BASE HEADER
CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 57730
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Gladman Developments
Asiant : Carter Jonas
CIL should not be used as a Council's mechanism for creating an unrealistic wish list of infrastructure projects within their area.
When establishing a funding gap that CIL receipts are intended to contribute to the Council should take account of every possible income stream. This has to take account of future New Homes Bonus and Council Tax and Business Rates receipts generated as a result of new developments allocated in the Local Plan, as well as central government funding streams.
Re: Warwick District Council - CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule.
In relation to the above consultation please find attached representations submitted by Gladman Developments Ltd.
This submission comprises an overview representation prepared by Gladman Developments and a supporting report (prepared by Carter Jonas) which assesses in detail the proposed charging rate and assumptions that this has been based on.
Please could you acknowledge receipt of these representations by responding to this email.
Kind regards
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 57731
Derbyniwyd: 30/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Rowington Parish Council
The overriding concern of the Parish Council is that any CIL is levied on a particular site and remains attached to that site area i.e no levy should be consumed within a central "pot"
Because CIL is intended to be mandatory, smaller developments such as those likely to occur in the rural settlements, may be unable to bear the cost of this levy and developers will not therefore be encouraged to come forward.
* Strong support for the retention of open spaces (Green Belt and Special Landscape Areas) Difficult to comment further without information regarding potential changes to green belt boundaries.
* Clarification of the area referred to as "Rowington" is still required. Reference is made to the settlement of Kingswood as "Lapworth" when in fact a large part of Kingswod is within Rowington Parish
* The data gathering exercise for the Rowington Parish Design Statement provides a strong evidence base of the need for small infill developments of residential units for the young and elderly alike, which would allow a balanced community to be maintained in the rural areas. This appears to have been largely ignored within the Development Strategy at this point.
* It seems that rather than spread the burden of new development across Warwick District, much of the proposed new housing is in the form of concentrated and large scale developments. As mentioned above, the proposals have ignored the needs of the small rural villages in favour of the big developers who are only interested in such large scale developments.
Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
* The overriding concern of the Parish Council is that any CIL is levied on a particular site and remains attached to that site area i.e. no levy should be consumed within a central "pot"
* Because CIL is intended to be mandatory, smaller developments such as those likely to occur in the rural settlements, may be unable to bear the cost of this levy and developers will not therefore be encouraged to come forward.
Sustainability Appraisal and Gypsy and Traveller Site Options
* Need further clarification on the definition of a "pitch" and how this is to be utilised i.e. single or multiple occupancy per pitch? Not clear what is meant by a "pitch".
* Clear guidelines on the numbers of pitches per site and a preference for permanent as opposed to itinerant occupancy. Permanent occupancy may encourage occupants to become part of the community and therefore develop a sense of inclusion and ultimately, responsibility.
* Will the proposed sites/occupiers incur rental charges etc? As in the case of council accommodation provided by WDC. We believe that the occupiers should be subject to rental and other charges and would like to know how such charges will be collected by WDC.
* How will these sites be administered i.e. will the sites be self managing or managed by
WDC? We are concerned that the sites will certainly need to incur costs associated with hygiene, waste disposal, school transport and maintenance alongside overall supervision/administration costs if they are to remain usable. These costs are running costs as opposed to capital infrastructure costs mentioned below.
* What are the likely costs of the provision of necessary infrastructure for these sites and how will such infrastructure be funded.
* Following the creation of approved sites, how will the settlement of travellers or gypsies of the type that are "unpredictable economic migrants" be handled in the event of their occupation of sites over and above the official sites provided?
Sylw
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 59398
Derbyniwyd: 10/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Mr Simon Taylor
Currently have one senior school and one sixth form in Kenilworth. 770 homes could bring another 1,400 plus children requiring education to Kenilworth. Will a new senior school be built? How will the sixth form be expanded to cope with the increased demand as it is already oversubscribed?
PO1 - Level of Growth
Where is this predicted growth to warrant 770 new homes in Kenilworth coming from? indigenous growth within Kenilworth or is it from increasing immigration from outside the UK? a very concerning development for the future make up of the town, though one I am sure one the Council does not want to accept as it is not deemed politically correct to talk about immigration.
Leamington residents are commenting to me about the increasing Polish community there with the associated difficulties that brings.
P02 Community Infrastructure Levy
Currently we have one senior school and one sixth form in Kenilworth, 770 homes could bring another 1400 plus children requiring education to Kenilworth, will a new senior school be built? How will the sixth form be expanded to cope with the increased demand? - I understand it is already oversubscribed.
P07 - Gypsies and Travellers
I would fully support that the District does not have any sites for Gypsies and Travellers. Why is consideration being given to non tax paying groups? It would appear to me they are given more consideration than tax payers, look at the time and resource to remove them from Beausale, I am sure if I infringed planning regulations I would not be afforded the leniency they have been afforded.
What is happening with Brookside Willows caravan park outside Warwick, I see a lot has been spent by Local Authorities on this "travellers" site and it remains empty.
Why are WDC rewarding this group, look at the cost and chaos the Horse fair causes in and around Kenilworth.
P08 - Economy
What employment opportunities beyond the building of the houses does the Kenilworth development offer? I cannot see any.
P016 - Green Belt
I do not believe the Local Authorities have given any consideration to retaining the Green Belt around Kenilworth, the intention would appear to be to destroy it.
For the above reasons I would like to register my strong opposition to the above elements of this Local Plan, these are not "preferred options" for Kenilworth or it's residents.
I look forward to your response
Cefnogi
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 59671
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Hallam Land Management and William Davis
Asiant : Marrons
Supports the preparation of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) to fund the infrastructure needed to service the sites south of Warwick.
see-attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 59889
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Walter Bush
Needs to be a consistent levy across the board to reflect the impact on communities and ensure that commercial development fund the true cost. Employment development such as the Gateway should not be exempt simply because they are not viable.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 60038
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Highways England
The Highways Agency is keen to ensure that it is fully involved in further discussions as the CIL charging scheme develops. This is particularly important in respect of any priority list of infrastructure projects, particularly in terms of drawing up the Regulation 123 list of CIL infrastructure and how the listed schemes would interrelate with other requirements secured via other means such as Section 106 Obligations and Section 278 Agreements and with the list of transport related mitigation schemes as set out in the revised development strategy.
The HA believe it is critical that the relevant mechanisms dovetail and are prioritised/ managed effectively to ensure timely provision of the necessary infrastructure in parallel with new development to ensure that impacts arising from new development are acceptable.
The HA will continue to work collaboratively with the Council and Warwickshire County Council as the local highway authority to ensure that the necessary infrastructure is identified and deliverable.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63277
Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2013
Ymatebydd: H E Johnson
Asiant : Bond Dickinson LLP
We also note that paragraph 6.17 of the CIL Viability Study states that where a scheme is unviable before application of CIL, it will need to be the Section 106 requirement that changes in order to make the development viable. Where this is the intended approach (rather than exemption from CIL), it should be made express in the explanatory text to the Charging Schedule and cross referenced to Local Plan policy.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63278
Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2013
Ymatebydd: H E Johnson
Asiant : Bond Dickinson LLP
Para 5.1
We welcome the proposed exemption from CIL of the parts of a development which are to be used for affordable housing but suggest that where such a high proportion as 40% affordable housing is required, this exemption may not go far enough, and consideration should be given to exempting the whole Red House Farm site from CIL
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63279
Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2013
Ymatebydd: H E Johnson
Asiant : Bond Dickinson LLP
Appendix A
The Residential Zones plan shows land between Lillington and Cubbington as Zone A and the extended RHF site shown by a broken red line at Figure 1 to Appendix 1 of the Bruton Knowles Representations, in Zone D for the purposes of the Draft Charging Schedule. We object to this categorisation and submit that it is necessary to categorise the whole of the RHF site in zone A and define it as a Strategic Site with the lower charging level for regeneration purposes and that the land between Lillington and Cubbinton, which the SHLAA identifies as not suitable for development, is categorised at the higher level Zone D.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63280
Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Home Builders Federation Ltd
Considers that the Council has prepared its viability study in advance of a detailed IDP and that the imposition of CIL Levy Rate should balance the deliverability of funding infrastructure from the levy and the potential effects on the development across the area.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63281
Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Home Builders Federation Ltd
Implies that Council has not set out clearly what developers will be expected to pay through the route of S106 (to avoid paying twice for the same item).
S106 should be scaled back to those matters that are directly related to a specific site (not set on the Reg 123 list).
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63282
Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Home Builders Federation Ltd
Suggest that the PDCS does not take account of national regulatory changes to be implemented in relation to build costs. An example being potential changes to building regulations that will have to be met to meet Code for Sustainable Homes Level 5.
Section 5 of the RDS consultation proposes that 25% of homes are built to lifetime homes standards. It is stated that the cost of complyin with this is a further £1525 per dwelling.
Sales and marketing costs in the viability study are set at the lowest percentage of 3%. The Harman Report recommends between 3-5% of gross development value.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63283
Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Home Builders Federation Ltd
The viability assessment appears to use a reduced profit margin of 6% for the affordable housing. The validity of this is questionable and suggests that a figure of 20% of GDV is reasonable.
On land values the Harman Report recommends a premium over current value, plus the use of a viability cushion. The appropriate premium is to be determined locally. The premium used by BNP Paribas is 20% above CUV.
The Harman Report recognises that green field and strategic sites will necessitate the greater use of benchamarks. The correct benchmarking of land values is critical given that 66% of the RDS is green field.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63284
Derbyniwyd: 26/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Home Builders Federation Ltd
Section 5 of the RDS consultation proposes 40% affordable housing on new developments. The Council must reconcile the proposed CIL charges with its affordable housing policy. The Council must be mindful of the Mid Devon CIL Examiners report, which reduced the proposed residential CIL rate as the LPA had failed to take into account the appropriate rate of affordable housing.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63287
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Gallagher Estates
Asiant : Pegasus Group
Concerned regarding the relationship between CIL and the continued use of s106.
There needs to be absolute clarity between the relationship and the extent to which s106 will be required on individual schemes.
Will education, open space/leisure contributions be financed through CIL or s106?
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63288
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Gallagher Estates
Asiant : Pegasus Group
The CIL Viability Study make a blanket assumption of £10,000 per unit but there is no explanation of the basis for this assumption. There is therefore a lack of clarity between CIL/s106. The future charging schedule address this and be accompanied by a clear explanation.
£90.00 per sqm on strategic sites zone B CIL for residential will impact significantly. The level to which CIL can be implemented without impacting on viability needs to be clearly established and the relationship between s106 needs to be set out.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63289
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd and Northern Trust
Asiant : Framptons
Charges should differentiate between previously developed land and greenfield.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63290
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd and Northern Trust
Asiant : Framptons
The Council has not fully ascertained its level of growth in the RDS and will not therefore have a full understanding of its infrastructure requirements.
The draft document does not quantify the infrastructure funding gap.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63291
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd and Northern Trust
Asiant : Framptons
The BNP Viability study does not take account of the estimated infrastructure costs associated with the strategic sites in the Local Plan. The exercise is simply an appraisal of current land values
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63292
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd and Northern Trust
Asiant : Framptons
The variation in the scale of the charges is too wide and potentially onerous in Zone B.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63293
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Gladman Developments
Asiant : Carter Jonas
CIL should be set at a level that does not put at risk the overall development of an area. The rate will also need to be appropriate over time, bearing in mind land values, market conditions and the wider economic climate.
Re: Warwick District Council - CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule.
In relation to the above consultation please find attached representations submitted by Gladman Developments Ltd.
This submission comprises an overview representation prepared by Gladman Developments and a supporting report (prepared by Carter Jonas) which assesses in detail the proposed charging rate and assumptions that this has been based on.
Please could you acknowledge receipt of these representations by responding to this email.
Kind regards
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63294
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Gladman Developments
Asiant : Carter Jonas
The Council should ensure that it has a full understanding of the potential costs of infrastructure projects. Gladman believes it is inappropriate to set the levy based on a partial understanding of infrastructure costs.
Re: Warwick District Council - CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule.
In relation to the above consultation please find attached representations submitted by Gladman Developments Ltd.
This submission comprises an overview representation prepared by Gladman Developments and a supporting report (prepared by Carter Jonas) which assesses in detail the proposed charging rate and assumptions that this has been based on.
Please could you acknowledge receipt of these representations by responding to this email.
Kind regards
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63295
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Gladman Developments
Asiant : Carter Jonas
CIL levy rates should be realistic and not set too high. Arbitrarily high rates may jeopardise the delivery of housing schemes and be contrary to the Government aim of "significantly boosting the supply of housing".
Re: Warwick District Council - CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule.
In relation to the above consultation please find attached representations submitted by Gladman Developments Ltd.
This submission comprises an overview representation prepared by Gladman Developments and a supporting report (prepared by Carter Jonas) which assesses in detail the proposed charging rate and assumptions that this has been based on.
Please could you acknowledge receipt of these representations by responding to this email.
Kind regards
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63296
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Gladman Developments
Asiant : Carter Jonas
Gladman would urge the Council to adopt an instalments policy for CIL payments. This will facilitate cash flow and therefore development viability.
The Council should be reminded of the need to review CIL tariffs once these have been set.
Re: Warwick District Council - CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule.
In relation to the above consultation please find attached representations submitted by Gladman Developments Ltd.
This submission comprises an overview representation prepared by Gladman Developments and a supporting report (prepared by Carter Jonas) which assesses in detail the proposed charging rate and assumptions that this has been based on.
Please could you acknowledge receipt of these representations by responding to this email.
Kind regards
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63297
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd
Asiant : Turley Associates
The Draft charging schedule proposes alternative rates for different areas in relation to retail development. This approach is confused by the inclusion of the superstores, supermarkets and retail parks category which is defined by type and not location (zone).
The Council needs to demonstrate that a distinction can be made between the described uses. This needs to be supported by fine grain viability evidence to demonstrate their different viability characteristics. It is considered that this has not been done and this part of the charging schedule does not comply with the regulations.
Dear Sir / Madam
WARWICK COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY - PRELIMINARY DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE - REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF SAINSBURY'S SUPERMARKETS LTD
We write on behalf of our client Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd and are instructed to submit comments on their behalf in respect of the above document.
Sainsbury's has a longstanding interest in the Borough and operates the Leamington food superstore, as well as stores in Warwick and Kenilworth.
Infrastructure Delivery Plan
It is not clear from the consultation document, the full list of infrastructure which is proposed to be funded by CIL. Notwithstanding this, as a point of principle, the connection between the needs generated by retail development specifically, as opposed to housing, and the proposed CIL Payment needs to be fully explained in subsequent stages of the charging schedule.
Section 205 of the Planning Act 2008 states that 'the overall purpose of CIL is to ensure that costs incurred in providing infrastructure to support the development of an area can be funded (wholly or partly) by owners or developers of land'. Section 216 of the Planning Act 2008 states that 'CIL regulations must require the authority that charges CIL to apply to it, or cause it to be applied, to funding infrastructure'. This section then defines 'infrastructure' as follows:
a) Roads and other transport facilities;
b) Flood defences;
c) Schools and other educational facilities;
d) Medical facilities;
e) Sporting and recreational facilities;
f) Open spaces; and
g) Affordable housing (being social housing within the meaning of Part 2 of the Housing and Regeneration Act 2008 (c. 17) and such other housing as CIL regulations may specify).
Legislation intends CIL to respond to demand for infrastructure generated by new development and does not allow for it to be used to support general aspirations for improvements. It is not currently clear whether the Infrastructure Delivery Plan reflects this.
Differential Retail Charges
The Draft Charging Schedule proposes alternative rates for different areas, including the 'Prime Leamington Spa zone' in relation to retail development. This approach is confused by the inclusion of the 'Superstores, supermarkets and retail parks' category, which appears to be a differential rate based on 'type' of retail rather than a specific location or zone. It is not clear from the supporting viability study, the basis for which the categories of retail development were selected to be tested and included in the PDCS.
The CIL Regulations only permit differential charges by reference to location or different intended use of development. Consideration of CIL Charging Schedules elsewhere in the country demonstrates that to differentiate between types or sizes of retailing, it is necessary to clearly define different distinct uses. Only if the different intended uses can clearly and unambiguously be defined can a differential charge be considered. If that has been done then there is also a need to demonstrate through fine grained analysis that there is clear evidence of different viability characteristics for the different intended uses.
To support the proposed Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, the Council needs to demonstrate that a distinction can be made between the genuinely different and unambiguously described uses. This then needs to be supported by fine grain viability evidence to demonstrate the different intended uses possess different viability characteristics. In our view this has not been demonstrated, and it is therefore considered that the proposed CIL charging regime is currently not properly justified and falls outside the scope of the regulations.
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63302
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: West Midlands HARP Planning Consortium
Asiant : Tetlow King Planning Ltd.
Para 2.3 of the viability assessment states that other sources of funding are not taken into account and it is simply a viability study. This is contrary to the guidance that requires a charging authority to identify the total cost of infrastructure it desires to fund in part or whole from the levy. The Council will also have to consider other streams of funding.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63303
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: West Midlands HARP Planning Consortium
Asiant : Tetlow King Planning Ltd.
Concerned that there does not appear to be no testing on C2 or C3 development relating to older persons housing. This type of development has reduced profit margins due to a higher percentage of un-sellable floor space and the nature of the development requires full completion before any of the lots can be occupied.
CIL guidance states that specialist forms of development should not be unduly affected by CIL. This has not been a consideration in the PDC Schedule. Extra care housing particular should be treated differently.
see attached
Cefnogi
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63304
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: West Midlands HARP Planning Consortium
Asiant : Tetlow King Planning Ltd.
Supportive of the Council's proposal to allow CIL payment by instalments Suggest payment in thirds with final payment on completion.
Note that the Council is yet to form a view on exceptional relief, thinks that allowing exceptions would assist the delivery of affordable housing in Warwick.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63305
Derbyniwyd: 29/07/2013
Ymatebydd: West Midlands HARP Planning Consortium
Asiant : Tetlow King Planning Ltd.
Note viability assessment recommends £105 sqm for superstores, supermarkets and retail parks - this has been reduced to £75 sqm in the PDCC. Would like to know the justification for these reductions.
see attached
Gwrthwynebu
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
ID sylw: 63306
Derbyniwyd: 13/08/2013
Ymatebydd: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Asiant : AMEC
Funding Gap.
Concerned that funding gap analysis has not taken place to demonstrate the need for the introduction of CIL in accordance with the regulations. This gap analysis should be undertaken and made public
see attached