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.