I refer to the above and submit, jointly with Delta Planning, the following comments on behalf of A C Lloyd Limited who have interests in a number of urban and rural sites proposed to be allocated in the emerging Local Plan. These allocations include :
 South of Harbury Lane, Warwick (Proposed CIL Zone B)
 South of Sydenham (Proposed CIL Zone A)
 Land at Radford Semele (Proposed CIL Zone A)
 Land at Bishops Tachbrook (Proposed CIL Zone B)
 Land at Kingswood (Proposed CIL Zone D)
It is the case that A C Lloyd Limited has supported the parallel production of a CIL Charging regime and the Local Plan. This has been made clear in earlier consultation responses on the draft Local Plan and the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule in June 2013.
We have reviewed the BNP Paribas 'Community Infrastructure Levy: Viability Study (2016 update)' in formulating these submissions.
As regards the draft CIL Charging Schedule, it is submitted that further justification for the proposed charging rates should be provided as the CIL document progresses towards adoption. The following factors need to be taken into account:
1. The charges should differentiate between Previously Developed Land and Green field sites. Presently it is considered that insufficient justification has been included in the consultation document and associated evidence base papers.
2. The document should identify what the funding gap is at paragraph 2.3 and provide a
summary of the IDP. It should state whether the IDP funding gap is a 'fixed' figure or a
'moving target'.
3. The Council states in paragraph 2.5 that "it is clear that in the short to medium term there is a
significant gap between available funds from government and other agencies and the cost of
infrastructure needed to support and mitigate planned growth. The introduction of CIL in the
District will help to fill part of this funding gap." There is no robust evidence to substantiate
this claim. The Council is unable to quantify the cost of infrastructure that is required and
therefore it is unable to demonstrate a gap. The draft document does not state what the
perceived 'gap' is.
4. The draft document refers to an analysis of viability that has been undertaking by BNP
Paribas (updated in November 2016) to demonstrate that CIL is set at a level that will not
prevent development from coming forward. This is one half of an equation that is
meaningless without knowing what level of 'gap' funding is being sought. The BNP analysis
appears to take no account of the estimated infrastructure costs associated with the Local
Plan Strategic Sites and makes no reference to any 'gap' in funding. The exercise is simply an
appraisal of potential land values. The introduction to the BNP work makes it clear that:
This study has been commissioned to contribute towards an evidence base to inform Warwick
District Council's ('the Council') CIL Charging Schedule ('CS'), as required by Regulation 14 of
the CIL Regulations April 2010 (as subsequently amended). The aims of the study are
summarised as follows:
 to test the impact upon the economics of residential development of a range of levels
of CIL;
 for residential schemes, to test CIL alongside the Council's requirements for 40%
affordable housing on sites of 10 or more units within urban areas and on sites of 5 or
more units in rural areas; as well as other planning obligations; and
 to test the ability of commercial schemes to make a contribution towards
infrastructure through CIL.
Having regard to the above, it is considered that
1. The proposed charging rates and exceptions need to be linked to accurate and robust evidence on
the 'costs' side of the equation to be sure that they are realistic.
2. It is not clear how the draft charging zones have been defined and the boundaries of the
zones have been drawn
3. The recommended CIL charges set out in the Viability Study seem to be based on reduced
affordable housing targets (20% for Warwick and low value rural; 30% for Kenilworth), not
the 40% affordable housing requirement included in the Local Plan. The Viability Study's
recommendation have been carried forward into the CIL Draft Charging Schedule, but
there is no recognition of the interplay between CIL charges and affordable housing
targets
4. Under most scenarios for Warwick and the low value rural area, CIL would not be viable,
but a £70 charge is proposed
5. The Viability Study shows that residential development type, the size of the development
and proposed housing density and mix will have a significant bearing on viability with the
proposed CIL charges making certain types of developments unviable
6. Have the benchmark land values been robustly justified?
7. Is the proposed the S106/S278 allowance underlying the viability study appropriate
(£1,500 per dwelling)?
8. Is the assumed profit level (15%) sufficient?
9. It is submitted that the variation in the scale of the charge is too wide and potentially onerous in
Zone B which will in itself be a disincentive to development taking place.
10. We are concerned that the document does not provide a clear statement as to what is included
and excluded from the CIL charge. For example, does the proposed charge for strategic sites in
Zones B & D included education provision? If so what is included? The document could usefully
include a table that identifies in more detail what types of infrastructure (i.e. more detail than the
'headlines' listed in paragraph 2.2) are included, or excluded, for different types of development.
This would avoid any confusion about what CIL is providing and avoid any criticism of 'double
dipping'.
I trust therefore that you will review and supplement the evidence base for the costs element of the CIL
and re-issue for consultation.
I also confirm that we would be willing to participate in a Public Examination of the CIL proposals should
the Council be minded to proceed to submit the CIL Charging Schedule for Examination.