CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Support
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63307
Received: 13/08/2013
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
Welcomes the fact that the viability study is based on current market conditions and takes into account high infrastructure costs for strategic sites. The Trust is supportive of WDC's intention.
Supports a separate charging rate on strategic sites and selection of the lower element of the ranges identified. The reference to an instalment policy is welcomed.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63308
Received: 13/08/2013
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
Questions how realistic the 40% affordable housing assumption Does not think that 40% affordable housing will be viable on urban extension sites in the District.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63309
Received: 13/08/2013
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
Concerned that if housing supply levels rise then house prices could fall locally. As a consequence this will have viability implications.
The sensitivity testing (to reduced house prices by 5%) is not considered to be enough. Sensitivity testing should include a 10% and 15% reduction in prices.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63310
Received: 13/08/2013
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
Build cost assumptions in the PDC schedule are considered to be too low and should include an allowance for Lifetime Homes.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63311
Received: 13/08/2013
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
A developer return of 20% GDV has been assumed for market housing and 6% for affordable homes. 20% is considered too low in the current housing market with 25% considered reasonable.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63312
Received: 13/08/2013
Respondent: King Henry VIII Endowed Trust (Warwick)
Agent: AMEC
Have concerns about the five sites that were considered in the viability study. Blackdown is now not in the RDS and it would have a much higher land value than sites to the South of Warwick and Leamington.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63313
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
The Viability Assessment bases the assumptions for supermarkets, superstores and retail parks on a 30000 sqft store. No explanation is given of why this size store is used and the implications of its uses on retail proposals of differing sizes and different natures, for example a store extension as opposed to a new store.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63314
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
The build costs of £97 per sq ft for supermarkets, superstores and retail parks are significantly below that of other retail stores in the District at £150 per sq ft without an explanation. It is not stated whether this includes fit out.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63315
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
The demolition costs are a key variable. At £5 Per sqft for all retail units they are a significant underestimate for a major redevelopment such as the former Fords Foundry. This low figure gives a greater financial advantage to the redevelopment sites with no demolition costs above those with high demolition and site clearance, including contamination costs.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63316
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
No analysis is provided to differentiate whether the store is to be brought forward via a freehold or leasehold. Rents may be impacted by planning conditions.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63317
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
The schedules do not state how retail uses will be considered as part of a mixed use scheme. Retail uses can provide support to other uses that drive the delivery of wider benefits as seen at the Fords Foundry site. This has the potential to put the delivery of retail development and associated development and regeneration at risk.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63318
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
The development costs contingency is set at 5% this should increase to 10%
The assumption on professional fees 10% is too low it should be at least 12%
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63319
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
The basis for review of the CIL charging rates is noted; however that regular basis is not stipulated. In the case of the initial CIL rates that review should be early.
see attached
Support
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63320
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
Office Use -concurs with the conclusion that new office developments are unlikely to be viable unless rents increase significantly.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63321
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
Industrial and warehousing - The trilogy site is not identified for a residential use and it is an anomaly that it is in the zone B residential charging band. It should be in zone A with the rest of the Station Area Brief area where significant initial funding is needed to bring forward previously developed land.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63322
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Trilogy
Agent: Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners
Instalment policy- if this is to assist developers then payments must coincide with the generation of income from the development. Otherwise the CIL payment will have the potential to place a huge burden on the delivery of development.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63323
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]
In light of the significant funding gap WCC's recommendation is that WDC reconsiders its approach set out in the PDCS.
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.
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63324
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: Warwickshire County Council [Archaeological Information and Advice]
Transport Matters - The County Council is extremely concerned that the strategic sites identified in the Local Plan are dependent on them bringing forward a significant proportion of the finance for transport mitigation as they are located on strategic transport corridors. Although the District Council is concerned regarding viability, this does not concur with the discussions that the County Council have had with the main developers who have expressed a strong indication that they are willing to deliver the major highway improvement works identified by the County Council for their transport mitigation proposals.
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.
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63328
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
Agent: The Planning Bureau
Empty property costs - Properties can only be sold on completion of the development and the establishment of all the communal facilities and on -site house manager. These communal areas cost additional monies to construct and are effectively subsidised by the developer until all the development has been completely sold out. This is a considerable financial responsibility as it usually takes a number of years to fully sell a development.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63329
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
Agent: The Planning Bureau
Build costs - Sheltered housing costs are 6.65 more expensive than the cost of building apartments. It is stated that specialist housing for the elderly tends to remain in the region of 5% more expensive to construct than apartments and generally between 15 to 20% more expensive than estate housing.
see attached
Object
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Representation ID: 63330
Received: 29/07/2013
Respondent: McCarthy and Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd
Agent: The Planning Bureau
Instalments policy - Would welcome flexibility in the timing of payments.
see attached