CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 81

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 53128

Received: 17/07/2013

Respondent: Canal & River Trust

Representation Summary:

The inclusion of the canal infrastructure as a requirement for walking and cycling infrastructure is welcomed. However, apart from the traditional role of the canal as a system of travel or transport the canal has a variety of roles, including: a catalyst for regeneration; a contributor to water supply, drainage and flood management; a tourism, leisure and recreation resource; heritage landscape, open space and ecological resource; sustainable modes of transport; and routes for telecommunication. As such, rather than incorporate the canal as part of generic 'walking and cycling' infrastructure, specific projects for the canal should be included.

Full text:

Paragraph 2.2 of the document refers to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan to "...identify all the items of new or improved infrastructure that will need to be provided to mitigate the impacts of the planned development." Your Draft Infrastructure Plan May 2012 does not have any specific references to the Grand Union Canal infrastructure within Warwick District, albeit there are references to the walking and cycling infrastructure.

Paragraph 2.2 goes on to refer to the Revised Development Strategy which also includes the proposed infrastructure. We note that the Revised Development Strategy at paragraphs 5.1.17 and 5.3.12 refer to the canal in relation to Cycling and Walking. The inclusion of the canal infrastructure as a requirement for walking and cycling infrastructure improvements is welcomed by the Canal & River Trust. However, we consider that apart from the traditional role of the Grand Union Canal as a system of travel or transport the waterways serve in a variety of roles, including: an agent of or catalyst for regeneration; a contributor to water supply and transfer, drainage and flood management; a tourism, cultural, sport, leisure and recreation resource; a heritage landscape, open space and ecological resource; sustainable modes of transport; and routes for telecommunication. As such, rather than incorporate the canal as part of generic 'walking and cycling' infrastructure, specific projects for the canal should be included.

All of the above functions and the associated infrastructure enhancements to support growth and development need to be taken into account within the evidence base for infrastructure requirements for Warwick District, particularly as the proposed housing allocation at the Former Ridgeway School is adjacent to the Grand Union Canal and Strategic Urban Extension Site (Southern Sites) is in close proximity to the Grand Union Canal.

It is not clear from the document when you intend to collate your Regulation 123 List. We would be happy to work with you to identify projects within the District relating to the canal infrastructure which would support the proposed growth.

If the canal infrastructure projects are not included on the 123 List could we therefore pursue these works via s106 obligations when developments come forward in the District?

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 53297

Received: 22/07/2013

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 1.4


Table 6 of the 'Revised Development Strategy' sets out a range of transport mitigation measures which will be required to support the proposed level of housing required in the District over the plan period. It is assumed that funding for a proportion of these improvements will be sought through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Paragraph 87 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Guidance (April 2013) states that when a local authority introduces a CIL "section 106 requirements should be scaled back to those matters that are directly related to a specific site, and are not set out in a regulation 123 list".

It is imperative that the Council recognises this requirement and avoids "actual or perceived double dipping, with developers paying twice for the same item of infrastructure" (paragraph 85 of the CIL Guidance refers).

A number of the proposed transport mitigation schemes are located in close proximity to land south of Gallows Hill, which is being promoted by Hallam Land Management and William Davis. The future development of this land may 'directly' impact upon some of the junctions set out in Table 6 of the 'Revised Development Strategy'. Therefore, should improvements to these junctions be included as part of the Regulation 123 List, regard should be given to this in respect of the potential section 106 contributions that are sought from the development.

Full text:

Paragraph 1.4


Table 6 of the 'Revised Development Strategy' sets out a range of transport mitigation measures which will be required to support the proposed level of housing required in the District over the plan period. It is assumed that funding for a proportion of these improvements will be sought through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Paragraph 87 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Guidance (April 2013) states that when a local authority introduces a CIL "section 106 requirements should be scaled back to those matters that are directly related to a specific site, and are not set out in a regulation 123 list".

It is imperative that the Council recognises this requirement and avoids "actual or perceived double dipping, with developers paying twice for the same item of infrastructure" (paragraph 85 of the CIL Guidance refers).

A number of the proposed transport mitigation schemes are located in close proximity to land south of Gallows Hill, which is being promoted by Hallam Land Management and William Davis. The future development of this land may 'directly' impact upon some of the junctions set out in Table 6 of the 'Revised Development Strategy'. Therefore, should improvements to these junctions be included as part of the Regulation 123 List, regard should be given to this in respect of the potential section 106 contributions that are sought from the development.

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 53298

Received: 22/07/2013

Respondent: Hallam Land Management and William Davis

Agent: Marrons

Representation Summary:

Table 1


Table 1 of the Draft Charging Schedule sets out the proposed charges per square metre for new developments. Land to the south of Gallows Hill has been identified as part of Zone B, based upon the accompanying plan contained in Appendix A. However, it is noted that the charge per square metre for residential development and strategic sites allocated in the Local Plan in Zone B (£50 and £30) is not consistent with the findings of the BNP Paribas Viability Report, in particular Table 1.6.1. It would appear that the proposed charge for residential and strategic sites allocated in the Local Plan for Zones A and B is the wrong way round.

Clarity is sought over the proposed residential charges for Zones A and B in view of Table 1.6.1 of the Viability Assessment.

Full text:

Table 1


Table 1 of the Draft Charging Schedule sets out the proposed charges per square metre for new developments. Land to the south of Gallows Hill has been identified as part of Zone B, based upon the accompanying plan contained in Appendix A. However, it is noted that the charge per square metre for residential development and strategic sites allocated in the Local Plan in Zone B (£50 and £30) is not consistent with the findings of the BNP Paribas Viability Report, in particular Table 1.6.1. It would appear that the proposed charge for residential and strategic sites allocated in the Local Plan for Zones A and B is the wrong way round.

Clarity is sought over the proposed residential charges for Zones A and B in view of Table 1.6.1 of the Viability Assessment.

Attachments:

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 53379

Received: 23/07/2013

Respondent: mr william tansey

Representation Summary:

I object to Old Milverton and Blackdown being represented in zone B. They are rural areas and should be represented as such in the CIL Appendix A.
CIL on private development may hinder modernisation of smaller units which require extensive expansion in order to meet modern housing needs: and exemption or discount should be considered - ot CIL levies only where there is an impact on the local infrastructure by the development.
I support the CIL but with the above reservations.

Full text:

I am concerned that the villages of Old Milverton and Blackdown have been designated zone B areas, which would suggest that they have been considered urban. They are quite clearly not and I would hope that this is not an accidental indication of the council's intentions to pursue unwarranted and ill advised development in this area. In general I support the idea of the CIL and the current proposals. I would be concerned about the possible cost to developers in new build floor space exceeding 100m. Where the development is private and for residential use of the developer, this may hinder the modernisation of some buildings with smaller floor space that are not currently suitable for residential living.

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 53451

Received: 24/07/2013

Respondent: Sport England

Representation Summary:

Sport England advocates that new developments should contribute to the sporting and recreational needs of the locality made necessary by their development.

Sport England supports use of planning obligations/community infrastructure levy as a way of securing the provision of new or enhanced places for sport and a contribution towards their future maintenance, to meet the needs arising from new development. This does need to be based on a robust NPPF sport and recreation evidence base. This includes indoor sports facilities (swimming pools, sports halls, etc) as well as playing fields and multi use games courts.

All new dwellings in Warwick DC in the local plan period should provide for new or enhance existing sport and recreation facilities to help create opportunities for physical activity whilst having a major positive impact on health and mental wellbeing.

Two comments we would make on the draft is that CIL contributions should be sought from Offices and industrial. Birmingham City Council have been operating this way in the Longbridge area since the establishment of the APP.

We do not agree that affordable housing should be excempt given the residents will have the opportunity to access the same facilities as commercial housing residents. In some cases more so.

Full text:

Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government's sporting objectives. Maximising the investment into sport and recreation through the land use planning system is one of our priorities. You will also be aware that Sport England is a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields.

The New Sport England Strategy 2012-17 sets a challenge to:
* See more people taking on and keeping a sporting habit for life
* Create more opportunities for young people
* Nurture and develop talent
* Provide the right facilities in the right places
* Support local authorities and unlock local funding
* Ensure real opportunities for communities

Sport England considers Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule in the light of Sport England's 'Planning for Sport & Active Recreation: Objectives & Opportunities' (Interim Statement 2005).

The overall thrust of the statement is that a planned approach to the provision of facilities and opportunities for sport is necessary in order to ensure the sport and recreational needs of local communities are met.


1. COMMENT - Local Plan & CIL Evidence Base

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires each local planning authority to produce a Local Plan for its area. Local Plans should address the spatial implications of economic, social and environmental change. Local Plans should be based on an adequate, up-to-date and relevant evidence base. In addition, para 73 of the NPPF requires that:

"Planning policies should be based on robust and up-to-date assessments of the needs for open space, sports and recreation facilities and opportunities for new provision. The assessment should identify specific needs and quantitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreational facilities in the local area."

This includes a wide range of sport and recreation facilities including playing pitches, courts, swimming pools, sports halls, etc. It stresses that to ensure effective planning for open space, sport & recreation it is essential that the needs of local communities are known. Local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sport and recreation. Assessments will normally be undertaken at district level, although assessments of strategic facilities should be undertaken at regional or sub-regional levels.

Sport England advocates that new developments should contribute to the sporting and recreational needs of the locality made necessary by their development.


2. SUPPORT - Planning Obligations/Community Infrastructure Levy to Sport

Sport England supports use of planning obligations/community infrastructure levy as a way of securing the provision of new or enhanced places for sport and a contribution towards their future maintenance, to meet the needs arising from new development. This does need to be based on a robust NPPF sport and recreation evidence base. This includes indoor sports facilities (swimming pools, sports halls, etc) as well as playing fields and multi use games courts.

All new dwellings in Warwick DC in the local plan period should provide for new or enhance existing sport and recreation facilities to help create opportunities for physical activity whilst having a major positive impact on health and mental wellbeing.

Planning, leisure and sports officers should:

* Assess existing information on the need and demand for sport and recreation provision in terms of how it will assist in creating a CIL charging schedule
* Look at the potential for adapting any existing standard charge approaches to sport, currently used for section 106 agreements, into CIL charges
* Ensure liaison between sport and planning officers results in built sports facilities, as well as outdoor facilities such as playing fields, being included in CIL charging schedules
* Consider how lists of appropriate projects, in areas affected by development, can be established and prioritised for implementation

For information regarding planning obligations for sport:

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities__planning/planning_tools_and_guidance/planning_contributions.aspx

For more information re: sport and CIL:

http://www.sportengland.org/facilities__planning/planning_tools_and_guidance/planning_contributions_-_what/community_infrastructure_levy.aspx

Two comments we would make on the draft is that CIL contributions should be sought from Offices and industrial. Birmingham City Council have been operating this way in the Longbridge area since the establishment of the APP.

We do not agree that affordable housing should be excempt given the residents will have the opportunity to access the same facilities as commercial housing residents. In some cases more so.

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 53619

Received: 26/07/2013

Respondent: Mr Harry Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson LLP

Representation Summary:

It is unclear which sites are included in the 'Strategic Sites' category of Table 1 of the Draft CIL Charging Schedule. The RHF site should be included as a Strategic Site in Zone A at Table 1 with a lower charge of £30/sqm. Consideration should also be given to exemption of the RHF site from CIL.

At Appendix 1 the whole RHF site should be shown in Zone A as a Strategic Site and land between Lillington and Cubbinton, which the SHLAA identifies as not suitable for development, should be shown in Zone D.

Full text:

Paragraph 4.4 and Table 1

It is unclear which sites are included in the 'Strategic Sites' category. The Community Infrastructure Levy Viability Study June 2013 (CIL Viability Study) tests the viability of 5 no. strategic sites (Table 5.2.1 of the CIL Viability Study) but does not state whether these sites represent a sample or a comprehensive list of all such sites to be considered for CIL purposes. Clarification of the categories is needed.
The list of 5 no sites referred to does not include the land at Red House Farm which is allocated at paragraph 5.3 of Warwick District Council's (WDC) Revised Development Strategy (RDS). Bruton Knowles has submitted representations to the RDS on behalf of our mutual client Harry Johnson (Bruton Knowles Representation). Those representations support the allocation of the site referred to at paragraph 5.3 of the RDS but object to the omission of additional land at Red House Farm. The allocated and extension site (RHF site) which is shown edged with a broken and solid red line at Figure 1 of Appendix 1 to the Bruton Knowles Representation comprises 29 ha with an approximate capacity of 400 housing units and is therefore considered to be of strategic importance in terms of realistic delivery of WDC's housing and regeneration framework. Indeed, the capacity and planning merits of the site perform well against sites identified in Appendix 2 of the CIL Viability Study as strategic.
Therefore, if the RHF site is to be considered as 'Residential' within Zone A with a higher proposed CIL charge of £50/sqm, rather than strategic with a lower charge of £30, we would object because when defining development proposals for the RHF site, the issue of affordable housing and infrastructure delivery will be a consideration. Notwithstanding the content of paragraph 5.1 of the Draft Charging Schedule (see below) it is vital that the RHF site is included within the lower proposed charging level of Zone A (£30/sqm) to ensure it is viable and can deliver appropriate regeneration for the Lillington area.
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.

Paragraph 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 RHF site from CIL

Paragraph 5.3

The paragraph states that the proposed charge is considered by the Council to be viable 'based on available evidence'. We would highlight that the Local Plan and Infrastructure Delivery Plan are to be revisited following the updates to the SHMA and that at this time neither the cost of infrastructure nor the gap in funding is known or defined. As such, we would formally reserve our right to make further representations on the Draft CIL Charging Schedule when these critical elements are known.

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.

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 54421

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: WAYC

Representation Summary:

a) Publicise the availability of Community Levy grants to the voluntary sector.
b) Establish a permanent endowment fund of circa £1 million for each proposed community centre which could be run by the Heart of England Community Foundation

Full text:

It would be helpful if the Council could take on the following points:
a) Publicising the availability of the funding from the levy payments to the local voluntary sector who may have ideas for supporting community involvement and development
b) If community Centres are to be built then consideration should be given to establishing a permanent endowment fund that any group who takes on the running of the centre would have access to the revenue from the capital sum towards the running costs but not have access to the actual permanent endowment itself. Realistically such endowment funds would need to be in the region of £1 million. They could be run by the Heart of England Community Foundation and in fact there may be matched funding available towards the contribution.

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 55263

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Environment Agency

Representation Summary:

The Environment Agency has no comments to make on the draft charging schedule, however notes that this will be supported by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan, based upon the infrastructure needs identified within the Revised Development Strategy.

We note that this plan no flood risk infrastructure has been identified, other than Green Infrastructure for the management of river corridors and that the Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (May 2012) also includes no details.

The Environment Agency may have infrastructure in the area that benefits existing development in the district or proposed works in the pipeline that may require developer contributions to move forward. We would welcome the opportunity therefore to be able to feed into this plan to ensure that sustainable flood risk management is in place for the lifetime of the plan.

Full text:

Dear Mr Barber

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY - PRELIMINARY CHARGING SCHEDULE (JUNE 2013)

WARWICK DISTRICT COUNCIL

Thank you for referring the above consultation which was received on 17 June 2013.

The Environment Agency has no comments to make on the draft charging schedule, however notes that this will be supported by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan, based upon the infrastructure needs identified within the Revised Development Strategy.

We note that this plan no flood risk infrastructure has been identified, other than Green Infrastructure for the management of river corridors and that the Draft Infrastructure Delivery Plan (May 2012) also includes no details.

The Environment Agency may have infrastructure in the area that benefits existing development in the district or proposed works in the pipeline that may require developer contributions to move forward. We would welcome the opportunity therefore to be able to feed into this plan to ensure that sustainable flood risk management is in place for the lifetime of the plan.

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 55303

Received: 26/07/2013

Respondent: NFU

Representation Summary:

We welcome the decision not to include agricultural developments within the Charging Schedule. It is vitally important that all agricultural development has a zero rate under the Community Infrastructure Levy (or any future replacement of the CIL). The primary reason for this is that CIL is based on the uplift in land value that occurs when planning permission is granted. However when permission is granted for a new agricultural building there is no uplift in land value, therefore any levy would have to be paid out of revenue which would effectively be a tax on food and potentially affect the economic viability of the farming enterprise. It should also be noted that unlike housing development, agricultural development makes no or at worst a minimal impact on infrastructure.

Full text:

Dear Sir

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

I am writing in response to your consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. The National Farmers' Union represents over 850 farming businesses located throughout the county of Warwickshire. These businesses have an essential role in producing local food and maintaining the landscape by grazing livestock, maintaining hedgerows and participating in agri-environment schemes. We feel that it is important to recognise the needs of these businesses within the CIL document.

Planning policy must allow agricultural and rural businesses to develop and evolve in order to ensure their long term viability. Farms may need to invest in large new buildings or other infrastructure as animal welfare and environmental requirements change. They may also need to diversify their businesses, perhaps by supplying local produce through farm shops.

We welcome the decision not to include agricultural developments within the Charging Schedule. It is vitally important that all agricultural development has a zero rate under the Community Infrastructure Levy (or any future replacement of the CIL). The primary reason for this is that CIL is based on the uplift in land value that occurs when planning permission is granted. However when permission is granted for a new agricultural building there is no uplift in land value, therefore any levy would have to be paid out of revenue which would effectively be a tax on food and potentially affect the economic viability of the farming enterprise. It should also be noted that unlike housing development, agricultural development makes no or at worst a minimal impact on infrastructure.

In accordance with Article 21 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, I may wish to be heard by the examiner if an inquiry into the draft charging schedule is held. Please notify me of any such Inquiry.

I hope that you find our contribution to the CIL consultation useful. If you require further information or clarification of any of the points raised in the response please do not hesitate to contact me at the West Midlands Regional Office.

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 55418

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: WM Morrisons Supermarkets PLC

Agent: Peacock & Smith

Representation Summary:

Supports the proposed CIL rates of £75/sq.m for retail superstores, supermarkets and retail park developments, and £65/sq.m for retail development in the Prime Leamington Spa zone. This level of contribution is unlikely to harm the viability of proposed retail developments of any scale.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 55446

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Gladman Developments

Agent: Carter Jonas

Representation Summary:

The CIL Viability Study on the Council's website has nothing under the appendix headings. They are grouped at the end making study harder.
Residential tariff has not been robustly evidenced and if implemented would have adverse impact on the delivery of new housing (including affordable). Proposed Charging Zones are unduly complex and will lead to inequitable CIL cost burden.
WDC Zones B and D are the second highest rate proposed in the East and West Midlands with only a small area in Dudley being higher and reduced for affordable housing of 25%
WDC is not proposing a differential residential CIL rate to take account of the percentage of affordable housing to be provided. Additionally, Zones B and D cover 90% of the district
The CIL Viability Study notes that one risk of setting a high residential charge rate (that vastly exceeds the current S106 obligations levels) is that it could shock the land market, thus land supply will fall. No evidence is given against which to assess the likely cost differential for different forms of development under S106 and CIL Charging Schedule. In rural areas, under current proposals, it would be likely that there would be a substantial increase in the sums to be paid from new residential schemes towards infrastructure. To reduce the risk, the gap between the level of S106 contributions currently secured per unit and the per unit CIL Charges Rates for much of the district should be reduced by lowering the CIL Charge Rates for Zones B and D.
The proposed boundaries for the Charging Zones are not robustly justified and it is not clear how the Council has determined the need for more than one Charging Zone in and around certain villages e.g Radford Semele.
Residential Development Scenarios:
A major factor influencing development value, and therefore development viability, is the scale and density that is achievable on a site. The Viability Study recognises that in many cases the gross site area will need to be netted down, to make an allowance for site specific constraints, open space provision and landscaping. On large strategic sites the Viability Study assumes only 50% of the gross site area will be used for housing. On other greenfield sites, the assumption is that 67% of the gross site area will be used for housing. Carter Jonas endorses the allowances made to move from gross to net developable site areas.
In rural areas on the edge of settlements it will often be appropriate to reflect the pattern of existing development for any new housing to provide a soft interface between village and countryside. Furthermore the current trend is for detached and semi-detached 2, 3 and 4 bedroom houses. Together, these factors suggest the Viability Study should test low development densities, including 20 dwgs/ha shown in Table 4.11.1. Lower density assumptions will deliver lower Gross Development Values and a reduced sum of money being available for CIL payments.
Affordable Housing Assumptions:
Assumed that 40% of the units on qualifying sites will be affordable split with tenure of 80% rented and 20% intermediate housing. The appraisals assume no grant funding.
The assumed value of affordable housing is considered unreasonable.
Concern in relation to how the assumptions used in the Viability Study fit with those made in the Affordable Housing Viability Assessment, the latter underpinning the affordable housing policy in the emerging Local Plan.
The Affordable Housing Viability Assessment assumes Section 106 costs of £6,650 per unit, when assessing the viability of different percentages of affordable housing. This level of contribution is broadly equivalent to the CIL contribution required in Charge Zone A, but is below the level of contribution required in Charge Zone C, and significantly below the contribution required in Charge Zones B and D. On non-strategic sites in Charge Zone D, the contribution per 3-bedroom unit will be circa £19,000.
The delivery of more affordable housing in Warwick District remains a priority. It is therefore concerning that the Viability Study accepts that as a result of the proposed CIL Charge Rates, a number of developments will only come forward if the Council accepts less than 40% provision.
Financial Assumptions:
The Viability Study is light on evidence in relation to the average sales values. Would like to see the evidence particularly when considering properties on the market with regard to discount against marketing price. Would recommend a 10% discount on new build.
The allowance of £1,500 per dwg. On non-strategic sites for S278 contributions and any residual S106 contributions is considered low.
All residential developers assess development margin requirements against the Gross Development Value of the scheme. Whilst the minimum developer return will vary between house builders at any one time depending upon their own particular circumstances, there is a much closer degree of consistency with traditional bank funders' minimum requirements. For a standard build, the minimum return has been on average 20% of Gross Development Value (for the last two to three years).
BNP Paribas has used 20% of Gross Development Value in their viability modelling. As noted above, this is the minimum return that should be allowed for, with no allowance for non-standard builds.
BNP Paribas has included a 5% contingency provision on build costs. This is supported, and is a basic bank funding requirement, without which funding will not be available.
Benchmark Land Values:
The Viability Study commentary on benchmark land values makes no reference to two leading documents on planning and viability - the RICS Financial Viability in Planning and Viability Testing Local Plans. This is an important and significant oversight. Furthermore, the Viability Study makes reference to a number of appeal decisions published between 2007 and 2009. These decisions were made in a different economic time, and pre-date publication of the RICS Financial Viability in Planning and Viability Testing Local Plans.
To arrive at appropriate bench mark land values. Para 3.4.3 of the RICS Financial Viability in Planning (FVP) is a key consideration. "The residual land value (ignoring any planning obligations and assuming planning permission is in place) and current use value represent the parameters within which to assess the level of any planning obligations. Any planning obligations imposed will need to be paid out of this uplift but cannot use up the whole of this difference, other than in exceptional circumstances, as that would remove the likelihood of the land being released for development."
The gap between the two parameters needs to be understood and a judgement reached in each case as to how the market would assess the "competitive return" for the landowner. In the context of 'competitive returns to a landowner', consideration also needs to be given to Viability Testing Local Plans (VTLP) advice, which complements the RICS advice, stating that:
"....threshold land value should represent the value at which a typical willing landowner is likely to release land for development..."
For greenfield sites, VTLP recommends the use of benchmarks based on local market evidence and typical minimum price provisions used in developer / site promoter agreements involving similar sites. No such evidence is provided in the BNP Paribas Viability Study.
Planning appeal decisions and Secretary of State determinations prior to the publication of FVIP were made in the absence of professional guidance on viability testing. Future decisions / determinations are likely to have regard to the FVIP - so some of the conclusions made in earlier decisions / determinations may now be considered historic.
Example given of post FVIP appeal decision. Suggest that WDC revisits justification for base land values and running more appropriate land values through the model lowering the proposed CIL Charge Rates accordingly.
The cumulative impacts of the issues summarised is likely to lead to a very different view of the viability of the proposed Charge Rates for residential development.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56140

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: The Theatres Trust

Representation Summary:

D1, D2 and some sui generis uses (e.g. theatres) often do not generate sufficient income streams to cover their costs. Consequently, they require some form of subsidy to operate and this type of facility is very unlikely to be built by the private sector.

We therefore suggest for clarity that Table 1 also includes an entry for 'All other uses' as a nil rate as leisure developments are not listed.

Full text:

Thank you for your email of 17 June consulting The Theatres Trust on the CIL preliminary draft charging schedule.

D1, D2 and some sui generis uses (e.g. theatres) often do not generate sufficient income streams to cover their costs. Consequently, they require some form of subsidy to operate and this type of facility is very unlikely to be built by the private sector.

We therefore suggest for clarity that Table 1 also includes an entry for 'All other uses' as a nil rate as leisure developments are not listed.

The Theatres Trust is The National Advisory Public Body for Theatres, and was established by The Theatres Trust Act 1976 to 'promote the better protection of theatres'. The Trust delivers statutory planning advice on theatre buildings and theatre use in England through The Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (DMPO) requires the Trust to be consulted on planning applications which include 'development involving any land on which there is a theatre.'

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56141

Received: 24/07/2013

Respondent: Royal Leamington Spa Town Council

Representation Summary:

Royal Leamington Spa Town Council supports the introduction of the CIL together with the preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, and looks forward to its implementation along with the Neighbourhood Plans which will contribute to the development of the Town within the Local Plan.

Full text:

Dear Sirs,

The Town Council of Royal Leamington Spa has considered the proposals set out in the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule of the Community Infrastructure Levy - June 2013.

The Town Council supports the introduction of the CIL together with the preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, and looks forward to its implementation along with the Neighbourhood Plans which will contribute to the development of the Town within the Local Plan.

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56142

Received: 25/06/2013

Respondent: Network Rail

Representation Summary:

Network Rail believes that developments on the railway infrastructure should be exempt from CIL or that its development should at least be classified as payments in-kind;

We would encourage the railways to be included within the list of the types of infrastructure projects that will be funded through CIL;

It would be beneficial to make it clear within the document that any development associated with the railway (depots, stations, passenger facilities, passenger car parks, offices etc) are exempt or charged at a nil rate. We consider that imposing a charge on one infrastructure project to pay for another is an inefficient way of securing funding.

Full text:

Consultation Response - Network Rail Infrastructure Ltd

Thank you for the opportunity to provide feedback to the proposed CIL for Warwick District.

Network Rail is the "not for dividend" owner and operator of Britain's railway infrastructure, which includes the tracks, signals, tunnels, bridges, viaducts, level crossings and stations - the largest of which we also manage. All profits made by the company, including from commercial development, are reinvested directly back into the network, and any loss of income through the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) represents the direct loss of railway infrastructure investment, and ultimately public transport provision.

Network Rail welcomes the opportunity to respond to the consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule for Warwick District Council, published in June 2013. Network Rail's response to the Draft Charging Schedule is summarised below:

*Network Rail believes that developments on the railway infrastructure should be exempt from CIL or that its development should at least be classified as payments in-kind;

*We would encourage the railways to be included within the list of the types of infrastructure projects that will be funded through CIL;

*We welcome the fact that community facilities are exempt and industrial development is charged at a nil rate. It would be beneficial to make it clear within the document that any development associated with the railway (depots, stations, passenger facilities, passenger car parks, offices etc) are exempt or charged at a nil rate. We consider that imposing a charge on one infrastructure project to pay for another in an inefficient way of securing funding.

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56143

Received: 18/06/2013

Respondent: Federation of Small Businesses

Representation Summary:

CIL will be a new tax on the construction of single dwellings or small developments at a time when the need to build more new housing is one of the biggest challenges facing local authorities.

At the same time affordable hpusing requirements are being extended in the proposed Local Plan, which although this can be waived if development is made unviable, demonstrating this adds another cost and risks development not coming forward. This disproportionate burden is not reflected in the viability modelling.

Have WDC considered, within their viability assessment, the difference between out-of-town retail and prime high street frontage, against secondary trading locations and calculate CIL charges that reflects these differentials? We must encourage development within our town centres.

The FSB calls on WDC to ensure that there is a link between the development paying CIL and the infrastructure it funds.

Full text:

Dear Warwick DC,

In reference to your consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy please find the a response from the Federation of Small Businesses (FSB);

FSB Members are frequently involved in owning or constructing single dwellings or small developments. Prior to the introduction of CIL, these small developments rarely paid Section 106 developer contributions. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be a new tax on these developments at a time when the need to build more new housing is one of the biggest challenges facing local authorities. At the same time, as detailed in your plan, you are extending your requirement for affordable housing to small developments. Although the requirement can be waived if it makes the development unviable, the burden of proof is falling on our members, adding to the cost and risk of development. I believe this disproportionate burden is not reflected in the viability modelling carried out by WDC.

The FSB recognises the requirement to avoid undue complexity in setting differential CIL rates but believes strongly that rates should reflect the real variations in viability by use, size and location of development across your area, and it is encouraging to see this has been considered by WDC. However, have WDC considered, within their viability assessment, the difference between out-of-town retail and prime high street frontage, against secondary trading locations and calculate CIL charges that reflects these differentials? We must encourage development within our town centres.

There is currently no requirement for councils to spend CIL funding on infrastructure in the neighbourhood where it was raised. CIL funding can be switched to fund or maintain infrastructure anywhere in the council area. This undermines and weakens the relationship between the impact and the benefit of a new development. The FSB calls on WDC to ensure that there is a link between the development paying CIL and the infrastructure it funds.

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56144

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Warwickshire County Council

Representation Summary:

Need to work with the County Council to achieve the most effective use of any CIL resource. Suggests that to date the draft schedule would generate around £60 Million. This is £15 million less than the total funding that the principal infrastructure provider (County Council Highways) have highlighted as necessary to support delivery of the Local Plan.

Full text:


See attached.

---
Dear Dave,

Consultation response to the Preliminary Community infrastructure levy (CIL) Charging Schedule

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on Warwick District Council's Preliminary CIL Charging schedule and supporting documents.

The County Council supports the intention of introducing the Community Infrastructure levy within Warwick District.

Planned growth within the District Council will place pressure on the services we provide. We wish to make it clear at the outset that it is unlikely that other sources of funding, including our own resources, will be available to subsidise the commensurate expansion of supporting services. This may mean that some infrastructure projects are delayed or potentially never built. Careful consideration needs to be given when prioritising infrastructure projects against the pressures of growth and we recognise the difficult balance that needs to be struck. We look forward to working with you to achieve the most effective use of any CIL resource.

The delivery of the necessary infrastructure will largely depend on strong and close partnership working. We need to work together on a continuous basis to bring about the timely delivery of the necessary infrastructure to deliver the sustainable ambitions for growth.

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56148

Received: 26/07/2013

Respondent: H E Johnson

Agent: Bond Dickinson LLP

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 4.4 and Table 1

It is unclear which sites are included in the 'Strategic Sites' category. The CCIL Viability Study tests the viability of 5 no. strategic sites (Table 5.2.1) but does not state whether these sites represent a sample or a comprehensive list of all such sites to be considered for CIL purposes. Clarification of the categories is needed.

The list of 5 no sites referred to does not include the land at Red House Farm which is allocated in the RDS. Respondent supports allocation but objects to omission of additional land at Red House Farm.

Therefore, if the RHF site is to be considered as 'Residential' within Zone A with a higher proposed CIL charge of £50/sqm, rather than strategic with a lower charge of £30, we would object because when defining development proposals for the RHF site, the issue of affordable housing and infrastructure delivery will be a consideration. Notwithstanding the content of paragraph 5.1 of the Draft Charging Schedule (see below) it is vital that the RHF site is included within the lower proposed charging level of Zone A (£30/sqm) to ensure it is viable and can deliver appropriate regeneration for the Lillington area.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56150

Received: 13/08/2013

Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)

Agent: AMEC

Representation Summary:

IDP
Concerned that the Council has limited evidence on infrastructure costs and that the infrastructure being considered at the time of PDC Schedule is based on a different development strategy/level of growth to that currently proposed.

It is important that the IDP is updated to reflect the contents of the RDS. Concerned that the Draft Charging Schedule needs to reflect a final (definitive IDP) and that the relationship between CIL and s106 needs clarification.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56156

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Sainsbury's Supermarkets Ltd

Agent: Turley Associates

Representation Summary:

It is not clear from the consultation document what the full list of infrastructure to be funded from CIL.
The connection between needs generated by retail development as opposed to housing need to be fully explained in the charging schedule.
Section 216 of the Planning Act 2008 states that CIL regulations must require the authority that charges CIL to apply it, or cause it to be applied to funding infrastructure. Legislation does not allow it to be used to support general aspirations for improvements. It is not clear whether the Infrastructure Delivery Plan reflects this.

Full text:

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.

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56158

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Representation Summary:

With regard to the proposed CIL rate for hotel development the district.
Evidence appears to be derived from only one example (The Wantage, Stratford), which is inadequate. Hotel development in Warwick or Leamington may need to be of substantially higher build quality, increasing the costs set out in para 4.40.1 of the Viability Study.
The example at Stratford was for a 130 room hotel and benefitted from economies of scale. Many sites in Warwick and Leamington are relatively small and may not be able to accommodate development of that size. Accordingly costs per room will increase affecting viability.
The example makes an assumption that some floor space is existing. The refurbishment cost is given at £50sq ft. Doubts if this would be adequate in the context of a Listed Building. Given the numbers of Listed Buildings in Warwick the extraordinary costs of such projects should be considered.
A hotel may be necessary to generate funds for the refurbishment of 'heritage assets'. The CIL level as set out may undermine this more. A more detailed analysis is required before setting CIL for hotels.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56159

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: University of Warwick

Agent: Turley

Representation Summary:

Concerned about the proposed charge for student accommodation (£80 per sqm)
Would like clarification on the University being 'exempt' if It were to develop its own accommodation off campus.
Surprised that student accommodation attracts such a high CIL charge compared to other sues. Considers that the CIL levy will impede the delivery of sufficient student accommodation in the District over the Plan period.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56160

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: A C Lloyd Homes Ltd and Northern Trust

Agent: Framptons

Representation Summary:

Further justification for the CIL rates in the PDC Schedule as it progress to adoption.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56161

Received: 26/07/2013

Respondent: Home Builders Federation Ltd

Representation Summary:

Confusion regarding zones A and B between para 4.3 and the zoning map caused by typing errors.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56162

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: West Midlands HARP Planning Consortium

Agent: Tetlow King Planning Ltd.

Representation Summary:

Main concern is that affordable housing delivery is not squeezed by CIL charges that are set too high. The delivery of affordable housing should be a fundamental consideration for LPAs when setting rates.
Would like reassurance that the Council has fully tested the 40% target against the prescribed CIL rates.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56163

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Burman Brothers

Agent: Bigwood Asociates Ltd

Representation Summary:

Recognises the differential rates proposed for the strategic and non strategic sites. Does not agree that the rural/outlying areas should pay more than the major urban areas of Warwick, Leamington and Kenilworth (thus recognising land values).
Therefore propose a ceiling level of £200 for zone D (residential) and (strategic sites). Believes that rural sites in table 4.4 of the RDS and particularly primary and secondary service villages should be accepted as strategic.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56164

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd

Agent: The Planning Bureau

Representation Summary:

Considers it vitally important that the emerging CIL does not prohibit the development of specialist accommodation for the elderly at a time when there is an existing and urgent need for this form of development. And that by not properly assessing this form of development the proposed CIL rate would threaten the delivery of the Development Plan.

The preliminary draft charging schedule, whilst providing different rates throughout the District based on viability, provides a uniform CIL levy rate for all forms of residential development and does not differentiate between houses, flats and specialist accommodation.

Whilst there is an understandable desire to keep charging rates as simple as possible the broad inclusion of some retirement housing within a general housing heading fails to acknowledge the special viability issues associated with such specialist accommodation.

Given the extent of projected housing need for older person's accommodation it is paramount that the Warwick District CIL schedule recognises the potential shortcomings of providing a uniform CIL rate. It is for these reasons we recommend a bespoke CIL rate for sheltered housing and other forms of specialist accommodation.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56165

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Trilogy

Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners

Representation Summary:

Paragraph 173 of the NPPF explains that pursuing sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan making and decision taking, ensuring that sites are not subject to a scale of obligations that would threaten the viability of delivering development.
The proposed PDCS sets out the proposed charges for different forms of development on a £s per sq.m basis. Trilogy has the following comments to make on the different charging levels and the different land uses.
The overarching context of Trilogy's comments relate to the Station Brief Area. An area that has significant infrastructure and site remediation costs associated with it. Any CIL charge applicable to any development in the Station Area requires detailed scrutiny to ensure it does not compromise Local Plan policy objectives for the Station Area.

Full text:

see attached

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56261

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Linda Bromley

Representation Summary:

CIL

The NPPF (175) states "Where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place."

You have not provided information on these charges at all. I do not believe that there will be anywhere near the amount of funding available from CIL to cover the above extra infrastructure needs, especially new roads, bridges, schools and hospital. The hospital currently is in crisis and there is no room to extend. Funding for a new hospital is in doubt.

Full text:

Consultation Response to New WDC Local Plan Preferred Options Paper

I am writing to object to the proposal for 12,300 houses in Warwick District and nearly 4,000 new houses in Warwick. In objecting I refer to the National Planning Policy Framework which "aims to strengthen local decision making and reinforce the importance of up-to-date plans".

Population Growth

The NPPF states that there should be a clear strategy "taking account of the needs of the residential and business communities".

Why has the number of 12,300 been proposed which is higher than the 10,800 proposed in the Core Strategy and was strongly resisted by Warwick District Council at that time? The West Midlands Regional Office was vehemently criticised by WDC for producing these flawed and untenable figures. Your figures do not comply with WCC population figures and are therefore unreliable. A 40% increase in Warwick's population over 15 years is clearly unsustainable and will cause immense damage to the character of the County Town. Migration from other areas into Warwick's more attractive green environment has produced most of the population growth. The provision of more houses will encourage more migration and Warwick will no longer be an attractive area. The new Plan should cater for LOCAL needs not migration into the area. You have included figures to cover an increase in students but they should be housed near the Universities not in the District, especially in south Leamington. Increasingly high concentrations of students in certain areas is an issue of concern.

Regarding your assumptions on the demand for housing, given that more than 50% of national population growth has been from immigration over the last two decades, and the government has publicly stated it wishes to greatly reduce this future net immigration, why is Warwick District planning for an even greater level of growth over the next 15 years, than has been experienced in the recent past? Warwick District population has increased by 12% since 2000, which is approximately twice the rate of increase for Warwickshire, twice the national average increase, and over three times the increase for West Midlands. Warwick Councillors asked that the proposed development should be equitably distributed over the District but half of the homes proposed in the new Local Plan are south of Warwick.
Warwick has had its fair share of development over the years with major estates at Warwick Gates and Chase Meadow (with further development allocated), Hatton Park, along the Myton Road and many other infillings. This is far greater than other areas in the District and history has shown that the necessary infrastructure has never been put in place.

The NPPF (48) states that Local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five-year supply". 1,224 properties have planning permission or a planning brief at the moment and yet you do not appear to have taken these into consideration. This would equate to a two-year supply of houses. I do not believe our authority has identified and brought back into residential use the 300-400 empty houses and buildings (NPPF 51) to the extent they should have done. Not all empty homes have been identified. New planning laws now allow unused office space to be converted to housing and his should be taken into account in the housing projections.

We have not been given information on where the 'missing' 6,000 homes are proposed to be built. Why not? You have stated at Aylesford School that this has not been decided yet. How can we make informed representations without the full facts being presented in the proposed new Local Plan?

The validity of your forecast projections of housing need has been seriously questioned. Evidence submitted by Cllr. Ray Bullen demonstrates that there is a 5 year housing land supply. The last 5 year housing land supply document is dated November 2012. It is out of date. The NPPF 153 says the " Local Plan .......can be reviewed in whole or in part to respond flexibly to changing circumstances". Therefore the out of date 5 year plan should be updated immediately to take account of those changing circumstances.

Research by Cllr. Ray Bullen shows that only 5,400 homes are necessary for local need which allows for moving in and out of the area based on what happened in last 10 years (births/deaths/migration). 12,300 includes economic growth but if jobs don't materialise unemployment will rise. Unemployment is low 1.6% currently. We need a homes/jobs balance. If we are looking to build housing you then have to match employment to housing. There appears to be no current evidence of a demand for employment development schemes. Employment land currently available cannot attract employers so cannot justify building 12,300 houses, e.g. the lack of interest in office space at Morrisons. Where will we find employment to match housing? The large office block plan at IBM is now being used for housing (windfall site).

The NPPF requires 'sustainable development'. The three criteria of sustainability are environmentally, economically and socially sustainable. The development south of Warwick is not sustainable.

I believe that the only motivation for WDC producing such figures for demand is the income that will benefit WDC in New Homes Bonus, rent, rates, council tax monies etc.

Stratford-on-Avon is currently consulting on the possible provision of some 4,500 houses in Gaydon and Lighthorne and this would impact on the need for houses in Warwick District. Local authorities have a duty to co-operate but WDC have not had discussions as yet with SoA.

Brownfield Sites

The NPPF (111) states "Planning policies and decisions should encourage the effective use of land by re-using land that has been previously developed (brownfield land) provided that it is not of high environmental value. Local planning authorities may continue to consider the case for setting a locally appropriate target for the use of brownfield land."

So why are we not making it a priority to develop brownfield sites first and regenerate poorer housing in urban areas? The Ford Foundry site is a prime example of revitalising an eyesore of a brownfield site to vastly improve the area and bring it back into good use. There are many more examples of brownfield sites in Warwick District which could be regenerated.

Green Belt

The NPPF (79) states "The Government attaches great importance to Green Belts. The fundamental aim of Green Belt policy is to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The essential characteristics of Green Belts are their openness and their permanence."

An incredible 37% of the 11,000 homes proposed for Warwick District are to be built on the land south-east of Warwick, covering nearly all of the green space between the Banbury Road, Greys Mallory, Europa Way, Myton and the Technology Park. This would mean estates more than three times the size of Warwick Gates, Woodloes Park or Chase Meadow!

The NPPF (76) states "By designating land as Local Green Space local communities will be able to rule out new development other than in very special circumstances". "Once established, Green Belt boundaries should only be altered in exceptional circumstances." (NPPF 83) Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt is that "there is nowhere else to build" (your quote at the Warwick Society Meeting).

NPPF (88) states "When considering any planning application, local planning authorities should ensure that substantial weight is given to any harm to the Green Belt. 'Very special circumstances' will not exist unless the potential harm to the Green Belt by reason of inappropriateness, and any other harm, is clearly outweighed by other considerations.." The exceptions given in NPPF 89 and 90 do not apply in your proposed Local Plan. Our Green Space is already designated.and I am objecting to this scale of development which will undoubtedly impact negatively on the character of Warwick and the quality of life of existing residents. Why are we facing urban sprawl rather than the housing being spread equitably around the District as you stated was your aim? The previous Core Strategy stated that 90% of the population live in the urban areas and 10% in rural areas. Yet in the new Plan less than 10% of housing is proposed for villages, some of which, such as Barford, would welcome more homes including low-cost housing to build up sustainable communities with schools and facilities and meet the need for affordable rural housing. Those that grew up in the villages and wish to remain there would then have the opportunity to do so. I would propose that at least another 1,000 could be spread around the villages and the number proposed for Warwick reduced.

Stratford-on-Avon have said there are exceptional circumstances to develop on certain areas of Green Belt. Why doesn't WDC take same point of view? There is land available north of Leamington and in Kenilworth which is nearer to employment in Coventry and the Gateway.

Coalescence

The area to the west of Europa Way was identified as an area of restraint at the time of planning the Warwick Technology Park. It was put forward as an untouchable green buffer zone to separate Warwick from Leamington Spa to prevent the two towns becoming one urban sprawl. The current Local Plan states in para 9.11, "It is important to protect the areas of restraint from development proposals that could alter their predominantly open character. Their value and importance lies in their contribution to the structure and character of the urban area, providing open areas in and around towns and preserving open wedges that separate one urban area from the next." The District has 85% green belt but 45% of this is to be built on, thus reducing the gap between conurbations. The green space threatened is valued rich and versatile agricultural land, essential for food self-sufficiency, environmentally precious landscape with many wildlife habitats and biodiversity including owls, uncommon woodpeckers, roe deer and badgers. This green space also prevents coalescence which you declare is one of your aims. Our existing green space provides open space, sports and recreation and such land, including playing fields, should not be built on! The NPPF 109 states "the planning system should contribute to and enhance the natural and local environment by:
* protecting and enhancing valued landscapes, geological conservation interests and soils;
* recognising the wider benefits of ecosystem services;
* minimising impacts on biodiversity and providing net gains in biodiversity where possible, contributing to the Government's commitment to halt the overall decline in biodiversity, including by establishing coherent ecological netwoerks that are more resilient to current and future pressures."

Alternative Sites

The previous Core Strategy identified several other sites with potential for housing. Local villages where there are good transport links and the potential to improve road access should be developed rather than the urban fringe development of Warwick. The Warwick Parkway area provides a first class rail link. Hatton has a station and easy access to the A46 and Barford has immediate access to the M40 and A46. Two other areas of potential for large scale housing provision are Radford Semele and Lapworth which already have infrastructure to cope with further development, with good public transport, roads and a railway station.

This in turn would mean much smaller developments around Warwick would therefore be required. Although you state that there are three gas lines near Bishops Tachbrook. I can see from the map that there is an area to the west which could take some housing whilst avoiding the gas lines. There are other areas which were identified in the Core Strategy options which have not been considered this time, such as the A46 corridor and further development at Sydenham. The commercial units at Sydenham have mostly closed and been boarded up and would offer an ideal brownfield site for development.

Yet your reason for allocating development on Green Belt, against the National Planning Policy Framework is that "there is nowhere else to build". This argument is totally flawed and I would expect the Inspector to find this Plan unsound on this issue.

The NPPF (17) states that planning should be "empowering local people to shape their surroundings."

Why has this amount of housing been proposed for South Warwick when the previous consultation on the Core Strategy produced a 97% response in overwhelming opposition to housing here (700 objecting to the Europa Way, Gallows Hill and Banbury Road area.. Why were those results not heeded when you devised the new Plan? These plans do not reflect the aspirations of the community as the Government intended in the Localisation Act.

Flood Risk

The NPPF (94) states that "Local planning authorities should adopt proactive strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change, taking full account of flood risk". Also "Local Plans should take account of climate change over the longer term, including factors such as flood risk....." and (NPPF 99) "When new development is brought forward in areas which are vulnerable, care should be taken to ensure that risks can be managed through suitable adaptation measures, including through the planning of green infrastructure." We already have existing green infrastructure to mitigate against water run-off and flood risk but you are proposing to build on it!

The NPPF (101) states "The aim of the Sequential Test is to steer new development to areas with the lowest probability of flooding. Development should not be allocated or permitted if there are reasonably available sites appropriate for the proposed development in areas with a lower probability of flooding. The Strategic Flood Risk Assessment will provide the basis for applying this test." There are other available sites as already stated. "A site-specific flood risk assessment must demonstrate that the development will be safe for its lifetime taking account of the vulnerability of its users, without increasing flood risk elsewhere, and, where possible, will reduce flood risk overall." (NPPF 102)

Europa Way and an area to the south of Gallows Hill are in flood zones and at significant risk of flooding, yet housing is proposed in Flood Zone 1, adjacent to Zones 2 and 3. Areas at risk of flooding have always been designated areas of restraint but you are dispensing with these. More concrete on green fields here which currently soak up heavy rainfall must increase water run-off and impact on the areas of Warwick which already suffer from flooding, especially around Myton Road and Bridge End. You have received photographic evidence of flooding from properties in Myton Crescent and the Malins. When the Warwick Technology Park was created, there were severe flooding problems in the adjacent Myton Gardens. The field donated to Myton school as a restricted covenant playing field has proved to be unusable because of water-logging, demonstrating on-going water-management problems. Even more relevant to the Malins and Myton Crescent was the severe flooding in 2007 caused by the re-orientation of the water run-off flows and the disturbance and removal of top soil from the Round Oak School playing fields behind Myton Crescent. It was only after threats to sue the County Council that remedial action was taken. This consisted of a bund to capture excess run-off and a pump situated in the north-west corner to return water uphill into the drain near the Round Oak School. This action has proved ineffective and inadequate as run-off water has periodically flowed into the gardens most recently in October 2012 when the water level reached was only a few inches below the level of the electricity sub-station situated between 26 Myton Crescent and 1 The Malins.

The field at the end of The Malins slopes upwards from The Malins and run-off water from adjacent fields above and to the right and behind also flows towards The Malins and Myton Crescent. When there is a downpour on saturated ground, water flows quickly down, fills up the lower parts of the field and collects in the gardens of nos. 26, 28 and 30 Myton Crescent, and overflows into the gardens of nos. 3 and 12 The Maslins and towards no. 1 The Malins and the electricity sub-station. There is little indication that the seriousness of this flooding is being taken into account.

Ignoring flood risk is contrary to NPPF 100 "Inappropriate development in areas at risk of flooding should be avoided by directing development away from areas at highest risk, but where development is necessary, making it safe without increasing flood risk elsewhere." The previous Core Strategy decided that this area may not be needed for development in the future being an area of restraint and the worst area for infrastructural needs. Development is not necessary in these areas of flood risk and should be avoided, certainly not put into the first phase for building. Home-owners would also face being turned down for insurance in postcodes where there is flood risk. This problem will possibly increase next year when the agreement between the Government and the Insurance Association ends. This area you have designated for building is vital for flood alleviation and should not be built on at all. At the very least it should be the last designated site.


Density

Garden Town suburbs sound admirable but naiïve when you look at the number of buildings proposed and the impact on the environment. This concept did not materialise in Warwick Gates or Chase Meadow and developers will build at high density for increased profit margins. 1,100 houses were first proposed for Chase Meadow and now it is to be 1,600. WDC has no budget for tree maintenance and developers cannot be relied upon to carry this out, as we have seen in other recent developments. Warwick Gates school and Chase Meadow play area never materialised but £1.4m of Chase Meadows developers' contribution was used instead for St. Nicholas Park remediation. They were then allowed to build more houses on the area allocated for sport/play area at CM. After 14 years Chase Meadow still has unadopted roads, only just received its link road to the local school and the prospect of a community centre for sports provision and social interaction. Developers will not be persuaded to build at 30 units per hectare and there is no means of insisting on this. This is just a red herring in our opinion, as are green wedges since you admitted that where these are proposed, you will be reliant on private landowners to permit their development. Once again, funding for this would be dependent on developers' contributions and these monies, being in short supply, would be diverted for other more essential infrastructure.

Coventry Council should also provide more dwellings for Warwick University students which would free up hundreds of dwellings (including Station House with over 200 student flats) in the South of Leamington to private affordable starter homes and family homes. WDC have recently been forced to change their planning policy because of the problematic increase in HMOS in the District.

Infrastructure

The NPPF (17) states that strategies should "deliver sufficient community and cultural facilities and services to meet Local needs". Also (NPPF 162) "Local planning authorities should work with other authorities and providers to:

* assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands and

* take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas."

Yet you confirm that infrastructure will not be put in place before building commences but that you hope that infrastructure will be provided from developers' contributions, whilst admitting that this may not raise enough to cover escalating costs of new roads, bridges, schools, extra health provision, policing, fire service, community centres etc. If left to developers, history has shown this may not happen. Infrastructure needs will then be prioritised and some areas may miss out. You have admitted that infrastructure proposals will be prioritised and there will be a cut-off point when the money runs out. We have seen no architects' proposed site plans showing each area with all the necessary infrastructure in place. You have provided no idea of potential costs at all. You have provided no results of studies at all. Warwick has already lost its police station and fire station, roads are completely congested at peak times, schools are drastically oversubscribed and have no places (particularly Myton which is the catchment area), the hospital is at breaking point and cannot cope with the load, having day surgeries, evening clinics and Saturdays to clear backlogs and lack of parking leads to innumerable late attendance for appointments, and the police haven't a clue how they can cope with more communities. Utilities such as water, sewers, electricity provision will have to be provided at escalating massive cost. The public sewer discharges to Longbridge Water Treatment Works. Severn Trent currently transport sewage from Longbridge to Coventry by tanker several times a day. They do not have the capacity now to deal with sewage at the Longbridge site and it is inconceivable how they will cope with sewage from another 4,000 houses in Warwick. How many more tankers will be required and at what extra cost?

Buses have not proved to be sustainable. The only service for Myton Road is one per hour and no-one uses it.

CIL

The NPPF (175) states "Where practical, Community Infrastructure Levy charges should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan. The Community Infrastructure Levy should support and incentivise new development, particularly by placing control over a meaningful proportion of the funds raised with the neighbourhoods where development takes place."

You have not provided information on these charges at all. I do not believe that there will be anywhere near the amount of funding available from CIL to cover the above extra infrastructure needs, especially new roads, bridges, schools and hospital. The hospital currently is in crisis and there is no room to extend. Funding for a new hospital is in doubt.

Air Quality/Traffic

The NPPF (17) states that the Plan should "support the transition to a low carbon future" and contribute to "reducing pollution". Also "Local planning authorities should plan for new development in locations and ways which reduce greenhouse gas emissions." (NPPF 95)

The NPPF (17) states that policies should "recognise town centres as the heart of their communities and pursue policies to support their viability and vitality". (30) "Encouragement should be given to solutions which support reductions in greenhouse gas emissions and reduce congestion". Also (NPPF 124) "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

The Traffic Assessment commissioned states, "Schemes proposed within the modelling at this stage have not been tested to a sufficient level of detail to determine that they are the optimum solution" and "an obvious concern surrounding the implementation of this strategy is that this will result in an increase in the overall levels of traffic travelling through the town centre"!

The traffic congestion that Warwick already suffers will increase by a possible 6,000+ extra cars from extra South Warwick housing alone, let alone the increase from 12,300 new homes, bringing with it increased pollution in areas where air quality is already over the limit. The Warwick District Air Quality action plan 2008 identified the entire road network within Warwick town centre as exceeding maximum NO2 levels as set out in the Air Quality Regulations (England) (Wales) 2000. Air quality remains in breach of these regulations and will become toxically high with the 27% increase in traffic volume resulting from the Local Plan preferred options. There is no management plan to address these levels. The Government says there is a definite link between pollution and traffic causing health problems such as asthma, some cancers, heart problems, etc. The County Council admitted that air quality will suffer as carbon emissions will increase in surburban sprawl. There are schools in the town and in the areas of high traffic congestion such as Myton and Banbury Roads with playgrounds and playing fields and children are already being exposed to nitrous-dioxide above legally permitted levels, risking asthma and all the other health problems associated with pollution. You admitted that you did not know how the carbon emissions could be reduced by the 20% currently necessary. It therefore seems incredible that the large-scale housing developments on the edge of Warwick are suggested with a likely 40% increase in the town's population, over 15 years. This will inevitably add to the congestion and air pollution; so why is it in the plan on this scale?

The 2008 Air Quality Action plan for Warwick shows the very worst area being Warwick town centre and states on page 17:-

Policy ER.2: Environmental Impact of Development
"The environmental impact of all proposed development on human beings, soil, fauna, flora, water, air, climate, the landscape geology, cultural heritage and material assets must be thoroughly assesse, and measures secured to mitigate adverse environmental effects to acceptable levels. Local plans should include policies to ensure this takes place. The impact of existing sources of environmental pollution on the occupants of any proposed new development should also be taken into account. Ass assessment of environmental impact should take account of, and where possible seek to reduce, uncertainty over the implications of the proposed development. If adverse impacts cannot be mitigated to acceptable levels, development will not be permitted."

NPPF 124 states, "Planning policies should sustain compliance with and contribute towards EU limit values or national objectives for pollutants, taking into account the presence of Air Quality Management Areas and the cumulative impacts on air quality from individual sites in local areas. Planning decisions should ensure that any new development in Air Quality Management Areas is consistent with the local air quality action plan."

I request that a Health Impact Assessment will be carried out including air quality testing well before any Local Plan in its current form is approved.

The NPPF (34) states that "Plans and decisions should ensure developments that generate significant movement are located where the need to travel will be minimised and the use of sustainable transport modes can be maximised." "A key tool to facilitate this will be a Travel Plan" (NPPF 36). All developments which generate significant amounts of movement should be required to provide a Travel Plan". We have not seen such a Travel Plan.

Myton Road, Banbury Road, Europa Way, Castle Bridge, Emscote Road and Prince's Drive are all highly congested with long queues or at a standstill at peak times including the Town centre and often emergency vehicles cannot negotiate a way through, even via the pavements. If the closed Warwick Fire Station were to be relocated at Queensway, their vehicles would experience increased problems and response times would be worsened. There is a suggestion that Europa Way could be widened but this would exacerbate bottlenecks when the traffic reaches the roundabouts. The County say they can mitigate but not contain the resulting increase in traffic and admit there are places where congestion will worsen. One of the mitigation measures suggested includes a gyratory system at the Castle island which, with its traffic lights etc. will severely harm the setting of the castle in a conservation area. The green space forms the approach to Warwick and views from Warwick Castle. WDC say the area south of Warwick is environmentally sensitive but then put it in for development - why? Traffic would increase at the Butts, the narrowest road in the town and the no right turn plan for St. Nicholas Church Street would impact severely on the economy of Smith Street. Vibrancy of the town centre is important. Think about what the effect will be on people sitting outside cafés in danger of being knocked over and pollution from all the traffic being funnelled through Warwick. People won't want to shop in Warwick because they won't be able to get into the town. It will be the destruction of Warwick and the people who want to shop here. There will be an adverse affect on Tourism.

Parks

In the new Local Plan our parks will not be sufficiently protected from development by the old area of restraint policy we once had.

Historic Environment

Pinch points at bridges cannot be alleviated and the 300-year old Castle Bridge already carries 20,000 vehicles per day and cannot sustain an increase in traffic without threat to its very structure. We should be trying to reduce this traffic to prevent the bridge collapsing, not increase it. We need an impact assessment to ensure its conservation. English Heritage have offered to help with this.

The NPPF (112) states "As heritage assets are irreplaceable, any harm or loss should require clear and convincing justification. Substantial harm to or loss of a grade II listed building, park or garden should be exceptional." The precious historic and listed buildings in Warwick are being damaged by traffic vibration and pollution and this problem will only worsen. Increased commuting traffic must not be funnelled through Warwick's congested urban centre. Danger to schoolchildren and others is currently problematic on our roads and will be exacerbated near schools such as at Woodloes and Aylesford/Newburgh.. We are given no concrete proposals for new roads, only ideas. A North Leamington relief road suggestion could cost £50million+ and the idea that the A452 could be routed to the Fosse - one of the most dangerous roads in the County is preposterous. The proposal to create a dual carriageway along Europa Way to alleviate the traffic queuing off and on to the M40 will have the opposite effect at the eastern end of Myton Road with the addition of Morrisons and the proposed trading estate and Aldi supermarket all exiting out on to the double roundabout system. The present Plan does not address these traffic problems sufficiently and should be "refused on transport grounds where the residual cumulative impacts of development are severe" (NPPF 32).

Gypsies and Travellers Sites

Why are 15 of the proposed sites south of Warwick and only 3 north of Warwick?

Conclusion

You state that in 2026 Warwick District will be renowned for being "A mix of historic towns and villages set within an attractive rural landscape of open farmland and parklands that have developed and grown in a way which has protected their individual characteristics and identities....." In my opinion this could not be farther from the truth.

The above comments demonstrate that this Plan is seriously flawed. It is not specific to the needs or the character of this area and the necessary infrastructure is not deliverable. I believe the Planning Inspector will declare it unsound, especially on the air quality issue. It cannot be justified as "the most appropriate strategy, when considered against the reasonable alternatives, based on proportionate evidence" and it is not "Consistent with national policy - the plan should enable the delivery of sustainable development in accordance with the policies in the Framework." (NPPF 182)

This Plan should be completely revised taking account of the above, specifically reducing the numbers of housing proposed for Warwick.

Object

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56275

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Gallagher Estates

Agent: Pegasus Group

Representation Summary:

A significant proportion of the new housing proposed to be delivered through the Local Plan is on greenfield sites. Harman guidance points out the costs of servicing large greenfield sites and the significance of understanding these. This should be referred to in any update of the evidence base.

Full text:

see attached

Attachments:

Support

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representation ID: 56915

Received: 29/07/2013

Respondent: Rugby Borough Council

Representation Summary:

Rugby Borough Council are satisfied with the content of the consultation document

Full text:

see attached

Attachments: