CD14 PDCS Summary of Consultation Responses
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
Hertsmere Borough Council COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) PRELIMINARY DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE SUMMARY OF CONSULTATION RESPONSES July 2013 Document Title Purpose Preliminary Draft Charging Supporting document outlining the responses received during the Schedule Summary of public consultation on the PDCS, including the Council’s responses Consultation Responses to the issues raised; copies of the representations received; and, details of consultation process. Contents 1. INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................... 3 2. THE MAIN ISSUES ...................................................................................................................... 3 3. WHO RESPONDED AND NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED .................... 4 Appendix 1: Detailed Schedule of Representations and the Council’s Responses ............... 5 Appendix 2: Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Online Details .......................................... 14 Appendix 3: Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Letters ............................... 15 Appendix 4: Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation bodies ............................... 16 Appendix 5: Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule deposit points .......................................... 18 Appendix 4: Hertfordshire CIL Reference Group Meetings ..................................................... 19 Appendix 5: Copies of the PDCS responses ............................................................................. 20 2 1. INTRODUCTION 1.1 On 1st March 2013 Hertsmere Borough Council published its Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) and supporting evidence base. It invited responses from the public including local landowners and developers, as well as other public authorities. The purpose of the consultation was to invite comments and additional evidence that will help the Council strike an appropriate balance when setting CIL rates. 1.2 In accordance with Regulation 15 (7) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) the Council has taken into account these representations before it publishes its Draft Charging Schedule (DCS). This document summarises how the Council has taken the representations into account alongside other appropriate available evidence. 1.3 The Council received 15 representations in total. Please see Appendix 1 for a schedule of the representations received. Individual copies of the representations can be found in Appendix 5. 2. THE MAIN ISSUES 2.1 The comments received can be summarised as follows: There is a need for additional infrastructure planning work to satisfy the requirements of the amended (2012) CIL Regulations. There is a need to agree appropriate governance arrangements and the level of CIL monies that will be made available prior to the Examination. The rates as proposed will undermined the delivery of the planned growth. The Viability Assessment should provide a development scenario for a typical flatted retirement housing scheme. Payment by instalments should be offered. Some of the assumptions used in the viability assessment are not realistic. A range of comments were received in relation to how funds will be used and how decisions to release funds will be made. 3 3. WHO RESPONDED AND NUMBER OF REPRESENTATIONS RECEIVED 3.1 15 consultation responses were received to the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule - Representations were received from the development industry (4); statutory consultees (4); neighbouring districts (3); town and parish councils (2); Hertfordshire County Council; and, one local resident. Table 1 below provides a full list of the respondents. The individual comments made, the Council’s detailed consideration and response to these by the Council is provided in the Table at Appendix 1. Table 1: List of Respondents to the Hertsmere CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation ID # Respondent RES1 Savills on behalf of the Home Builders Federation and Members RES2 Hertfordshire County Council RES3 Natural England RES4 Sport England RES5 Highways Agency RES6 Three Rivers District Council RES7 Banner Homes Group PLC RES8 The Planning Bureau Limited on behalf of McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyle RES9 St Albans City & District Council RES10 Dacorum Borough Council RES11 English Heritage RES12 EHW Architects Ltd RES13 Resident 1 RES14 Elstree and Borehamwood Town Council RES15 Aldenham Parish Council 4 Appendix 1: Detailed Schedule of Representations and the Council’s Responses 5 Individual Comments Received and the Council’s Response to Each ID Summary of representation received Officer Response RES1 Savills on behalf of the (i) The minimum profit margin must be 20% on GDV not the 17% on (i) The individual circumstances of the proposed scheme Home Builders Federation GDV within the LSH model. No distinction should be made between and the risks involved in the example cited by Savills are and Members the profit level on affordable housing (6% within the LSH model) and unknown. Profit level should represent appropriate risk to private housing. The minimum acceptable profit margin should be a development and LSH have to consider an appropriate 20% on GDV. 20% on developer’s profit is the equivalent of only balance across the authority rather than that of any 16.3% on GDV which is below the expectations of lenders. individual scheme. Affordable Housing, is by definition a non-profit making business with the sole intention of (ii)The top rate of Stamp Duty of 7% on residential land transactions delivering affordable homes.6% on cost is consistent with over £2 million should be applied within the scenarios tested. the approach of both the HCA and GLA to mitigate risk. (iii) For the Elstree Way Corridor an appraisal of a scheme of 800 (ii) 4% is considered to be the most appropriate rate for dwellings would be more appropriate form of evidence as opposed Hertsmere. to a 100 dwelling scenario. (iii) The Elstree Way Corridor is most likely to come (iv) It is unclear how a reduction in sale values of 14% justifies a 43% forward as a series of development parcels, and therefore increase in the proposed CIL rate, this does not logically follow as a development scenario of 100 dwellings is most suitable. reduction sales values would have a negative impact on viability. (iv/v/vi/vii) Further explanation as to refinement between (v) If the maximum potential CIL within WD23 area is £156/m2 we Stage 1 and Stage 2 will be included within the revised cannot understand how this has changed into a CIL rate of £210/m2 Viability Study. for the same area in stage 2. (ix) LSH has made considerable allowance/tolerance in (vi) Within the table in Stage 2 showing a summary of the Stage 1 their assumptions in identifying a CIL which have not been and Stage 2 CIL outputs (para. 6.6), the Stage 1 outputs appear to be recognised by Savills. Additionally, careful consideration to exactly the same figures as the Stage 1 assumed average sales rates, the proposed reasonable land value benchmark and albeit in £/m2 not £/ft2 respectively (para 5.16). believe a reasonable tolerance has also been allowed for in the land value benchmarks. LSH believe they have robustly (vii) Request clarification between the rates within para J of the allowed for sufficient tolerance in the CIL rates to ensure Executive Summary within the Stage 2 Viability Assessment and the that, on balance, most developments across the authority rates within the PDCS Table 1. are not at the margin of economic tolerance. (ix) In accordance with Statutory CIL Guidance Dec 2012, it is best (x) A draft regulation 123 has been prepared and was 6 practice to apply a viability cushion when setting the rate of CIL. consulted upon as part of the consultation on the PDCS. There should be a buffer at a discount of at least 30% applied to the proposed rates. (xi) An Instalment Policy will be consulted upon as part of the Draft Charging Schedule. (x) A Draft Regulation 123 list of infrastructure should be provided for comment at the earliest opportunity. (xii) Comment Noted. (xi) HBC must make available its approach to the Flexible Operation of CIL (xii) HBC should have a clearly defined review mechanism and suggest that monitoring takes place on a 6-monthly basis. Monitoring data and reviews should be regularly published. RES2 Hertfordshire County (i) For the Elstree Way Corridor it appears that the S106 allowance (i) Within the DCS it is proposed that all infrastructure Council has been made to only cover the cost of highway infrastructure (including highway and education) in the Elstree Way works and further clarity is required as to whether or not a S106 Corridor be funded through S106 as opposed to CIL. allowance has been made for other infrastructure schemes that are likely to be required within the EWC (i.e. provision of land for/ or (ii) Paragraph 13 of the DCLG Guidance Note of December provision of additional primary school places). 2012 indicates that “Information on the charging authority area’s infrastructure needs should be directly related to the (ii) The current infrastructure planning work (relating to infrastructure assessment that underpins their relevant infrastructure provided by the County Council) may not satisfy the Plan, as that planning identifies the quantum and type of requirements of the new CIL guidance. Infrastructure required to realise their local development and growth needs.” Hertsmere Borough