 Consultee Name and Asda Stores Limited Consultee ID 647080 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Carl Dyer Agent ID 647077 Thomas Eggar LLP Comments We wish to object fundamentally to the approach taken to assessing the Charging Schedule, and to the disproportionate loading of the Community Infrastructure levy upon two limited classes of development: retail uses, especially convenience goods based retail, and additionally residential development. The Council has made it clear that in setting the level of CIL charges, its primary concern is to strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of
16 funding the cost of infrastructure required to support development from CIL and its potential effects on the economic viability of development. The approach taken to assessing the Charging Schedules does not achieve an appropriate balance between these two objectives. In fact the disproportionate loading of the Community Infrastructure levy upon two limited classes of development, is likely to put the overall development of the area, as identified in the Council's Joint Core Strategy, at substantial risk. Main Issues • CIL disproportionately placed on retail which will put development at risk
Paragraph Number 5.4 Comment ID CILPDCS85 Consultee Name and Asda Stores Limited Consultee ID 647080 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Carl Dyer Agent ID 647077 Thomas Eggar LLP Comments A much fairer solution, accepting for the purpose of this argument the premise that the Community Infrastructure Levy is necessary for the purpose of funding district wide infrastructure, would be to divide the council's estimate of total infrastructure costs over the charging period (and in this connection, it is important to remember that the Government's guidance as recorded in the National Planning Policy Framework is that deliverable infrastructure should be included) by the total expected development floor space, and apply a flat rate levy across the district and across all forms of development. That will have the least possible adverse effect upon the market for land and for development, and yet the greatest possible opportunity for the economy to prosper and thrive, and for jobs to be created. It should be noted that within the district over the planned period there is likely to be a very limited number of large format retail stores built. The Council has only identified capacity for approximately 7700 square metres of net additional comparison retail floor space. Consequently, reducing the levy proposed per square metre on this floor space would not result in a proportionate increase in the levy required on other forms of commercial or other development. However, applying this levy would run the risk of diminishing substantially the number of such stores built, with a consequential loss of employment opportunities, regeneration, and investment in town and district centres. For these reasons, we would ask that the Council undertakes a fundamental rethink of its position, and substantially alters its Charging Schedule in so far as it relates to retail development in general, and convenience retailing in particular. Alternatively, we would request that: The Council adopts a single flat rate levy across all development within its boundaries, supported by exceptional circumstances relief for those types of development which would otherwise be unviable. Accordingly that the CIL charges for convenience goods based stores be reduced from £225 per square metre to £87 per square metre in line with the levy proposed for all other types of retail developments; and A draft staged payments policy is produced so that the staged CIl payments are linked to development phases, rather than to the period of time that has passed since the commencement of development, or otherwise ensures that developers are not disadvantaged by submitting an application for full, rather than outline planning permission. Main Issues • CIL convenience retail rate will put a risk new stores • Single lower rate for retail should be assessed 17 • Payments should be linked to phases rather than periods of time.
Paragraph Number 5.5 Comment ID CILPDCS59 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The proposed CIL rate has been supported by evidence produced by a team of Chelmsford Borough Council Officers (February 2012). Owing to the key test of Regulation 14(1) it is important that the viability appraisal prepared is fit for purpose. It is clear that at Examination the Charging Schedule will need to be supported by relevant evidence (Regulation 11(1) (f) / 19(1) (e)). 5.2 As outlined, at this stage no alternative viability evidence has been prepared, although our clients may do so at the Draft Charging Schedule and Examination stage if it is felt this were required. It may however be more prudent for Savills on behalf of our clients to liaise directly with the Council over the necessary changes to the viability study in the period running up to the Examination, or a possible re consultation on the Draft Charging Schedule. Main Issues • Residential viability evidence prepared by Council and may require independent alternative assessments.
Paragraph Number 5.5 Comment ID CILPDCS62 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments A cost of £133 per sq metre has been adopted on the net sellable area to take account of additional site infrastructure costs for external works and abnormals. We believe this figure is too low and would ask that evidence be provided on how the CBC arrived at this figure. In our experience, particularly with larger Greenfield sites this figure can be considerably more. BCIS build costs do not include the costs of external works and infrastructure. On an urban extension site these costs relate to the costs of servicing parcels of land of typically 50 unit capacity to the periphery (site infrastructure) and the costs of servicing plots within the 50 unit parcel (parcel infrastructure). According to the HCA, analysis completed by BCIS for the Housing Corporation in 2007 indicated that the average cost of external works and infrastructure on residential schemes started since 2003 was equivalent to an additional 27% of building costs, including a wide range of site specific circumstances. There is no suggestion of a contingency within the viability report and we would ask for clarification on which rate has been adopted. We suggest 5% is an industry standard expected by lenders and for clarity, the BCIS does not include abnormal expenditure such as costs of site remediation, decontamination or mitigation of flood risk. Our clients consider that the Viability Assessment provided by CBC does not contain sufficient evidence to justify the conclusions. As a result the Consortium cannot agree to a number of points that have been raised by the report and feels that the rates set have not been set in a way where it can be concluded that development will not be put at serious risk. The approach advocated by our 18 clients in this representation accords with guidance in the CLG CIL Charge Setting and Charging Schedule Guidance and that within the NPPF. Although limited, we have had the opportunity to review all of the appendices and unfortunately are unable to ascertain how the figures are calculated. We would encourage CBC to arrange a meeting so that we can discuss these further. Our clients therefore request that the evidence be revised and made readily available, as summarised by the list below: Build cost evidence for large and small sites Contingency allowance Combined profit on GDV Infrastructure cost Main Issues • External works and abnormals allowance too low • BCIS costs do not include external works or infrastructure
Paragraph Number 5.5 Comment ID CILPDCS63 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The Consortium is concerned with aspects of the approach adopted by the Borough Council towards CIL relating to the proposed rate for residential development. Furthermore, we do have concerns relating to the assumptions used in the viability models and would ask that CBC provide evidence on the aspects we have highlighted. We feel it necessary to stress that if the CIL level is set too high, it will almost certainly have a negative impact on a large proportion of development coming forward. We believe that once the assumptions as mentioned above have been clarified, it will show the proposed CIL levels need reviewing. Main Issues • If CIL set too high it will have a detrimental effect on development.
Paragraph Number 5.5 Comment ID CILPDCS70 Consultee Name and McCarthy & Stone Retirement Consultee ID 646846 Organisation Lifestyles Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr David Williams Agent ID 497305 The Planning Bureau Ltd Comments Objection is raised as to how this specialist form of accommodation [private specialised accommodation for older people is considered and the assumptions made in the supporting viability assessment. The Preliminary Draft Schedule over simplifies the charge and lumps all forms of residential under one heading with the potential impact of adversely affecting the delivery of specialist housing eg retirement housing. Main Issues • Specialist older people accommodation not viability tested separately.
19
Paragraph Number 5.5 Comment ID CILPDCS73 Consultee Name and McCarthy & Stone Retirement Consultee ID 646846 Organisation Lifestyles Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr David Williams Agent ID 497305 The Planning Bureau Ltd Comments My Client is particularly concerned with some of the assumptions and the mechanics of the Community Infrastructure Levy Schedule, how the figures have been achieved and how they would apply to specialist forms of accommodation for older people such as retirement housing and extra care developments. The scenarios set out in the viability testing have not considered this very important sector in much detail, bearing in mind that this will become even more significant over the period of the Core Strategy. The viability appraisal does not consider specialist housing such as owner occupier older persons housing and generalises all residential together, when in reality there are clear differences, which has the potential to discriminate against such provision when using a pounds per sqm tariff. Nearly all types of retirement developments are impacted on financially by communal space and also a slower sales rate than other residential development. Given that viability of such schemes may therefore be marginal, application of a Cil may prevent many forms of retirement housing coming forward. Whilst there is an understandable desire to keep the charging rates as simple as possible the broad inclusion of some retirement housing within a "general residential heading" fails to acknowledge the very specific viability issues associated with such Housing. There is no reference in the preliminary schedule or background evidence that acknowledges these points and it fails to fully consider the actual implications. There are over generalised statements covering residential properties which do not fully consider the implications for all kinds of specialist housing. A retirement housing development typically has 30% of its internal floor area devoted to necessary communal areas and facilities, such as residents lounge, laundry, guest suites, and communal space. It is these specific communal areas and facilities that differentiate retirement I older peoples' housing developments from other forms of accommodation for the wider population. These communal areas are a necessary part of a retirement housing development that are non saleable floor space which the developer has to build but does not receive any direct revenue from. Therefore, to apply a CIL rate based on 'pounds per square metre of gross internal floor space' would unreasonably penalise a retirement housing developer who would have a building of typically 70% net saleable area to acquire revenue from, compared to other forms of residential accommodation that would have 90 100% net saleable floor area to acquire revenue from. This would place those providers of retirement housing at a disadvantage in land acquisition as the ratio of CIL rate to net saleable area would be disproportionately high when compared to other forms of residential accommodation. It is considered that this would threaten the delivery of much needed specialist accommodation for older people, contrary to the Government's aims and objectives to ensuring the provision of appropriate specialist accommodation for older people as set out in 'A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society'. It is respectfully suggested that retirement developments which have very similar characteristics to that of Care / Retirement Developments which fall within Class C2 are likewise treated the same. As set out in the viability report which accompanied the proposed Schedule, the appraisal makes a number of assumptions and generalisations when it comes to some of the inputs. It also acknowledges that some of
20 these can be quite influential in the final figures derived at. The report does not provide the detailed viability appraisals themselves and what all assumptions and inputs have been used. In the case of retirement housing for example there is a much longer sales period which reflects the niche market and sales pattern of a typical retirement housing development. This has a significant knock on effect upon the final return on investment. This is particularly important with empty property costs, finance costs and sales and marketing which extends typically for a longer time period. Sales and marketing fees are typically in excess of 6%, for example, and increasing in the ever fragile housing market. In the foreseeable economic climate 20 % developer profits may still not be enough incentive to achieve the required finance backing for a retirement scheme to proceed and the developer take on the risk of return. Similarly the incentives required to acquire land, particularly brownfield sites the type where sustainable uses such as retirement housing are best located, in the first place is likely to be 30%+ of current existing use market value. All these factors have the potential to impact upon what development will come forward. The Minister for State for Decentralisation (Mr Greg Clark) in his Written Ministerial Statement: Planning for Growth 23d March 2011 states that lPAs should support enterprise and facilitate housing and economic and other forms of sustainable growth. lPAs are required to avoid unnecessary burdens on development and with this in mind greater flexibility is required in the interpretation when CIL is payable for different types of residential use. For example retirement housing does not have the same impact upon open space, sports, recreation, education and strategic transport and yet is being lumped in with the same Cil as family residential housing. This is unfair and unreasonable. Typically a retirement scheme will be located in a highly sustainable location very close to public transport, shops and services and will inevitably have a relatively large amount of floorspace reflecting its central location and yet will not have the same proportionate impact upon local infrastructure. Either the exceptions and reductions on levy are set out to respect this; it is explicitly set out as a separate charging cost; or retirement housing is acknowledged to have very similar viability implications and those falling within Class C3 are exempted in the same way as the Class C2 use are being proposed. Main Issues • Specialist older people accommodation not viability tested separately.
Paragraph Number 5.5 Comment ID CILPDCS77 Consultee Name and McCarthy & Stone Retirement Consultee ID 646846 Organisation Lifestyles Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr David Williams Agent ID 497305 The Planning Bureau Ltd Comments Given the extent of projected housing need for older persons accommodation including specialist forms of older persons housing and extra care accommodation identified in 'A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society', and at the local level, it is paramount that C1l schedule recognises the shortcomings of the proposed 'metric' and address this issue to ensure fairness across the residential development industry. It is noted from the CIL regulations when considering exemptions to CIL payment lists a set of criteria which includes that 'relief from ClL should be fair and not create undue distortions of competition'. This criterion is equally valid when considering the application of CIL to differing forms of development. It is my Client's belief that the current Schedule is neither fair, nor do they
21 prevent distortions of competition, when applied to specialist forms of older persons accommodation such as retirement housing. It is respectfully requested that these comments are given due consideration in the formulation of the charging schedule for the introduction of the Community Infrastructure levy and that either specialist housing is treated the same as say a Class C2 use such as a care home or extra care housing which is given a nil contribution for very similar viability reasons or exception clauses are proposed. Main Issues • Specialist older people accommodation not viability tested separately.
Paragraph Number 5.5 Comment ID CILPDCS87 Consultee Name and Inland Homes Ltd Consultee ID 648111 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Matt Corcoran Agent ID 647087 Inland Homes Comments It is most disappointing and surprising that the Council did not to seek independent professional advice from an outside specialist specifically for the residential viability evidence. The Council would have benefitted by seeking outside independent advice and would also install a sense of openness and integrity to the process rather than dealing with this wholly important document in house. It is considered that there are a number of inconsistencies within the evidence findings that need to be addressed. In particular with build cost calculations which is expanded on below. The Council is requested to seek advice from a reputable independent development economist to advise on residential viability. Main Issues • Residential viability evidence not independently produced.
Paragraph Number 5.5 Comment ID CILPDCS90 Consultee Name and Inland Homes Ltd Consultee ID 648111 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Matt Corcoran Agent ID 647087 Inland Homes Comments Development Costs and Profit Levels The Residential Viability document uses the following average build costs Flats £943 sqm (3 5 storeys) Flats £1240 sqm (6+ storeys) Houses £784 sqm (Estate housing) These average build costs are way below the common denominators used within the industry and do not take into account the rising costs of materials. A build cost for 6 storey plus flats at £115 per sq ft. is incredibly low. This must be a typo or error of some sort! It should be noted that the viability evidence base used for the London Borough of Redbridge ranges between £968 and £2,465 per sqm. There is no mention of abnormal costs associated with a development. These could include unknowns hidden underground, or in the case associated with our site St Johns Hospital high costs in converting conservation buildings. A viability assessment must include a mechanism which deals with this issue. Failure in doing so will make the charging schedule unsound. With the Government committed to achieving carbon zero for newly built residential property, this will most certainly impact development viability. The impact on reaching Code 6 for Sustainable Homes will significantly increase build costs. The viability report only makes a 7% allowance on build costs 22 to achieve code 4 where in reality Council policy within the plan period will soon be asking for code 6. This additional cost is not reflected within the viability. The Council has taken an unrealistic approach to developer profit margins. Profit levels of 20% GDV are generally acceptable for financing arrangements and bank funding purposes, if that is even available! More commonly funding partners (banks etc.) will ask for more than 20% profit levels especially on larger sites that are more risky. A site infrastructure cost of £133 per sq m on the net sellable area is far too low compared with what is reasonable and usually found. Main Issues • Errors in build costs. • No allowance for abnormals. • Extra cost allowance should be made for higher Code for Sustainable Homes • 20% profit on value too low • Site infrastructure allowance too low
Paragraph Number 5.5 Comment ID CILPDCS94 Consultee Name and Inland Homes Ltd Consultee ID 648111 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Matt Corcoran Agent ID 647087 Inland Homes Comments The residential evidence base and proposed charging schedule does not run parallel with the aims and objectives of the adopted Core Strategy. The zone 2 rates and payment policy would make delivering key strategic sites in this area very difficult to achieve. The Coalition Governments New Homes Bonus scheme is a new source of funding open to authorities to apply. This is proposed to encourage Local Authorities to build new homes and is a potentially greater receipt than the CIL charge which would not be ring fenced. The opportunity for the New Homes Bonus which incentivises development is the pro active approach Chelmsford Borough Council should be focusing on, rather than a more prohibitive approach in the form of an unreasonably high CIL charge. Main Issues • No allowance for New Homes Bonus.
Paragraph Number 5.8 Comment ID CILPDCS60 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The viability assessment was based on a series of residual valuation scenarios that models the gross development value achievable from different uses in the Borough and discounts development costs, interest costs and developer profit. In principle, our clients consider the overall methodology of seeking to determine viability on a residual valuation exercise as being appropriate. The specific comments relate to the inputs and assumptions made. According
23 to the CBC viability study, the proposed CIL rates will vary depending on the area. A nil charge per square metre was deemed appropriate for the strategic growth area located to the north east of Chelmsford (Charging Zone 1) and a charge of £125 per square metre in the rest of the Borough across a range of residential scenarios (Charging Zone 2). Paragraph 7.10 of the report adopts a Red, Amber, Green (RAG) rating to indicate the viability of the eight different typologies using the three values ranges. The RAG rating is based on the percentage residual land value over and above the threshold land value to determine an overage. When the overage is 15% or less then this is indicated red, +16 29% amber, +30% green. Paragraph 8.3 states It should be noted that development in site typologies 2 and 6 (large brownfield and small brownfield) account for about 50% of the proportion of the planned CIL liable development in the Borough in the period up to 2021. Therefore, it is important to ensure that a CIL rate would not make these types of site unviable. This statement certainly shows that CBC recognises the need to ensure typologies 2 and 6 are not overburdened with CIL which could potentially make the sites unviable. However, most concerningly, on the basis of the proposed £125 per sqm CIL payment and assuming Sales Values B (Average), this produces an amber rating (18% overage). We would consider a buffer of around 30% to be more realistic between the maximum viable level and level of CIL set. By reducing the buffer, Chelmsford Borough Council is jeopardising the amount of development to come forward in the Borough, and in particular Typology 2 which accounts for 26% of planned growth. Methodology Land Value The Threshold Land Values have been estimated as follows: Brownfield £1,100,000 per ha + 15% premium Greenfield £804,000 per ha Savills requests that more clarity is provided on the above as it is unclear as to what these site types are. We believe that due to the location of Brownfield and Greenfield sites values do vary with the sites location. For example a Brownfield site located in the city centre compared to a site in the urban area, will vary in value. For Greenfield site typologies, the benchmark land values have been extracted from taking a numerical mid point between Cambridge and Norwich residential land values identified by the Valuations Office and used as a baseline. Savills suggests that this is not a robust method of calculating the benchmark values for residential development land in Chelmsford; a numerical approximation such as this cannot account for the geographical variances. We would suggest that this is reviewed. Furthermore, no local comparable land sales have been presented or analysed which will be is essential to establishing the benchmark land value. There is also no detail whether the figures quoted are on a net or gross basis. Developer profit For typologies of 1 6, developer profit has been assumed at 20% on GDV for the private housing and 6% on constructions costs on the affordable housing. In contrast, 17.5% on GDV for the private housing and 6% on constructions costs have been assumed for the typologies 7 and 8. Our clients have commented that 20% on GDV should be adopted for all the typologies for the private housing as this is the minimum profit margin that the lending institutions are prepared to accept at the moment. This matter therefore requires review and will in itself lead to the need for a lower CIL rate due to a reduced viability. Assumptions Build Costs Savills accepts the principle of estimating the build costs from the RICS Build Cost Information Service, however we question the basis of the figures used. The viability appraisals have adopted the median costs but we believe the mean costs should be used because mean is the sum of the rates in the sample divided by the number in the sample rather than the middle statistic. Furthermore, the mean is a better representation of the range of costs that are likely to be encountered in practice. Our research also indicates that the build costs quoted BCIS Q2 2011 Median Costs adjusted to Chelmsford Location are incorrect. The viability report
24 quotes the following Flats: £943 per sq m (3 5 storeys) used on Site Typologies 2 8 Flats: £1240 per sq m (6+ storeys) used on Site Typology 1 Houses: £784 per sq m (Estate Housing) We have cross checked these with our BCIS source which on exactly the same basis, location and date suggest the following Flats: £959 per sq m (3 5 storeys) used on Site Typologies 2 8 Flats: £1254 per sq m (6+ storeys) used on Site Typology 1 Houses: £822 per sq m (Estate Housing) However, this is partly academic because we feel the basis of the build costs used should be mean rather than median. We believe the viability should be based on the following Flats: £982 per sq m (3 5 storeys) used on Site Typologies 2 8 Flats: £1360 per sq m (6+ storeys) used on Site Typology 1 Houses: £841 per sq m (Estate Housing) The build costs for smaller more bespoke schemes are likely to be greater than £829 per gross sq m for houses or £986 per gross sq m for flats. BCIS clarifies the average build costs for smaller schemes and we would therefore suggest that this is investigated further. Code for Sustainable Homes The report assumes a mid point of 7% for the Code for Sustainable Homes. A key issue is that the proposed rate should not put at serious risk the overall development of the area. The NPPF seeks to encourage development. We consider therefore that a cautious approach should be taken on this matter. If the cost of the Code is higher than assumed, development will be reduced and hence less CIL will be raised and infrastructure delivered. We suggest that the viability should be re run using an 8% increase in costs to allow for the Code. No allowance appears to have been made in the viability assessment for public art. Policy DC43 and the Councils Making Places SPD encourages the provision of public art to the tune of 1% development budget. Main Issues • Site typologies in viability testing unclear • Benchmark land value methodology not robust • 20% profit on GDV should be applied on all site typologies • No comparable land sale data used • Clarity required on which BCIS construction costs used • Extra cost allowance should be made for higher Code for Sustainable Homes
Paragraph Number 5.8 Comment ID CILPDCS88 Consultee Name and Inland Homes Ltd Consultee ID 648111 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Matt Corcoran Agent ID 647087 Inland Homes Comments The Council have used 8 examples of site typology in its sensitivity testing. This appears to be light in comparison to other charging authorities. The evidence base should be supported by running more scenarios and particularly where site construction costs are typically high. Another point of concern are the Greenfield and Brownfield Benchmark Values used within the evidence base. The Council uses a Greenfield Benchmark Value of £804,000 per hectare and a Brownfield Benchmark value of £1,265,000 per hectare. These benchmark values are lower than those typically found in the south east and developers would therefore be paying more for the land, than used in this report. Table 1, para 2.13, within the evidence base provides average property prices in Chelmsford by building type. The average sales value is then based on equal numbers of building types being sold which is not realistic. It would seem reasonable to 25 suggest that more properties at the lower end of the pricing structure were being sold during this period and therefore would bring down the average sales price. The average potential sale values are therefore over inflated using the methodology in this report. Main Issues • Not enough site typologies tested. • Land benchmark figures too low. • House value data not realistic and too high.
Paragraph Number 5.8 Comment ID CILPDCS92 Consultee Name and Inland Homes Ltd Consultee ID 648111 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Matt Corcoran Agent ID 647087 Inland Homes Comments There are a number of strategically identified sites within Zone 2 which viability would be hindered from the impacts of such a high charge. The St Johns Hospital site is an allocated residential development site enshrined in the Local Plan and Core Strategy. Chelmsford Borough Council are expecting in the region of 300 new homes from this location. There are a number of exceptional on site costs which place unusual strain in making development viable. The main exceptional costs on this site are those associated in converting the former work house and hospital buildings. The Councils residential viability base makes no reference to unusual development costs which are evident on this site. Inland Homes formally request that the Council adopt a site specific exception in CIL charging within the St Johns Hospital site on the basis that this is a strategically allocated housing site and failure to do so will result in delivery of the development being threatened. Main Issues • St Johns Hospital site should be a site specific exception to CIL
Paragraph Number 5.9 Comment ID CILPDCS50 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments We also have concerns with the relationship to North East Chelmsford. The Draft Charging Schedule refers to the Roger Tym report North Chelmsford AAP Infrastructure and Viability Assessment (2010). It states that indicates that a tariff of £22,000 per dwelling would broadly cover the on site infrastructure costs which includes new primary schools, new secondary school, primary healthcare facilities, remodelled Boreham Interchange, new Radial Distributor Road, public transport improvements, heritage mitigation and strategic and local open space. The provision of the new railway station was not included in this tariff, but does represent a significant additional cost. It is envisaged that these significant infrastructure requirements will be secured through Section 106 planning obligations. It appears that a number of items included within the infrastructure schedule are already due to be funded by from other sources.
26 Greater clarity and transparency is needed in regard to how the list of infrastructure has been arrived at, how the costs have been calculated and the potential sources of funding. Main Issues • Greater clarity and transparency is needed on preparation of infrastructure list including costs and potential sources of funding.
Paragraph Number 5.9 Comment ID CILPDCS109 Consultee Name and Mr N Heath Consultee ID 495472 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments On page five you say there will be a levy of £22,000 per house to supply infrastructure but this does not include a railway station. We have been heaing about this new station for the past few years. I would like to suggest that this is a very important part of the North Chelmsford Plan, because with all these houses being built there will be a percentage of these residents who will commute to London to work. Over the years the Chelmsford to Liverpool Street has got busier and busier. If this station is not built I would suggest that the traffic into Chelmsford during the rush hour will be overlooked. Main Issues • Infrastructure costs for NE Chelmsford do not include railway station.
Paragraph Number 5.10 Comment ID CILPDCS19 Consultee Name and Aquila EHS ltd Consultee ID 645819 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Trevor Hollinger Agent ID 307587 Turley Associates Comments Para 5.10 Notwithstanding the fact that the initial phase of new retail development in Chelmsford Town Centre is likely to be subject to S106 provisions (which have regard to viability), a differential charging zone applicable to the town centre retail area as a whole should reflect viability constraints there on an ongoing basis . Main Issues • Differential charging zone required for Chelmsford City Centre.
Paragraph Number 5.10 Comment ID CILPDCS35 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Para 5.10 includes reference to differential charging and this is welcomed, particularly where substantial infrastructure is to be secured through Section 106 Agreements. Main Issues • Differential charging zone welcomed in NE Chelmsford
27
Paragraph Number 5.10 Comment ID CILPDCS42 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments The neighbourhood application, falling within 'Zone 1', is currently with the Council for determination. We note that, in general, Zone 1 development is 'zero rated'. Given the scale of infrastructure investment secured through the accompanying Section 106 Agreement this is supported. However, we question why a levy applies to retail content at all? The Section 106 arrangements in respect of our neighbourhood planning application obviate the need for CIL charges to be levied. We therefore submit that the existing neighbourhood application should not be expected to bear an additional burden over and above the Section 106 package. In addition, we submit that this additional burden would represent an inequitable and disproportionate source of funding. In respect of our neighbourhood application, the CIL charge needs to be confirmed as 'zero' across all uses. Main Issues • CIL retail charge should not apply in NE Chelmsford
Paragraph Number 5.10 Comment ID CILPDCS108 Consultee Name and Mr Guy Brazendale Consultee ID 310819 Organisation Springfield Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments The reasons for the proposal not to charge a CIL for residential development within the north east Chelmsford strategic green field location are, in the current economic climate, accepted. In the absence of a CIL, however, the imposition of a threshold of 1000 completed units to trigger the provision of infrastructure should be strictly enforced. Main Issues • S106 triggers should be strictly enforced if CIL is not chargeable in NE Chelmsford.
Paragraph Number 5.11 Comment ID CILPDCS36 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments There remains (according to para 5.11) the possibility of the Council reassessing the two charging zones. For reasons which the Borough Council is fully aware of the determination of outline planning applications is beyond the control of the applicant. Therefore, we request that para 5.11 is deleted and replaced with text which affirms the role Section 106 is providing for works 'in kind' and financial contributions. It would also be helpful for the text to clarify pooling and proportionate and equitable sharing of such costs. Main Issues • Zero rate zone should remain in NE Chelmsford regardless of the outcome of the current planning applications.
28
Paragraph Number 5.11 Comment ID CILPDCS104 Consultee Name and Mr Dominic Lawson Consultee ID 489173 Organisation Threadneedle Pensions Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr Dominic Lawson Agent ID 478925 Dominic Lawson Bespoke Planning Ltd Comments We note that para 5.11 of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule states that planning applications have been submitted for Zone 1 (North East Chelmsford), but we highlight that a planning application is yet to be submitted for the Park Farm area of the NCAAP allocations (Site Allocation 11) and therefore Zone 1 should be retained in the Charging Schedule. Main Issues • Zero rate zone should remain in NE Chelmsford.
Paragraph Number 5.13 Comment ID CILPDCS80 Consultee Name and Asda Stores Limited Consultee ID 647080 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Carl Dyer Agent ID 647077 Thomas Eggar LLP Comments We are extremely concerned by the implication in paragraph 6.23 of the Chelmsford CIL Non Residential Evidence Base, that the Council's reasons for setting such a high convenience retail CIL charge have been influenced by the proposed charges of other local authorities. The final sentence of paragraph 6.23 states that the proposed charges would 'be in line with emerging charges specifically for convenience retail that are being proposed by other authorities'. The infrastructure and funding needs of each local authority will, necessarily, be different and local considerations will have a significant impact on the level of charges set. As such, the charges set by other local authorities are irrelevant to the balancing exercise that the CIL Regulations require the Council to carry out. In addition, the Council's consultants, TYM & Partner's (TYM's) assertion that the proposed charge falls in line with other local authorities' convenience retail charges is misleading. We are in the process of canvassing every local authority in the country to identify when CIL is likely to be adopted and the level of charges proposed. To date we have spoken with approximately 160 local authorities across the country, of these thirty six have either adopted CIl or published draft charging schedules. As you can see from the table set out below, Chelmsford is one of only four local authorities proposing to charge more than £200 per square metre CIL for convenience retailing; the vast majority of local authorities levying charges of £150 per square metre or less. Even if the Mayor of london's Cross Rail CIL Charge is added to the figures of the London authorities, these are all still lower than the rate being proposed in Chelmsford. Highest level of CIL proposed for convenience retail /Local authorities proposing the charge £0 £100 per m2 Huntingdonshire, Plymouth, Havant, Brent, lewisham, Redbridge, Wandsworth, Shropshire, Elmbridge, Mid Sussex, Southampton, Merton East Cambridgeshire, Torbay, Bristol, Portsmouth, Barnet, £101 £150 per m2 Croydon, Broadland, Norwich, South Norfolk, Newark & Sherwood, Bassetlaw, Waveney 29 £151 £200 per m2 Wycombe, Poole, New Forest, Chorley, Preston, South Ribble, South Somerset £201 £250 per m2 Chelmsford, Colchester, Mid Devon, Exeter £251 per m2 + Barkinq & Daqenham As stated above, the high level of CIL proposed risks encouraging convenience retailers to seek a more cost effective location in a different local authority. The CIL levy proposed will make it significantly harder for the Council to deliver the growth and development promised in its Joint Core Strategy. Main Issues • Convenience retail CIL rate is high compared to other locations
Paragraph Number 5.13 Comment ID CILPDCS83 Consultee Name and Asda Stores Limited Consultee ID 647080 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Carl Dyer Agent ID 647077 Thomas Eggar LLP Comments The Council has produced a number of supporting documents to seek to justify the Community Infrastructure levy Charging Schedules proposed; the evidence base for nonresidential charges having been prepared by TYM. However the principal work undertaken by TYM appears to be simply to assess each segment of the development economy as a potential source of revenue, without carrying out any, or any meaningful, exercise to assess the infrastructure likely to arise from any particular class of development. Across the UK, while some superstores individually necessitate the provision of specific local infrastructure, the proliferation of modern supermarkets can be argued to have reduced infrastructure requirements by lessening the travel distances necessary for people to undertake their bulk food shopping. Put shortly, it is frequently the case that journey times fall as new supermarkets are opened. The inevitable consequence of this is that existing infrastructure is used less, not more, as a result of such developments. At the CIL figure proposed in the Charging Schedules of £225.00 per square metre, the proposed Charging Schedules would add £495,000 to the cost of TYM's generic 2,200 square metre supermarket development. Nowhere in the TYM papers is there any suggestion that this is necessarily the appropriate figure in terms of the related infrastructure costs that a retail development should be expected to carry. They have concerned themselves only with their high level (as they themselves acknowledge) calculations of assumed ability to pay. Given that there is a risk that, at least for an interim period, local authorities will still seek site specific commitments also under the Section 106 regime, this represents an unreasonable double whammy of loading costs onto a very limited category of development. Main Issues • Non residential evidence base makes unrealistic assumptions of viability for convenience retail. • Section 106 and CIL represents unreasonable double counting.
30
Paragraph Number 5.13 Comment ID CILPDCS86 Consultee Name and Inland Homes Ltd Consultee ID 648111 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Matt Corcoran Agent ID 647087 Inland Homes Comments The Council commissioned Roger Tym and Partners in assistance for assessing non residential development viability. This is welcomed. Main Issues • Use of independent consultants to undertake non residential viability assessment is welcomed.
Paragraph Number 5.14 Comment ID CILPDCS12 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Then how is it perceived that the business park proposed within NCAAP will contribute towards the transport infrastructure (traffic load) and utility service infrastructure that it will inevitably use? The proposed business park will increase traffic thus at a minimum it must contribute to the transport infrastructure with an AAP. Main Issues • Proposed Business Park in NE Chelmsford must contribute towards transport infrastructure.
Paragraph Number 5.14 Comment ID CILPDCS22 Consultee Name and Aquila EHS ltd Consultee ID 645819 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Trevor Hollinger Agent ID 307587 Turley Associates Comments Para 5.14 As we note elsewhere we do not agree with the viability assessment undertaken by RTP insofar as Chelmsford Town Centre is concerned. Whilst we appreciate that the exercise must necessarily be broad brush it does not properly reflect viability constraints inherent within town centre development as opposed to out of centre or greenfield locations Main Issues • Non residential viability work not sufficiently detailed.
Paragraph Number 5.14 Comment ID CILPDCS66 Consultee Name and Sainsburys Supermarkets Consultee ID 312436 Organisation Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr Sean McGrath Agent ID 307580 Indigo Planning Ltd Comments Having reviewed the draft Charging Schedule, we are of the firm view that the proposed levy of £225 per m² for all
31 new convenience retail schemes is both unreasonable and unjustifiable. It will simply be too onerous to developers and operators to pay this levy in respect of foodstore development in addition to having to pay considerable Section 106 contributions. The levy means that these types of development will need to contribute at least £450,000, but more than likely a minimum fee of £900,000 toward CIL alone. This risks making development unviable as a whole across the local authority area From a review of the evidence base, it is clear that the figure of £225 per m² has not been robustly assessed in terms of potential impacts on the economic viability of development for supermarkets. This is a requirement of CIL Regulation 14 and, therefore, the levy as proposed is not appropriate or reasonable. Furthermore, in light of the Governments clear promotion of sustainable economic development through the NPPF, the imposition of this levy will conflict with key national policy aims. One of the key messages from Planning for Growth is that LPAs should ensure that they do not impose unnecessary burdens on development. This theme is carried forward through the NPPF which states at Paragraph 153: Supplementary planning documents should be used where they can help applicants make successful applications or aid infrastructure delivery, and should not be used to add unnecessarily to the financial burdens on development."Furthermore, Paragraph 173 recognises the importance of ensuring viability, it states: Pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan making and decisiontaking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. The imposition of the proposed levy rate will place a substantial burden on retail development which will be harmful to investment and job creation, contrary to national policy. Retail development is recognised as economic development that generates employment. In the current economic climate, retail development is an important contributor to economic growth, and therefore, obstacles such as the proposed levy should not be imposed. If a levy must be brought forward, it must take into account that developers will still also be contributing significant funds towards bespoke infrastructure requirements or community benefits under Section 106 Agreements. It is unreasonable that the proposed levy effectively acts as a restriction on size of development that is allowed by being such a fundamental factor in the overall viability of the development. This is onerous and unjustified, especially in the current economic climate. Main Issues • Non residential evidence base makes unrealistic assumptions of viability for convenience retail which may make development unviable. • Unreasonable and unjustified approach • NPPF states that Councils should not load unnecessary burdens on new development
Paragraph Number 5.14 Comment ID CILPDCS79 Consultee Name and Asda Stores Limited Consultee ID 647080 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Carl Dyer Agent ID 647077 Thomas Eggar LLP Comments The retail sector is one of the most dynamic and innovative sectors within the UK economy. It is also one of the largest employers and the largest creator of new jobs at the present time. Asda Stores Limited has a proven track 32 record of investing in communities of need, and of creating jobs within these areas. Its stores regularly rejuvenate and regenerate existing centres and the surrounding areas, and draw new shoppers to them, which benefits the existing retailers, and those who open stores in Asda anchored centres in their wake. Nowhere in the supporting papers is there any acknowledgement of this phenomenon, nor indeed any meaningful assessment of the role of convenience retail within the national economy, beyond a crude assessment that as convenience retail continues to be one of the best performing sectors in the UK, operators within it have the capacity to pay potentially very large sums of Community Infrastructure levy. If the charges set out in the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule are adopted, there will inevitably be two consequences across the district: firstly, all other forms of development will receive a massive subsidy at the expense of commercial house building and convenience and comparison retail; and secondly, there will be a corresponding disincentive (and market distortion accordingly) to investment in those two sectors of the economy. It is trite economics that ideally taxes should distort the market as little as possible, and allow consumer and market preferences to be expressed in the most natural way possible to achieve optimum market solutions. This is every bit as true in the market for land and the use of land as in all other aspects of the economy. The proposed Charging Schedule being promoted flies in the face of this fundamental principle of taxation. If these charges are implemented, they will distort the local market across the district and provide a huge disincentive to investment in retailing, a significant job creator, at a time when the Government is trying to encourage the creation of additional employment across the economy. This will put the Council's ability to deliver the growth promised in its Core Strategy at risk. Main Issues • Non residential evidence base makes unrealistic assumptions of viability for convenience retail.
Paragraph Number 6.1 Comment ID CILPDCS18 Consultee Name and Aquila EHS ltd Consultee ID 645819 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Trevor Hollinger Agent ID 307587 Turley Associates Comments Para 6.1/ Table 1 We note that the charges proposed for retail development are set to fall well below ceiling figures generated in the appraisals presented by RTP in the non residential evidence base, using the guiding principle that the overall development viability should not be put at risk. Whilst we endorse the latter principle we do not consider that the evidence base provides a realistic starting point. In particular:. The use of a rental level of £30psf in the comparison retail appraisal is unrealistic for a scheme based on an anchor of 50,000 sq ft since this figure would only apply to smaller units Allowance also needs to be made for incentives In the current economic climate profit should be calculated on the basis of either Net or Gross Development Value rather than development cost. Indeed this is recognised in the appraisals , which correctly refer to Developers profit at 20% of GDV but incorrectly calculate the figure on a costs basis. Tabulations which have been separately submitted present indicative appraisals which we believe represent a more realistic assessment , adopting the same notional scheme parameters as the RTP work and generating residual land values based on 18 20% profit on Net Capital Value. Significantly, it will be seen that this generates no overage figure which would allow for CIL On this basis, it is considered that the imposition of
33 the charges proposed will prejudice the viability of Town Centre Retail schemes. The CIL Charging Schedule should accordingly be amended to apply a nil rate to both convenience and comparison retail in Chelmsford Town Centre Main Issues • Non residential evidence base makes unrealistic assumptions of viability for convenience retail. • A Chelmsford City Centre zone is required with a nil rate
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS13 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Why should Class C3 use be zero rated within Zone 1 (which appears to be NE Chelmsford) and not elsewhere? The charge should be £125/sqm in both areas. If it is considered that zero rating should be maintained within Zone 1 then it should be (publically) clarified as to exactly what the developers are funding within this zone so that it is transparently clear exactly what is being funded within this Zone. Main Issues • The scope of infrastructure provided in NE Chelmsford should be clarified to justify zero CIL rate.
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS16 Consultee Name and WM Morrison Supermarket Plc Consultee ID 312345 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Ed Kemsley Agent ID 307540 Peacock & Smith Comments On behalf of our client, Wm Morrison Supermarkets Plc, we strongly object to the proposed CIL rate of £225/sq m for Class A1 food retail development set out in the emerging Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (March 2012). Whilst we acknowledge that the draft Charging Schedule has been informed by viability assessment prepared by Roger Tym & Partners, our client is gravely concerned that the suggested 'abnormal' charge will have a significant adverse impact on the overall viability of future (large) convenience retail development in the borough. A balance has not been found between infrastructure funding requirements and viability. Our client raises concerns that the viability analysis does not take into account all likely costs associated with developing a new foodstore. For example, the potential costs associated with developing a brownfield site (e.g. site remediation and preparation) can be significant. The draft charge will put undue additional risk on the delivery of foodstore proposals and will be an 'unrealistic' financial burden. This, in turn, poses a significant threat to potential new investment and job creation in the borough, especially in regeneration areas, at a time of economic recession and low levels of development activity. Furthermore, it is important to note that the proposed £225/sq m levy for convenience retail development is disproportionately higher than those being proposed by other LPAs. By way of example, the boroughs of Lewisham, Merton and Croydon are proposing rates of £80/sq m, £100/sq m and £120/sq m respectively which, on average, are in excess of 60% lower than the charge being proposed by Chelmsford. We should be grateful if you would take into account the above comments in progressing the CIL Charging Schedule. We look forward, with great interest, to the Council's response. 34 Main Issues • CIL rate for convenience retail too high. • Non residential evidence base makes unrealistic assumptions of viability for convenience retail. • Threat to deliverability of retail schemes.
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS21 Consultee Name and Aquila EHS ltd Consultee ID 645819 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Trevor Hollinger Agent ID 307587 Turley Associates Comments See comments under Para 6.1 Main Issues • Non residential evidence base makes unrealistic assumptions of viability for convenience retail. • A Chelmsford City Centre zone is required with a nil rate
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS25 Consultee Name and Waitrose Ltd Consultee ID 646806 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Andrew Vaughan Agent ID 646804 Firstplan Comments Chelmsford City Centre is identified as being located within CIL Zone 2, where the following CIL rates are currently proposed: £125/sqm residential floorspace £87/sqm retail comparison (Use Classes A1 (non food) and A2 A5) £225/sqm retail convenience (Use Class A1 (food)) £0/sqm all other uses (including Use Classes B, C1, C2 and D and sui generis) However, it is not clear how flexible commercial floorspace would be treated under the charging rates. This is particularly pertinent to the Waitrose proposals, which will include flexible A1 A5/B1/D1 units at ground floor level. The wording of the charging schedule should make clear whether such flexible floorspace would be chargeable under CIL, and if liable provide clarification on the following points: Which retail rate would be chargeable for flexible floorspace? If flexible commercial floorspace is chargeable (on account of proposed A1 A5 uses), would a CIL rebate be available upon implementation of other non chargeablecommercial uses such as B1 office? Waitrose Ltd therefore seeks more explicit guidance that takes into account proposals for flexible floorspace. Main Issues • For mixed/flexible use development what rates should be used
35
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS58 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The draft charging schedule proposes no charge for residential in North East Chelmsford, but does propose a charge for retail development in Zone 1. Assuming North East Chelmsford is granted planning permission with a Section 106 agreement, we do not see how the Council will be able to levy a charge on the retail element as that will be covered by the S106. Main Issues • Retail in NE Chelmsford should be covered by S106.
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS68 Consultee Name and Aquila EHS ltd Consultee ID 645819 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Trevor Hollinger Agent ID 307587 Turley Associates Comments Para 6.1/Table 1 We note that the charges proposed for retail development are set to fall well below ceiling figures generated in the appraisals presented by RTP in the non residential evidence base, using the guiding principle that the overall development viability should not be put at risk. Whilst we endorse the latter principle we do not consider that the evidence base provides a realistic starting point. In particular the use of a rental level of 30psf in the comparison retail appraisal is unrealistic for a scheme based on an anchor of 50,000 sq ft since this figure would only apply to smaller units. Allowance also needs to be made for incentives? In the current economic climate profit should be calculated on the basis of either Net or Gross Development Value rather than development cost. Indeed this is recognised in the appraisals, which correctly refer to Developers profit at 20% of GDV but incorrectly calculate the figure on a costs basis. Tabulations which have been separately submitted present indicative appraisals which we believe represent a more realistic assessment, adopting the same notional scheme parameters as the RTP work and generating residual land values based on 18 20% profit on Net Capital Value. Significantly, it will be seen that this generates no overage figure which would allow for CIL. On this basis, it is considered that the imposition of the charges proposed will prejudice the viability of Town Centre Retail schemes. The CIL Charging Schedule should accordingly be amended to apply a nil rate to both convenience and comparison retail in Chelmsford Town Centre Main Issues • Developers profit on non residential calculated on cost rather than value • A Chelmsford City Centre zone is required with a nil rate
36
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS74 Consultee Name and McCarthy & Stone Retirement Consultee ID 646846 Organisation Lifestyles Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr David Williams Agent ID 497305 The Planning Bureau Ltd Comments It is noted that the intention in finding an appropriate measure to use in calculating CIL rates is to ensure 'uniformity', or put another way, fairness for all classes of development liable to CIL payment. One of the principle intentions is to avoid producing a system that inadvertently produces advantages or disadvantages upon certain developers. My Client would wholly concur with the intention that CIL rates should be uniform, fair and avoid bias towards certain types of developments within a particular use. However, it is considered that the chosen 'metric' of 'pounds per square metre of gross internal floor space' unfairly penalises my Client and other developers of similar retirement housing when assessed against other forms of residential accommodation. The oversimplification of the charging level by setting this at a uniform £125 per sqm across the board is seen as unduly harmful to specialised housing and care providers such as McCarthy and Stone, particularly when similar care /extra care developments (Class C2 uses) are exempted. Inadequate viability testing would appear to have been undertaken to cover this point. Main Issues • Metric of £ per sq metre unduly harms specialist types of housing such as those for older people.
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS84 Consultee Name and Asda Stores Limited Consultee ID 647080 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Carl Dyer Agent ID 647077 Thomas Eggar LLP Comments The charges proposed to be levied on convenience retail (£225 per square metre) and on house building outside of zone 1 (£125 per square metre) appear even more disproportionate when one looks at the remainder of the Charging Schedule where all other forms of development save comparison retail units (£87 per square metre) are to be free of charge. Main Issues • Disproportionate spread of CIL charges across development uses.
37
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS89 Consultee Name and Inland Homes Ltd Consultee ID 648111 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Matt Corcoran Agent ID 647087 Inland Homes Comments The Council propose a two tier charging approach applying £0 per sqm within zone 1 and £125 per sqm in zone 2. This is a huge difference in charging which is not adequately justified by Chelmsford BC. It is appreciated that there are strategic green field housing allocations to the north east of the City. However this is not justification to raise a CIL charge in other parts of the borough to unacceptable high levels. The zone 2 charge is far too high and would most certainly be detrimental to area wide viability. The nearest authority which has an adopted CIL charging schedule is the London Borough of Redbridge. The rate here is a flat rate of £70 per sqm across the whole borough. This is significantly lower than the proposed Chelmsford zone 2 charge. It is questionable as to why there is disparity between the charging rates of two authorities which are geographically in close proximity. Redbridge also benefits from its Greater London location but yet has a charging schedule some £55 per sqm lower than what is proposed in Chelmsford. Main Issues • Disproportionate spread of CIL charges across development uses.
Paragraph Number Table 1 Proposed CIL Rates Comment ID CILPDCS102 Consultee Name and Mr Dominic Lawson Consultee ID 489173 Organisation Threadneedle Pensions Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr Dominic Lawson Agent ID 478925 Dominic Lawson Bespoke Planning Ltd Comments The differential rates proposed for bringing forward land for development in the NCAAP area are welcomed. Threadneedle supports the proposal for all C3 dwellings within the NCAAP area to be zero rated as it recognises the complexity and cost of bringing forward development within this area, and the need for affordable homes to be delivered. However, it is noted that the proposed zero rating for C3 only pertains to land within NCAAP that has already been allocated for development. The Council is therefore urged to consider maintaining the zero rating when it comes to review in the next local plan period. Threadneedle welcomes the proposal to zero rate all other uses, including sui generis, as this will enable flexibility for bringing forward imaginative solutions in response to future needs. Main Issues • Zero rate zone should remain in NE Chelmsford.
38
Paragraph Number 6.3 Comment ID CILPDCS14 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Presumably the discounted areas referred to above, hence the speed with which NCAAP developers are seeking planning permission, will remain subject to s106 and thus contribute under the old/existing contributory system? Main Issues • Developers in NE Chelmsford will continue with S106 system
Paragraph Number 6.3 Comment ID CILPDCS39 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments The principle of CIL being zero rated within zone one up to 2021 needs to be revised such that zero rating applies across the life of the projects within zone one. This is on the basis that the regulations (as currently drafted) would require CIL charges to apply in the event that section 73 variations to conditions take place. This would clearly be inequitable given the quantum of Section 106 obligations that will be borne by the new neighbourhood. Main Issues • Zero rate zone should remain in NE Chelmsford.
Paragraph Number 7.1 Comment ID CILPDCS54 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The Community Infrastructure Levy Relief Information Document (CLG, May 2011) outlines the Governments position on exceptional circumstances which could warrant exception from CIL (paragraph 66 onward). The first matter to note from the Regulations is that the offer of relief is discretionary on the charging authority (Regulation 55(3) (a)). It is also noted that the Borough Council has remained silent on this issue in the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. The Consortium considers it imperative that the Borough Council makes available relief from the date of the adoption of CIL, and that it clearly outlines its approach to doing so (in conformity with the Regulations). Guidance on the level of detail required for the required viability assessment to qualify for relief should also be provided. Main Issues • Detail on Exceptional Circumstances policy should be provided.
39
Paragraph Number 7.1 Comment ID CILPDCS76 Consultee Name and McCarthy & Stone Retirement Consultee ID 646846 Organisation Lifestyles Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr David Williams Agent ID 497305 The Planning Bureau Ltd Comments There will also be a need to identify priorities in many instances between CIL and affordable housing for example where viability is marginal. The CIL becomes a very significant element of development costs which can greatly influence the amount of contribution reasonably available for affordable housing. How are the competing planning policy requirements to be weighted? For example the benefits of providing accommodation for the increasingly ageing population and affordable housing verses the CIL. The exception clause and relaxation options on CIL need to be spelt out or at the very least the process by which it will be judged. Main Issues • Detail on Exceptional Circumstances policy should be provided.
Paragraph Number 7.1 Comment ID CILPDCS103 Consultee Name and Mr Dominic Lawson Consultee ID 489173 Organisation Threadneedle Pensions Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr Dominic Lawson Agent ID 478925 Dominic Lawson Bespoke Planning Ltd Comments Threadneedle strongly encourages the Council to put in place provision for discretionary relief allowed for under regulation 55 of the CIL Regulations for dealing with exceptional circumstances where viability or public benefit is likely to be undermined by CIL. Main Issues • Detail on Exceptional Circumstances policy should be provided.
Paragraph Number 8.3 Comment ID CILPDCS5 Consultee Name and Mr Derek Farr Consultee ID 308553 Organisation South Woodham Ferrers Town Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments The proposal that 10% of CIL receipts are passed onto Neighbourhood Funds to help continue to fund local infrastructure in the location of the chargeable development is a fairly low calculation, which does not make a meaningful contribution Main Issues • 10% of CIL receipts is not a meaningful contribution towards neighbourhood funds.
40
Paragraph Number 9.1 Comment ID CILPDCS26 Consultee Name and Waitrose Ltd Consultee ID 646806 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Andrew Vaughan Agent ID 646804 Firstplan Comments Section 9 of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule advises that CIL is charged on the net additional gross internal floor area of the development. Where buildings are demolished, the total demolished floorspace will be offset against the floorspace of the new buildings, providing the new buildings were in lawful use prior to demolition. Paragraph 9.3 goes on to advise that the calculation of the chargeable amount of CIL to be paid for a development proposal is set out at Regulation 40 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). Under Regulation 40 of the CIL Regulations (as amended) the existing floorspace to demolished or retained on site as part of a proposal is discounted proportionally from the area of each type of chargeable floorspace proposed. However, in order to provide further clarity, calculated examples of CIL charges should be set out within the Charging Schedule. This would be particularly useful where existing buildings are to be demolished and replaced with mixed use development proposals and would provide developers with further clarity on the CIL liability associated with particular development proposals. Main Issues • Worked examples of how CIL liability can be off set by existing floorspace should be provided.
Paragraph Number 10.1 Comment ID CILPDCS15 Consultee Name and Mr Malcolm Taylor Consultee ID 308888 Organisation Little Waltham Parish Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Define commencement of the chargeable development. Is this when the first truck/bulldozer arrives on site? Is this the same as the term commencement date used in Table 4? Developers should not be given the opportunity to delay provision of CIL by fudging chargeable development or commencement date. Main Issues • Commencement of chargeable development should be defined.
Paragraph Number 10.1 Comment ID CILPDCS53 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments Regulation 73(1) permits the payment of land in lieu of CIL. This is an interesting tool which could be proactively interpreted where the land in question is provided for infrastructure, for example strategic highways or open space. The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule is silent on the use of payments in kind. The mechanism of payments in
41 kind must result in credible land values being agreed and offset against the levels of potential CIL receipts incurred through the chargeable development. If operated effectively the mechanism could considerably assist with development delivery. Our clients therefore encourage the Borough Council in the Draft Charging Schedule to outline a proactive mechanism and approach to permitting developers to offer land either as payment or to take into account the value of land which is retained for the use of infrastructure. It will be important to do this in order to avoid situations of double counting. Main Issues • PDCS is silent on the provision of land in lieu of CIL.
Paragraph Number 10.2 Comment ID CILPDCS20 Consultee Name and Aquila EHS ltd Consultee ID 645819 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Trevor Hollinger Agent ID 307587 Turley Associates Comments Para 10.2/ Table 4 The councils intention to adopt an instalments policy is welcomed although later payment should be linked to occupation Main Issues • Instalments policy should be linked to occupations.
Paragraph Number 10.2 Comment ID CILPDCS40 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments An Instalments Policy will reflect the CIL Regulations and is strongly supported. Often, development projects rely upon cash flow principles and DCF calculations. These are more complex than residual methods of development appraisal and inherently look at flows of money 'in' and 'out'. Larger sums may have to be defrayed over periods longer than 600 days. We would be pleased to work alongside the Council in framing a workable policy. Main Issues • Instalments on larger schemes may need to be considered over period in excess of 600 days.
Paragraph Number Table 4 Potential Instalments Policy Comment ID CILPDCS27 Consultee Name and Waitrose Ltd Consultee ID 646806 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Andrew Vaughan Agent ID 646804 Firstplan Comments Waitrose welcomes the Councils intention to collect CIL payments in instalments as set out below (Table 4), as this would mitigate the effect on viability of the development, especially when larger CIL contributions are liable. We note that the proposed instalment policy is triggered by the commencement date of the development. However this would not take into account large scale phased development, for which the commencement dates of various aspects
42 of the development may vary. Waitrose therefore requests that the proposed payment periods be further broken down to account for larger phased developments, with the payment of a proportions of CIL triggered upon the commencement of a various phases of development. Main Issues • Instalments should be broken down to account for larger phased developments.
Paragraph Number Table 4 Potential Instalments Policy Comment ID CILPDCS52 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments It has been assumed that even on relatively small in fill sites (one or two units) it would be beneficial for the CIL payments to be made in instalments, with the number of instalments subsequently increasing with the size of the development and the CIL liability. However, it is the view of the consortium that while the current proposed approach will be useful in many cases, it will not benefit all sites. The main reason for this is the underlying assumption that the instalments should be linked to the total CIL liability. It is the view of the consortium that a more suitable approach would be to base instalment triggers on how much of the actual development is built. Developers only have access to certain levels of funding throughout the construction process and this is often dependent on sale volumes and market conditions. A factor that becomes increasingly important on large, greenfield sites that aim to produce a large number of units over a longer period of time (5 10 years). Even payments of 10% upfront and the remainder within 20 months on larger sites could cause a severe constraint in terms of the ability of developers to pay such levels, even rendering larger developments unviable. For precisely this reason, Section 106 costs are normally paid in relation to housing triggers rather than at set timescales. In addition it will be larger schemes which generate the greatest CIL payments and as such phasing of payments should be tailored to recognise funding constraints and cash flow of such schemes. The set timescale approach would only be suitable for very small developments in which there was certainty that development would be built very quickly and the funding would be available to pay the CIL charge. Large scale development normally requires significant upfront infrastructure costs to unlock development and the additional early burden of CIL as per the existing payment formula would therefore be very prohibitive. A similar argument has provided the foundation for the inclusion of Zone One in the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule at a zero CIL residential rate. It is therefore advised that any phasing of CIL payments should accord with build out rates and not to set timescales. Larger applications are in any case required to submit phasing plans with planning applications showing build rate and approximate timescales, and as such this will give the Council a level of certainty on when CIL payments can be expected without tying developers to set timescales. (Regulation 9) makes it clear that in instances of full planning approval the chargeable development is that entirely consented. Whilst Regulation 9(4) effectively permits a staged payment approach to outline consents (where phasing is proposed), it is normally the practice to only pursue outline (or hybrid) applications for the largest and most complex sites. The majority of planning proposals will still be submitted in full. In summary it is therefore imperative that the Borough Council includes an instalments policy in the Draft Schedule, while takes this into account. This
43 should relate to how much of the development is built, using build out rates as triggers. It may also be appropriate to define a threshold for much larger sites, whereby a bespoke payment method for CIL will be agreed in writing with the Borough Council through the application process. The Regulations do not restrict offering a bespoke arrangement through an instalments policy. Main Issues • Instalments should be broken down and made more flexible to account for larger phased developments.
Paragraph Number Table 4 Potential Instalments Policy Comment ID CILPDCS75 Consultee Name and McCarthy & Stone Retirement Consultee ID 646846 Organisation Lifestyles Ltd Agent Name and Organisation Mr David Williams Agent ID 497305 The Planning Bureau Ltd Comments Consideration should be given to the timing of CIL payments and an allowance for payment by instalments. My Client would welcome flexibility in the timing of CIL as payments on commencement will introduce an additional financial cost on the development prior to the receipt of any revenue from the proposed development. This would place an additional burden on the developer and would affect the viability of the development, and possibly in the case of residential development impinge upon the developer's ability to provide for affordable housing. This issue is compounded in my Client's case, and for other retirement housing providers, as developments need to be completed in their entirety before a single unit of accommodation can be sold. It is considered that at the earliest, part payment on first occupation would be fairer and would reduce unnecessary financial costs to the developer. This should then be phased depending upon occupation levels. In economic conditions such as currently being experienced, there is some merit in staged payments throughout the sale of the development. Such an approach would encourage the delivery of many worthwhile development proposals that might otherwise not commence. Main Issues • Instalments should be linked to the occupation of development
Paragraph Number Table 4 Potential Instalments Policy Comment ID CILPDCS81 Consultee Name and Asda Stores Limited Consultee ID 647080 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Carl Dyer Agent ID 647077 Thomas Eggar LLP Comments While the Council's proposal to introduce a staged payments policy is to be welcomed, we should be grateful if the Council would take into account the fact that many major development projects are implemented in phases. As the Council will be aware, many large scale developments are phased for a number of reasons, most commonly because the revenue generated by the early phases of the development needs to be realised in order to fund the remainder of the scheme. As planning authorities have often expressed a preference for determining full planning applications where all of the relevant information is available to them, large scale developments are often submitted to the Council as full planning applications, rather than applications for outline permission. If this trend is to continue, allowances will need to be made for the phasing of large scale developments which have been granted full, rather 44 than outline, planning permission. At present the ClL Regulations allow for staged payments to be linked to the period of time that has passed since commencement, rather than the phase of development achieved. This means that anyone staged payment could well fall due before the earlier phases of the scheme have started to generate the revenue reqUired to fund it, rendering the project economically unviable. This puts developers who have applied for full planning permission at a disadvantage, compared to those who have an outline permission, as the charging regime for outline planning permissions makes specific allowances for phased development. We note that under the ClL Regulations, developers are required to serve a notice of commencement of development on the Charging Authority, but are not required to notify them of the commencement of individual phases of development. This could, however, be easily addressed through the use of planning conditions or, alternatively, planning obligations requested through a Section 106 agreement. We should be grateful if the Council would take this into account when formulating its staged payments policy, to ensure that developers are not disadvantaged by submitting an application for full, rather than outline, planning permission. Main Issues • Instalments should be broken down and made more flexible to account for larger phased developments.
Paragraph Number Table 4 Potential Instalments Policy Comment ID CILPDCS93 Consultee Name and Inland Homes Ltd Consultee ID 648111 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Matt Corcoran Agent ID 647087 Inland Homes Comments It is unreasonable to suggest that CIL contributions in excess of £200,000 should be made payable 20 months from the implementation date. This would be particularly crippling on large development sites where build programmes are longer and where funding agreements come into fruition over a longer period. It is vigorously requested that payment period is related to occupations within a development in order to allow liquidity in cash flows and thus to be able to make payments. This would allow the opportunity to phase large developments into smaller chunks and enable payments to be made in a more realistic fashion. Main Issues • Instalments should be broken down and made more flexible to account for larger phased developments.
Paragraph Number Table 4 Potential Instalments Policy Comment ID CILPDCS99 Consultee Name and Mr Keith Blackburn Consultee ID 311146 Organisation Essex County Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Table 4 It is felt that too many instalments are being offered. We suggest that all liability under £50k should be paid up front with subsequent instalments of not less than £100k each. Main Issues • Too many instalments being offered.
45
Paragraph Number 11.1 Comment ID CILPDCS100 Consultee Name and Mr Keith Blackburn Consultee ID 311146 Organisation Essex County Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Para 11 It is suggested that a paragraph clarifying how land will be dealt with should be added, for example, In general, requirements for land to deliver infrastructure will be secured on site via a section 106 agreement. Only in the event that land is required from one development to facilitate other developments in the area could it be appropriate for land to be considered as part of the CIL payment. Main Issues • The provision of land in lieu of CIL could be clarified.
Paragraph Number 11.2 Comment ID CILPDCS41 Consultee Name and Mr Gary Duncan Consultee ID 488925 Organisation Countryside Properties PLC Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments Para 11.2 gives cause for concern in that the makeup of the Charging Schedule can artificially inflate the levy depending on its content. Main Issues • The scope of infrastructure funded by CIL can inflate the charge.
Paragraph Number 11.2 Comment ID CILPDCS44 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments CLG Charge Setting & Charging Schedule Procedures paragraph 14 outlines that CIL should only even be considered where an identified funding gap is demonstrated. The process of demonstrating this should also identify a CIL infrastructure funding target (paragraph 14). The target is not presently clear as it is not explicitly stated and as there is no draft Regulation 123 list yet available. Main Issues • Infrastructure funding gap not clear as there is no Regulation 123 published.
Paragraph Number 11.3 Comment ID CILPDCS96 Consultee Name and Mr Keith Blackburn Consultee ID 311146 Organisation Essex County Council Agent Name and Organisation Agent ID Comments For ECC the key issue arising from the PDCS is the governance arrangements for CIL, ie how infrastructure items will be prioritised and the CIL revenues collected in Chelmsford will be passed on to the relevant infrastructure
46 providers, including ECC. Detailed proposals on this have been included below. The governance proposals here are similar to those contained in ECCs response to the Colchester PDCS which was agreed by Cabinet during last year. ECC considers that Chelmsfords proposal to use the Local Delivery Mechanism (LDM), Chelmsford Tomorrow, which was established to oversee the arrangements for the Standard Charges SPD, to oversee the prioritisation of infrastructure and the allocation of CIL receipts is acceptable and some detailed points on it are made below. ECC believes that Chelmsford Tomorrow needs to be put on a more formal basis to do this ECC officers have drawn up an outline of the suggested governance framework. It is suggested that Chelmsford Tomorrow should become the Decision Making Body of the two groups proposed It is suggested also that greater clarity is required in para 11.3 of the PDCS on how the LDM will be formalised to take on this new role. As was suggested to Colchester ECC would propose two tiers an Advisory group of service officers and a Decision making tier ( of senior officers and members) along the following lines: No organisation to have an absolute voting majority , eg Chelmsford 4, Ecc2, Health 1, Police 1 , Environment Agency 1 An impartial (non voting) chair from possibly the Chelmsford Society or the local Chamber of Commerce. The composition of these bodies would include ECC services involved in infrastructure in Chelmsford. Both these bodies would meet at least twice a year and the advisory body would put forward a proposal for what items of infrastructure could and should be delivered over the next period. One possibility for consideration would be that the main ECC services likely to receive CIL (Schools and Highways and Transportation) would have a more or less permanent representative on these bodies, with other ECC services being invited to attend when these bodies were considering proposals particularly relevant to their own services (e.g. Libraries would attend if consideration was being given at the meeting to the use of CIL funds for a new or extended library in the City). Chelmsford Tomorrow would consider these proposals and could approve, reject or amend them. Alternatively it could ask for more work to be done by officers with a view to reconsidering a revised proposal at the next or a future meeting. Main Issues • Governance arrangements for CIL spend should be formalised.
Paragraph Number 11.5 Comment ID CILPDCS57 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments The CLG CIL Charge Setting and Charging Schedule Guidance outlines that the Government strongly encourages reviews to ensure that CIL is fulfilling its aim and responds to market conditions. Section 11.5 of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule states that the Borough Council will not undertake regular CIL reviews unless economic or development delivery conditions change significantly in the intervening period, it is not considered necessary to review the CIL Charging Schedule until 2016. Our clients strongly encourage the Borough Council to revise this proposed mechanism for CIL and feel that it is imperative that CIL is reviewed annually as part of annual monitoring (required by both the CIL and Local Development Regulations). It may therefore be prudent to outline on adoption of CIL, a review within 12 24 months.
47 Main Issues • CIL should be reviewed annually.
Paragraph Number 12.1 Comment ID CILPDCS65 Consultee Name and Housebuilders Consortium Consultee ID 647103 Organisation Agent Name and Organisation Mr Tom Fraser Agent ID 646541 Savills L & P Comments Despite the narrow Regulatory requirements of the Examination, our clients urge the Borough Council to make clear at the earliest opportunity the supporting documentation needed to operate CIL and to make it available for input/ comment. Practically, this needs to be done prior to the Examination so that participants and stakeholders are able to comment on the effective operation of CIL. Whilst this supporting information is not tested at Examination, this information is critical to allow for the successful implementation of CIL and to demonstrate that the CIL has been prepared positively and supports sustainable development The documentation should include: Guidance on how to calculate the relevant chargeable development/ level of CIL (cross referral to CLG guidance/ Planning Portal location of the Notice of Chargeable Development Form further with regard to the RICS published guidance on Gross Internal Area and what should be included). Guidance on liability to pay CIL/ Appeals process. Policy for payments by instalments (by build rate and not time). Approach to payments in kind notably valuation process for ascertaining land value and also the potential to accept land for infrastructure as a payment in kind. Guidance on relief from CIL and a policy on exceptional circumstances for relief from CIL. Main Issues • Supporting guidance on implementation of CIL should be prepared.
48