Draft Charging Schedule - Jan 2017

No specific comments to make other than the proposal seems broadly in line with adopted CIL policies within neighbouring Local Authorities.

Just a nitpicking comment - while it is implied that other uses not listed in table 2 are a nil rate by their omission, it may be useful to replace the final line for D1/ D2 with 'All other uses' to avoid future ambiguity.

I am unhappy that land at Blackdown is identified for housing when the site is not in the current Draft Local Plan.
It should not be there.

I do not object to the CIL proposals, but I do object to the fact that in the refreshed viability one of the sites referred to is 66.74 ha at Blackdown providing for 1665 houses.
This site is in the Green Belt and not in the current Draft Local Plan.

Baginton Parish Council believes that the revised Draft Charging Schedule does not satisfactorily address the impact that some types of development will make on the community. Hotels and Industrial/Warehousing should not be Nil Band developments. This is especially true where Green Belt Land is utilised.
We would ask that a levy is charged on these types of development and would welcome a higher levy being charged on development in Green Belt. This would offset the loss of amenity to the community and actively encourage developments on non Green Belt sites as a more sustainable land management approach from WDC.

Budbrooke Parish Council believes that the parish of Budbrooke should be re-designated as Zone D in line with other villages within Budbrooke Ward.

An objection is raised on the basis that the evidence that has been provided shows the proposed rate or rates would threaten delivery of the relevant Plan as a whole.
Charging authorities are required to consider relevant national planning policy when drafting their charging schedules, and in particular paragraph 173 of the Framework. This requires that in order to ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.
Providing a competitive return to a willing landowner is critical to the delivery of the Plan as acknowledged within the evidence presented in the Community Infrastructure Levy: Viability Study 2016 Update (paragraph 4.34).
The Study Update adopts a benchmark land value for greenfield residential sites of between £247,000 to £371,000 per hectare based on a CLG Research Paper from 2011. These figures are very low, and if this assumption is carried forward will have a significant effect on the viability of development in the District.
As evidenced in the Strategic Housing Market Assessment for Coventry & Warwickshire, Warwick District shares many characteristics with its neighbouring authority, Stratford on Avon District. They form part of the same housing market, are both desirable areas to live, and experience significant demand for new housing. Both authorities development plans propose a significant increase in housing delivery over the next 10 to 15 years. Stratford on Avon District Council has published evidence to support its draft charging schedule (appended to these representations), and this is currently the subject of Examination. Their evidence has adopted a far more thorough analysis of benchmark land values (or threshold land values as they refer) as set out at paragraph 5.3.37 onwards on page 32. They conclude that for strategic and large greenfield sites a threshold land value of £640,000 per hectare is appropriate.
Given their proximity and similarities, it is not reasonable to conclude that the benchmark land value in Warwick District would be less than 50% of the same value in Stratford on Avon, and the evidence of Peter Brett Associates for Stratford on Avon District Council is more robust and preferred.
This is clearly a significant difference which will affect the viability assumptions and undermines the draft charging schedule.
In addition, the Study Update makes no allowance for the costs of promoting the land (i.e. the costs of securing an allocation within the Development Plan). The assumptions made in relation to professional fees solely relate to costs incurred post Plan adoption, i.e. the costs of securing planning permission and regulatory approvals. Promotion costs are additional and can be significant. By way of example, the preparation of the Warwick District Local Plan commenced in 2007, has involved at least nine separate consultations and two Examinations, with further stages of consultation to commence later this year. The costs involved in promoting sites in Warwick District has therefore been substantial, and this should be reflected when assessing the viability of development through an increase in the professional fees for strategic sites to 25%.
Accordingly, the draft charging schedule as proposed would threaten the delivery of the Plan.

Richborough Estates Limited OBJECT to the Community Infrastructure Levy: Draft Charging Schedule (Jan/Feb 2017).

As identified at Appendix 1 of the Draft Charging Schedule, Charging Zone A covers, in part, the western side of Warwick including the settlement of Hampton Magna. Indeed, Hampton Magna is not identified in Table 4.4.3 of the Community Infrastructure Levy: Viability Study (2016 Updated) as a settlement within the rural area of a 'higher value'. This is an important context for the consideration of Richborough Estate's objection

Included within this defined Charging Zone A is the housing allocation at Arras Boulevard, Hampton Magna as defined in the Warwick District Local Plan (Site H27). The inclusion of this site in the edge of Hampton Magna within Zone A is entirely logical and appropriate because the activities of future resident of the proposed housing would impact upon the infrastructure and services to the west of Warwick. It also reflects the 'lower value' rural settlement status of Hampton Magana.

However, probably because it was only included as part of the Proposed Modifications (February 2016) rather than the originally submitted version of the Local Plan, the housing allocation at Lloyd Close, Hampton Magna (Site H51) is treated differently from Site H27. Although the site is on the edge of Hampton Magna and the future residents would have the same impacts on the infrastructure and services to the west of Warwick as those of Site H27, Site H51 is included in Charging Zone D rather than Zone A.

There are no clear and obvious reasons why these 2 housing allocations identified on the edge of Hampton Magna, which is a 'lower value' rural settlement, should be treated differently in respect of the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy that would be paid.

It would be both illogical and unfair if different Charging Zones were applied to these allocated sites. Indeed, the difference in payment between the 2 sites could be an average of say £7,000 per market dwelling which is financially a significant difference for a housing allocation at a 'lower value' rural settlement.

Based upon a simple comparison there are no geographical or spatial reasons why Site H27 and H51 should be treated differently. Indeed, the sites are on the edge of Hampton Magana and adjoin one another.

The character of the sites is no different suggesting any points of differentiation such as dwellings on Site H51 would attract a higher sales value to justify a Levy being paid because they are within a 'higher value' rural settlement.

The costs of developing Site H27 and H51 are similar, including matters such as access, ground conditions and utility services. There is nothing to suggest Site H51 can support the higher level of Levy payment whereas Site H27 cannot.

The anticipated impacts of the occupiers of each dwelling which might be constructed on both infrastructure and services must be similar. It would be illogical to assume that more people would occupy a dwelling on Site H51 and thereby have a greater impact on infrastructure and services.

It appears to Richborough Estates that the failure to include Site H51 within Charging Zone A is a simple oversight associated with this allocation at Hampton Magna only being introduced via the Proposed Modifications. Accordingly, an amendment to the map at Appendix A of the Draft Charging Schedule is sought by Richborough Estates whereby Charging Zone A includes both Site H27 and Site H51 as part of Hampton Magna reflecting its status as a 'lower value' rural settlement.

Whether similar discrepancies apply to other allocations introduced via the Proposed Modifications is a matter which the Council and the Examiner may wish to consider more fully.

Please see attached full representation.

This is made without inclusion of any update to national, regional or local planning policy as a result of the Housing White Paper (published 7th February 2017), and subsequent consultation on CIL. We would particularly welcome the opportunity to revisit these representations should the results of the CIL consultation exercise, and change in Government approach to CIL, be published before the Examination of the Draft Charging Schedule.

See attached.

The Joint Parish Council notes that the Draft Charging Schedules have been calculated using a hypothetical development plan which is broadly based on the 2013 draft of the Local Plan. Since 2013 there have been substantial changes to the draft Local Plan. For example, a substantial 'Strategic Development' of over 1000 homes at Blackdown has been removed from the draft Local Plan.
The Joint Parish Council is concerned that using a hypothetical development plan, which will be materially different from the final Local Plan, as the basis for the calculation of the Community Infrastructure Levy could result in materially inaccurate Levy rates. For this reason, the Joint Parish Council believes that the completion of the Community Infrastructure Levy rates should await the determination of the Local Plan and that the rates should be calculated on the basis of the actual Local Plan rather than a hypothetical development plan.

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

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

L48 Land at Blackdown (extension to L Spa)
Also in Appendix 4 (all schedules)
The site is not in the WDC Local Plan and is in the Green Belt. It is therefore inappropriate to calculate CIL charges for residential development there.

I object to the Draft CIL Charging schedule as in my opinion it is flawed.
Community Infrastructure Levy contribution should be applied to all new developments as all benefit from the infrastructure.
In the case of housing, this contribution should be a very small percentage of the market value of the property, which would enable the quantum assessment to accommodate economic fluctuations and be up-to-date without the need to frequently reassess the whole schedule. It would share the burden more equitably between those in need of affordable housing and the remaining 60% struggling to raise a mortgage.
An overly complex model is used to calculate the different levies and their variations, due mostly to regulations, obligations, anomalies and special pleadings. The result appears to be a schedule which is both cumbersome and unfair.
Of the 5 strategic sites selected for the Viability Study, Blackdown was by far the largest designated for up to 1600 houses, but failing to include construction and maintenance of supporting infrastructure such as school, medical services, green spaces or shops. This site had been removed from the 2013 Local Plan, which makes nonsense of including it as a major strategic site in a meaningful Viability Study.
Blackdown and Old Milverton are rural farming areas but were categorised in the 2013 CIL as urban fringe development areas. This issue was raised in the submissions at that time but has not been corrected, despite the Parish boundaries having been moved to exclude North Leamington School with adjacent new dwellings and a small estate in Milverton.
These two farming parishes of Old Milverton and Blackdown, now consist of just a hamlet, a scattering of commercial properties and houses, all surrounded by extensive fields. The land values should be in the highest rural category for the purpose of accurate CIL calculations.
If the complex viability study had been based on accurate information, and the most up to date Local Plan (i.e. 2015, updated 2016 Plan, requiring minor modifications in 2017 to be sound) then more confidence could be placed in the Draft Community Infrastructure Levy Report being reliable, useful and worthy of support.
Further thoughts for consideration
1. Further adjustments should be considered to take into account infrastructure projects that may never be built
2. The infrastructure levy should be applied just to those who would benefit most from the proposed developments. I refer primarily to landowners, many of whom have inherited high quality, food producing land at relatively low value, which they are prepared to sacrifice in the interest of vastly inflated land values for speculative developments. This would make for much easier calculations and payment in advance of development.

This representation is submitted by Savills (UK) Ltd on behalf of Lioncourt Strategic Land Limited (LSL), in respect of their role as lead promoters of the proposed urban extension at Kings Hill which is allocated for residential led development within the emerging Warwick Local Plan.
It has been submitted in response to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule which has been published for public consultation by Warwick District Council (WDC) between 16th January and 20th February 2017.
Savills has been instructed to scrutinise the available evidence, notably in respect of infrastructure provision and the testing of viability against both the planning policy requirements and the identified housing land supply. Kings Hill is proposed for allocation as Site H43 within the emerging Warwick District Local Plan.
The objective of this representation is not to oppose CIL; it merely seeks clarity in regard to the proposed rates, based on the evidence and a collective interest to deliver well planned, viable and feasible development in the District.
In submitting this representation, LSL is only commenting on particular key areas of the evidence base. The lack of reference to other parts of the evidence base and the DCS cannot be taken as agreement with them and LSL reserves the right to make further comments at future stages of consultation and at Examination.
This representation covers the following particular areas:
* The proposed DCS strategic residential rates;
* The relationship between Section 106 and CIL;
* The draft Regulation 123 List; and
* The effective operation of CIL (including relief, instalments and review)
We note that the Government has recently published a report by the CIL Review team. This identifies a number of issues with the current system and makes a series of recommendations which the Government proposes to respond to later this year. This includes the abolition of CIL and its replacement with a 'hybrid system' of Local Infrastructure Tariff (LIT) and Section 106 Agreements.
Whilst it is not anticipated that changes to the legislation or Regulations will be made imminently we request that WDC take account of the prospect that a new system is introduced in the future when preparing their CIL.
The Proposed CIL Charges
This representation is concerned with the proposed CIL rates for strategic residential sites allocated within the
Local Plan. WDC propose differential rates for such development by geographical location. The proposed
allocation at Kings Hill is located within Zone D and as a strategic residential development site, would be
subject to a proposed rate of £55 per sq m.
LSL welcome the reduction in the CIL rate for this area from that proposed within the Preliminary Draft
Charging Schedule (£110 per sq m). However, we would still request that full and proper consideration of the
scale of strategic development proposed to come forward to the south of Coventry is given, particularly in
view of its importance for delivery of the Local Plan. This should include an understanding that development
within this area will be affected by the Coventry residential market area in addition to on site strategic costs.
We also have some reservations over the assumptions used by BNP Paribas in respect of strategic
residential build costs. The £12,000 per unit allowance for on site infrastructure is considered to be too low.
Whilst it is stated that this is based on average infrastructure costs on strategic Greenfield sites in the south
east no evidence is provided to support this within the BNP Paribas Study.
It is crucial that the assumption on infrastructure costs is not underestimated as this will have a significant
impact on site viability, and if underestimated across the District, housing supply will be severely
compromised.
Viability is at the forefront of Local Plan and CIL testing. It is therefore important that the Council fully
understands the trade-off that occurs between affordable housing, Section 106 contributions and CIL when
assessing the potential for charging a CIL rate in the District.
The fundamental premise is that to enable delivery, sites must achieve a competitive land value for the
landowner and provide developers the required return on investment, otherwise development will be stifled.
This is recognised by the National Planning Policy Framework1
(NPPF) and is 'in-built' within the CIL
Regulations (as amended).
Regulation 14(1) of the CIL Regulations sets out the key test that the Charging Schedule is measured
against:
"In setting rates (including differential rates) in a charging schedule, a charging authority must strike an
appropriate balance between -
a) The desirability of funding from CIL (in whole or in part) the actual and expected estimated total cost of
infrastructure required to support the development of its area, taking in to account other actual and expected
sources of funding; and
b) The potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development
across its area."
The CIL Regulations previously required the Charging Authority to 'aim to strike what appears to the
Charging Authority to be an appropriate balance...' (emphasis added), but the amendments now mean that
the Charging Authority is required to 'strike an appropriate balance'. The onus has therefore shifted away
from being a matter of opinion to a matter of fact.
It is therefore of paramount importance that the proposed CIL rates are supported and consistent with the
viability evidence and that the Council has undertaken sufficient work to demonstrate that the proposed rates
will not put their housing supply at risk.
1 Paragraph 174, NPPF, March 2012
Deliverability of the Development Plan
As discussed above it is critical for the adequate delivery of housing that CIL does not threaten the delivery of
the development plan. This includes ensuring that the trajectories required by those allocations proposed
within the emerging plan are not made unviable.
The NPPF confirms and supports this by highlighting that for Local Plans to be found 'sound', the identified
housing supply should be deliverable within the plan period. Paragraph 137 of the NPPF states:
"Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should
not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is
threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as
requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should,
when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a
willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable."
The introduction of CIL represents an additional obligation and therefore must be assessed holistically to
establish the combined impact of CIL and existing planning obligations to ensure that the delivery of
development would not be threatened by the introduction of CIL. We have therefore reviewed the identified
housing supply for the District to determine whether the proposed CIL rates would threaten the delivery of
development during the Plan period.
The CIL Guidance2
confirms that Local Authorities must have an "up-to-date" development strategy for the
area in which they propose to charge CIL. In addition, it states that a Charging Authority must be able to
demonstrate how the proposed levy rates will contribute towards the implementation of the Local Plan. This is
not exclusive in approach and stems from the contents of Paragraph 137 of the NPPF.
The emerging Warwick District Plan, which was subject to Examination in 2015 and 2016, plans for at least
16,776 new homes between 2011 and 2029. The revised requirement is borne out of the fact that Coventry
City Council is unable to accommodate the whole of its new housing requirements for 2011-31 within its
administrative boundary and that some provision is being made in adjoining areas to help meet its needs.
To address this WDC has proposed the allocation of land to the south of Coventry within the emerging Local
Plan. This includes the allocation of land at Kings Hill for 4,000 dwellings, with 1,800 of these to be delivered
within the plan period. The strategic nature of this site, and the fact that it is fundamental to the delivery of the
overall strategy means that it is essential that sufficient viability testing has been undertaken at this stage in
the process.
Large, strategic sites require a significant amount of land to enable them to deliver on-site infrastructure, such
as public open space, suitable alternative natural green space, education facilities and highways
infrastructure. The Council should therefore take steps to ensure that the CIL charges are set well below the
margins of viability to ensure that they do not threaten the delivery of the identified housing need. An
argument supported by the CIL Guidance, which states that "charging authorities should set a rate which
does not threaten the ability to develop viably the sites and scale of development identified in the relevant
Plan.
It is also the case that the large strategic sites are inevitably the more complex and challenging to plan and
deliver than smaller developments. They frequently involve a number of landowners and often have a
patchwork of developers/promoters working on a consortium basis.
Given the timescales and phasing which would inevitably be a part of developing a site of this strategic scale,
it is important that CIL is considered in the round across the entire land in the Consortium's control. The
complexity that goes hand in hand with large strategic sites therefore requires careful consideration of both
infrastructure funding and delivery mechanisms.
2 Paragraph 010, Reference ID: 25-010-20140612. PPG Guidance on CIL.
Regulation 123 List
The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014 require the Regulation 123 list to form
part of the evidence base (Regulation 14 (5)).
Warwick District published a Draft Regulation 123 List in January 2015 as part of a 'first' round of consultation
on the Draft Charging Schedule however this has not been updated and published as part of the current
stage of consultation. This is unfortunate, not least because they serve as a useful guide as to the direction
that the Charging Authority envisages taking in providing for the delivery of infrastructure to support the Local
Plan. It is essential that there is an appropriate opportunity to comment on this in respect of the CIL rates
which are proposed.
Under the CIL Regulations, the Regulation 123 list should only include infrastructure necessary to deliver the
objectives set out in the development plan. Infrastructure specific to a development therefore should not be
included on this list, as set out in the CIL Guidance which states:
"Charging authorities should work proactively with developers to ensure they are clear about the authorities'
infrastructure needs and what developers will be expected to pay for through which route. There should be no
actual or perceived 'double dipping', with developers paying twice for the same item of infrastructure."
Allied to the above, we wish to stress to Warwick District that any projects that are classified as infrastructure
on the 123 list will not be able to be funded by Section 106 contributions, where more than five are required
to be pooled or have already been secured since April 2010. Indeed, after the CIL Charging Schedule is
published (or after April 2015), no more than 5 developments can make S106 contributions to one piece of
infrastructure:
"At no point no more may be collected in respect of a specific infrastructure project or a type of infrastructure
through a section 106 agreement, if five or more obligations for that project or type of infrastructure have
already been entered into since 6 April 2010, and it is a type of infrastructure that is capable of being funded
by the levy. Where a section 106 agreement makes provision for a number of staged payments as part of a
planning obligation, these payments will collectively count as a single obligation in relation to the pooling
restriction" (PPG Paragraph 99, Reference ID 25-99-20140612).
This is important as a single development and Section 106 agreement can have more than one obligation in
relation to a type of infrastructure and as such restricts the Council's ability to pool obligations.
In the absence of an updated Regulation123 List it is unclear whether WDC fully understand the implications
of Section 106 pooling post-CIL and its impact on its intended delivery mechanism for vital infrastructure in
the District.
We therefore recommend that WDC produces a draft Planning Obligations SPD document to set out how CIL
and Section 106 will work alongside one another on all sites. This will provide certainty to the development
industry and ensure that no 'double-dipping' occurs. This should be prepared in conjunction with the draft
Regulation 123 list to ensure that no items included on the list are items that the Council anticipates wanting
to collect through Section 106.
In preparing this document, we would advise that the Council has suitable regard to the provisions of
Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations which states:
"A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if
the obligation is -
(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
(b) directly related to the development; and
(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development."
We would therefore ask that WDC review and update their Draft Regulation 123 lists in light of the above to
ensure that those items anticipated to continue to be sought through Section 106 obligations are not included
on the Regulation 123 list. This should then be published for consultation.
Effective Operation of CIL
Despite the narrow scope of the Examination, we urge WDC to make clear at the earliest opportunity, the
supporting documentation needed to operate CIL and to make it available for consultation, particularly the
Regulation 123 List.
Practically, this needs to be done as soon as possible, so that participants and stakeholders are able to
comment on the effective operation of CIL. Whilst this supporting information is not tested at Examination,
this information is critical to allow for the successful implementation of CIL and to demonstrate that the CIL
has been prepared positively and supports sustainable development.
Relief
It is noted that CIL Regulations 2010 allow for specific exemptions from CIL for certain forms of development.
In addition, under these Regulations, charging authorities also have discretionary powers to provide relief in
exceptional circumstances.
The Warwick District CIL Charging Schedule proposes that where a developer can clearly demonstrate that a
CIL Charge will impact on scheme viability and that the scheme can clearly deliver sustainable development,
then the Council may consider the case for exceptional relief on a case by case basis".
LSL welcomes the Council's stance in understanding that there may be legitimate viability concerns that
would otherwise impede the delivery of housing. This should be a factor in the consideration of a CIL rate for
strategic residential sites such as Kings Hill, for which the delivery of the emerging Local Plan depends on.
Instalments
We note that WDC state that they are prepared to accept payment of CIL in instalments (depending in the
total amount of the liability). WDC state that details of the instalments policy will be determined prior to
adoption of CIL.
BNP Paribas have modelled instalment policies of 3 payments for all sites regardless of size. We request
further clarity as to the extent this reflects current WDC policy, as if in some of the cases there will only be
one instalment, this may adversely affect the residual land value, which will impact on the viability of the
schemes, and thus the proposed CIL rates to be charged. This is particularly relevant to the strategic
allocation proposed at Kings Hill.
Ultimately, developer cashflow is an important consideration, notably in respect of upfront infrastructure costs
typically associated with strategic development. The Instalment Policy should aim to reflect, as closely as
possible, the timing of delivery of the development, to ensure that the CIL does not put unnecessary pressure
on cashflow and viability.
Review
The CIL Guidance states that charging authorities 'must keep their Charging Schedules under review'3 to
ensure that CIL is fulfilling its aim and responds to market conditions. The Consortium therefore requests that
regular monitoring is undertaken by WDC to ensure that any detrimental impact of CIL on housing delivery is
noticed promptly and remedied. A review period of between 2-3 years from adoption, or sooner if there is a
substantive change in market conditions or Central Government policy, should be publicly committed to by
WDC.
3 Viability Testing Local Plan (June 2012), Page 44
Conclusion
This representation has been submitted by Savills on behalf of Lioncourt Strategic Land Limited to influence
the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) proposed by Warwick District Council. Our client's particular comments
relate to the rates for strategic residential development, in the context of land they are promoting within the
emerging Local Plan at Kings Hill.
As outlined at the start of this letter, the above observations are set in the context of the key points for
consideration as part of the CIL Examination process permitted by the Statutory CIL Guidance4:
We trust these comments are helpful. To assist, our client would welcome further dialogue with Warwick
District Council and, where appropriate, their advisors BNP Paribas to discuss our observations.
We reserve the right to provide comments in connection with a Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) and to be
notified when:
* the DCS is submitted to the Examiner in accordance with Section 212 of the PA 2008;
* the recommendations of the Examiner and the reasons for these recommendations are published; and
* the Charging Schedule is approved by the charging authority.

See attached

Gladman Developments Limited has considerable experience in the development industry in a number of sectors, including residential and employment land. Gladman note that the intention of this consultation is to seek comments on the Draft CIL Charging Schedule for Warwick District. The Council is currently in the process of examination of its Local Plan, a further round of hearings concluded in December 2016.
Gladman have previously made representations into consultations on the CIL for Warwick in both 2013 and 2015. In our responses in both 2013 and 2015 we included reference to work undertaken by Carter Jonas on behalf of Gladman developments, considering a wide range of issues in the evidence base which underpin the CIL. It is understood that the Council have now refreshed the evidence base which underpins the charging schedule and this letter sets out Gladmans' response to both the charging schedule and its accompanying evidence base.
It is noted that the Council state in paragraph 4.2 of the charging schedule that the Councils responses were reported, to the 2013 consultation, in January 2015. Gladman noted in our last representation that these responses did not take into the consideration the points made by Carter Jonas in the duly made representation from 2013. We note that we have still seen no record from the Council that these representations have been considered, nor have we seen any counter point to the evidence put forward by Carter Jonas.
Although each CIL charging schedule needs to be locally evidenced, to take account of local circumstances, the proposed rates for Warwick District (Zones B and D) are the highest currently proposed of any authority in the
East or West Midlands1. Indeed authorities, which may be considered good comparisons, such as Stratford-on-
Avon and Solihull have upper end residential charges of £150 p/sqm. Whilst high these are nearly 25% lower
than those proposed for Zones B and D in Warwick. It is noted that the ongoing examination of the CIL for
Stratford-on-Avon has been particularly protracted.
Gladman and Carter Jonas have previously cautioned against the potential for such large CIL rates to have a
negative impact of 'market shock' upon Warwick District. The cost of providing 40% affordable housing in
combination with the rate of £195 p/sqm will be far in excess of the current payments secured through Section
106 mechanisms. We strongly urge that the levies attached for Zones B and D are reconsidered, failure to do so
could negatively impact the land supply within the District.
Charging Zones
Gladman maintain the view previously expressed that the proposed boundaries for the Charging Zones are not
robustly justified. Whilst we understand the broad premise for the Charging Zones, it is not clear how the
District Council has arrived at the proposed boundaries. Furthermore the map which accompanies the charging
schedule is unclear in certainty areas, raising confusion as to which charging zone certain areas may fall within.
CIL Viability Report
Gladman have considered the tables set out in the BNP Paribas report on pages 33 and 34. It is noted that a
number of development scenarios are offered. As outlined in our previous representations we retain a number
of concerns with regard to the way in which the evidence base has assessed the viability assumptions that the
CIL charges will have. We are particularly concerned about the cumulative impact of the CIL rate in the higher
zones with an affordable housing requirement of 40%. We do not consider that the charging schedule is fully
evidenced to demonstrate that development viability will not be compromised.
Regulation 123 List
It is noted that at this time the Regulation 123 infrastructure list has not been published. The Council will need
to publish this documentation for comment. Local planning authorities need to be able to demonstrate the
infrastructure need and subsequent funding gap and must ensure that the level of total CIL receipts that could
be generated through the levy reflects the true needs and proposals in the Local Plan. The CIL should not be
used by Council's as a mechanism for creating an unrealistic 'wish list' of infrastructure projects in their area.
When establishing a funding gap that CIL receipts are intended to contribute towards filling, it is vital that the
Council take account of every possible income stream. This has to include an accurate assessment of future New
Homes Bonus and council tax and business rates receipts generated as a result of new developments allocated
in the Local Plan, as well as central government funding streams. This should also include an assessment of
statutory undertakers' asset management plans, as these companies will at some stage be upgrading their
systems/facilities. This also needs to be taken account of when assessing the infrastructure requirements of the
authority.
The Council need to have an up to date, robust evidence base that fully justifies the infrastructure needs based
on the amount of development that is required. Information on these infrastructure needs should, wherever
possible, be drawn directly from the infrastructure planning that underpins the Development Plan, as this
should identify the quantum and type of infrastructure required to realise their local development needs. If the
authority's infrastructure planning is weak or out of date then the Council should undertake an exercise to
refresh this. If the evidence base is not complete, robust and up to date the charging schedule will be unsound
1 http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1121218/cil-watch-whos-charging-what
and the local planning authority will have difficulty adequately demonstrating their funding gap and subsequent
CIL requirements.
Conclusions
We strongly urge the Council to revisit its evidence base in line with the reasons outlined in this representation
and our previous representations. Gladman maintain that the Council have failed to adequately consider the potential cumulative negative impacts of the CIL Charge and the level of affordable housing required to be
delivered.
Gladman would request to be heard at any hearings, should the charging schedule move forward to examination.

RE: Warwick District Council Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging
Schedule Consultation
Thank you for contacting Highways England with regard to the consultation on the
revised Draft Charging Schedule for Warwick District.
Highways England has been appointed by the Secretary of State for Transport as
strategic highway company under the provisions of the Infrastructure Act 2015 and is
the highway authority, traffic authority and street authority for the Strategic Road
Network (SRN). This network is a critical national asset and as such we work to ensure
that it operates and is managed in the public interest, both in respect of current
activities and needs as well as in providing effective stewardship of its long-term
operation and integrity. In Warwick District, the A45 and A46 trunk roads and the M40
are part of the SRN.
We have reviewed the Draft Charging Schedule, and it is considered that Highways
England has no comments to provide. We would however like to continue to engage
with the Council in regular reviews of the Regulation 123 List, and with regard to the
application of CIL funds for relevant highways infrastructure projects.
If you have any questions regarding our response please do not hesitate to contact me.

The University of Warwick is grateful for the opportunity to comment on the Draft Charging Schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy which is being consulted upon alongside the new Local Plan.
The University's only concern is the proposed charge for student accommodation, which we note has increased from the previous Draft Charging Schedule 2013, from £80 per sq m to £100 per sq m. This is similar to supermarkets and retail parks, higher than some retail, and higher than hotels, offices, industrial warehouses and D1/D2 uses which attract no charge.
We note that one of the exemptions under para 6.1 of the Viability Study (2016) is for development by registered charities for the delivery of their charitable purposes, for which the University would qualify in respect of the development of its own residential accommodation.
The Viability Study prepared by BNP Paribas Real Estate in November 2016 states:
'If the University continues to develop its own student accommodation, developments would be exempt from CIL under Regulation 43, providing the provision of student accommodation is consistent with the University's charitable objectives. Consequently, only speculative student housing built by the private sector would be liable.'
We anticipate this would apply where the University develops student halls of residence on its own campus to be managed by the University for its own students. We would appreciate clarification that this exemption would apply for off-campus accommodation if the University chooses to develop student housing for its own use but in locations other than on campus.
The University is keen to ensure that purpose-built student accommodation can be provided in other locations, consistent with policy, in order to reduce reliance on Houses in Multiple Occupation which can
2
disproportionately affect existing communities. It provides an important part of the range of housing available for students of different ages and personal circumstances.
The University previously (in its 2013 representations) raised the question of what infrastructure the levy would be contributing towards whose need arose from student accommodation. There was nothing evident in the IDP and no reference in either the 2013 or 2016 Viability Studies as to why a larger discount was applied in the earlier study than the more recent one between the contribution that can be afforded and that to be charged.
We ask that these representations are taken into account and would be happy to meet to discuss further the University's accommodation strategy.

Further to initial representations made in March 2015 on behalf of our clients Standard Life Investments UK Real Estates Fund previously known as Ignis UK Property Fund regarding the Draft CIL Charging Schedule (DCS), please find outlined below representations made in regard to the current consultation on the Revised Draft CIL Charging Schedule (RDCS) 2017.
Standard Life Investments UK Real Estates Fund has taken a keen interest in the development of the draft CIL charge for Warwick District Council (DC) given their ownership of one of Leamington's key economic assets Leamington Shopping Park. Warwick DC are failing to fully recognise the future impact that the proposed CIL charge will have on retail development in the authority area. Given the lack of recognition of our previous comments to date, either by way of a consultation report acknowledging the representations made or even informally, we would now urge the Council to seriously and fairly consider these representations in view of the current consultation and those previously made to ensure the attractiveness of the authority is not further hindered in regard to retail development. In addition, it is essential to guarantee the future charge 'strikes the
right balance' between helping to fund new infrastructure and the potential effects on economic viability. We maintain that this is not presently the case given the implications the proposed charge will have on retailing investment into existing assets as discussed in greater detail below.
Definitions 'convenience based supermarkets and superstores and retail parks'.
The RDCS considers two types of retail use/development:
"Retail - prime Leamington Spa zone";
"Convenience based supermarkets and superstores and retail parks".
The RDCS contains a definition of these categories, which we consider to be a significant omission if the RDCS is to provide clear advice to potential developers. The evidence base, in the form of the BNP Paribas Real Estate CIL Viability Study (June 2013) and Viability Study (2016 Update), defines two of the above development types in the footnotes to table 1.6.1 at page 5, as follows:
"Superstores/supermarkets are shopping destinations in their own right where weekly food shopping needs are met and which can also include non-food floorspace as part of the overall mix of the unit."
"Retail warehouses are large stores specialising in the sale of household goods (such as carpets, furniture and electrical goods), DIY items and other ranges of goods, catering for mainly car-borne
customers."
We do not consider that these definitions are adequate to enable a developer to understand which rate would apply to a given form of retail development. For example:
* What is a "shopping destination in its own right" in respect of superstores/supermarkets? This statement could apply to any shop (if customers visited just that one shop) or to no shops at all (if the customers habitually visited more than one shop by way of a linked trip);
Who would determine (and how) whether a superstore/supermarket meets weekly food shopping needs? It is a well reported recent trend that customers are shopping for food little and often, regardless of the size of establishment they shop at and the range of goods provided. The days of the weekly shop appear to be numbered. Moreover, the CIL charge would have to be calculated and paid long before the shopping habits of future customers of a development would be known. Furthermore, the type of shopping trip carried out could change significantly, multiple times, over the lifetime of the development;
* In respect of retail warehouses, are these synonymous with retail parks (as referred to in the schedule), or does a 'park' necessarily have to consist of more than one 'warehouse'? Would two such units comprise a 'park',
or three, or more? Is a shared car park or single ownership required?
* What does "large stores" mean? Is there a floorspace threshold? If so, this should be clearly stated.
* What does "specialising in the sales of" mean? Is it the same a "selling" or does it mean "exclusively selling" or "predominantly selling"?
* Who would determine (and how) whether a retail development catered for "mainly car-borne
customers"?
What proportion would constitute "mainly"? How would this be know at the point of calculating CIL the CIL charge would have to be calculated and paid long before the mode of travel of future customers would be known. Customer travel mode could change significantly, multiple times, over the lifetime of the development.
It is clear that nothing in the RDCS or evidence base addresses the above questions and accordingly the type of development that the "Convenience based supermarkets and superstores and retail parks" and what constituted "Retail others areas" charging rates are applicable to is effectively undefined. This is unacceptable and the charge attributed to "Convenience based supermarkets and superstores and retail parks" should be zero rated so that it becomes clear that a charge applies to the prime Leamington Spa zone only and that no charge applies to any form of retail development outside of that zone.
Evidence Base
The National Planning Practice Guidance sets out the requirements of the evidence base used to support a RDCS. It confirms that:
* "Care must be taken to ensure that it is robust." (paragraph 015);
* "A charging authority must use appropriate available evidence ... to inform their draft charging schedule ... consider a range of data, including values of land in both existing and planned uses, and property prices for example... rateable values for commercial property." (paragraph 019);
* "a charging authority should directly sample an appropriate range of types of sites across its area, in order to supplement existing data. ... The exercise should focus on strategic sites..., and those sites where the impact of the levy on economic viability is likely to be most significant (such as brownfield sites)." (paragraph 019);
* "Charging authorities that decide to set differential rates may need to undertake more finegrained
sampling...
Fine-grained sampling is also likely to be necessary where they wish to differentiate between categories or scales of intended use." (paragraph 019);
*"A charging authority should take development costs into account when setting its levy rate or rates,
particularly those likely to be incurred on ... brownfield land. A realistic understanding of costs is essential to the proper assessment of viability in an area." (paragraph 020);
*"Differential rates should not be used as a means to deliver policy objectives... Charging schedules with differential rates should not have a disproportionate impact on particular sectors or specialist forms of development." (paragraph 021); and
*"A draft charging schedule is prepared by the charging authority, in light of ... updated evidence where applicable." (paragraph 030).
Given the lack of clearly defined development types, it is difficult to see how the evidence base could have robustly tested those different types of development. Indeed, the only appraisals carried out in respect of retail development are an appraisal for "Lmtn Spa Prime (Ctrl Parade & Royal Priors)", "Rest of L'ton Spa, Warwick, Rest of District" and "Supermarkets, Superstores, Retail Parks" (see Appendix 5 of the June 2013 BNP Paribas Viability Study) and "Prime Leamington", "Retail Superstores" and "Outside Prime" (see Appendix 5 of the November 2016 Viability Update). As previously emphasised, we consider that carrying out a single appraisal for supermarkets/superstores (i.e. shopping destinations in their own right where weekly food shopping needs are met) and retail parks (i.e. large stores specialising in the sale of household goods, DIY items and other ranges
of goods, catering for mainly car-borne customers) is entirely inappropriate. These types of development comprise two wholly different forms of retail store with different construction specifications and costs, lifespans, values and returns. To assume the same inputs and outputs for both forms of development is entirely false and accordingly the evidence base cannot be considered robust in this regard. As no consideration has been given to this point in the updated viability evidence base WYG remain of the opinion that the proposed rate has been insufficiently evidenced.
Furthermore, the fact that all viability studies to date have only considered the redevelopment of a 15,000 sq ft existing store to provide a 30,000 sq ft store in the same use is also entirely inappropriate. While this may be more applicable to an extension to an existing store, where no additional land were required to achieve the development, it wholly fails to consider the development of a new store on a new site. The viability inputs and outputs of developing a new store are likely to be very different to a relatively straightforward extension. The viability considerations are likely to be different too for developments of different scales. A relatively small store is likely to be less viable than development of a larger store or stores due to economies of scale.
Given all of the foregoing, we do not consider that a robust evidence base exists and that care has not been taken to ensure that the evidence base is robust (as required by NPPG paragraph 015). A range of data, including values of land in both existing and planned uses, and property prices - have not been used (as required by NPPG paragraph 019). An appropriate range of types of sites have not been directly sampled and no appropriate focus has been brought to sites where the impact of the levy on economic viability is likely to be most significant such as brownfield sites (as required by NPPG paragraph 019). There has been no fine grained sampling to support the proposed differential rates for various (unclearly defined) types of retail development (as also required by NPPG paragraph 019).
Given the lack of distinction made between supermarkets, superstores and retail park units, a "realistic understanding of costs essential to the proper assessment of viability in an area" cannot have been achieved (as required by NPPG paragraph 020). Neither has the revised draft charging schedule been prepared "in light of ... updated evidence where applicable" (as required by NPPG paragraph 030).
Proposed Rate
Notwithstanding the criticism above, the June 2013 Viability Assessment concludes in paragraph 7.3
that "Superstores, supermarket and retail parks are capable of generating greater surplus value and
could absorb a CIL of £148 per square metre. After allowing for a discount below the maximum rate,
we suggest a CIL of £105 per square metre."
Paragraph 1.5 of the Viability Study (2016 Update) indicates; "Superstores, supermarket and retail parks are capable of generating greater surplus value and could absorb a CIL of £151 per square metre. After allowing for a discount below the maximum rate, we suggest a CIL of £105 per square metre".
The NPPG notes that "A charging authority's proposed rate or rates should be reasonable, given the
available evidence... There is room for some pragmatism. It would be appropriate to ensure that a
'buffer' or margin is included, so that the levy rate is able to support development when economic
circumstances adjust. In all cases, the charging authority should be able to explain its approach clearly." (paragraph 019, NPPG). This guidance was reflected by the proposed a charge of £75/sqm in their PDCS (a discount of c.50%), however is not reflected in the current RDCS.
A consistent approach was taken in respect to other development types. Retail development in the
prime Leamington Spa zone is reported as being able to absorb a CIL of £133/sqm in the base appraisal (appraisal 5), yet all charging schedules to date propose a rate of just £65/sqm. This assigns it a discount of 51%. However, inexplicably, and with no further justification whatsoever, the DCS/RDCS increases the CIL for supermarkets/superstores and retail parks from £75 to £105/sqm from the PDCS amount. The CIL charge for other development types remain unchanged (excluding student housing), including for residential development, notwithstanding the November 2014 viability addendum report finding "a marginal improvement in viability in comparison to the results in the June 2013 Viability Study". Accordingly, while other forms of commercial development i.e. prime zone retail receive 51% discount, supermarkets/ superstores and retail parks receive between 2934%
(based on the suggested potential £148/£151 absorption rate).
The NPPG notes that "Differential rates should not be used as a means to deliver policy objectives... Charging schedules with differential rates should not have a disproportionate impact on particular sectors or specialist forms of development." (paragraph 021, NPPG).
Given that no other CIL rate was amended between the publication of the PDCS and the DCS and given the higher level of discount that other types retail development receive (i.e. prime retail), it is impossible not to conclude that the increase in CIL for supermarkets/superstores and retail parks will not have a disproportionate impact on these sectors/forms of development and that this is not being used as a means to deliver some other policy objective. It is certainly the case that the charging authority has not explained its approach clearly (as required by NPPG (paragraph 019).
Conclusion
On behalf of our client, Standard Life Investments UK Real Estates Fund, we object to the proposed
'convenience based supermarkets, superstores and retail park' charge rate of £105 per sqm identified in the RDCS (2017). We consider that the category is poorly defined, providing no clarity as to which forms of development it would apply to. We consider that the evidence base informing the proposed CIL charge for these types of development is not robust having not tested a sufficient range of sites/development and not taking account of up to date cost information.
Notwithstanding these concerns, we maintain that the initial increase in CIL rate between the publication of the PDCS and the DCS (as maintaining in the RDCS) is irrational, is unexplained and would have a disproportionate impact on these types of development, along with the unexplained removal of the 'retail other areas' category and what is constituted.
We consider that the CIL charge for these types of development (supermarket/superstore and retail park) should be zero rated. Failing that, any charge should not exceed that set out in the PDCS.

See attached

Within my District Ward of Budbrooke, the villages of Barford, Hampton-on-the-Hill, Norton Lindsey, Hatton Park and Hatton Green are all classified as being Zone D.
Hampton Magna, which is very similar in character to Hatton Park, is classified as being in Zone A.
I would request that Hampton Magna should be reclassified to Zone D, in line with all of the other villages within Budbrooke Ward.
NB: At this stage I neither object nor support the proposals. This is merely a representation on behalf of my residents.

Please note that Blackdown is in the Green Belt and not in the Draft Local Plan. It should therefore not be shown on a map of zones.

The introductory section within the Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) (January 2017) highlights the fundamental principles of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).
Paragraph 1.4 states "CIL is intended to compliment rather than replace other funding streams and is
intended to promote development rather than hinder it."
The adopted CIL rate must consider local market conditions and expected costs as well as the cumulative effect of planning obligations proposed onto development.
Paragraph 1.10 of the DCS repeats the CIL Regulations stating:
"In setting its CIL rate the council must 'aim to strike what appears to the charging authority to be an
appropriate balance between:
The desirability of funding CIL and the actual and expected costs of infrastructure required to
support development and
The potential effects of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across
its area.'"
Critically, and in summary, CIL must not threaten the borough-wide deliverability of the Local Plan.
It is IM Land's judgement that Warwick District Council ('the Council') has failed to comply with the
requirements of the Planning Act 2008 and the CIL Regulations 2010 as amended. On this basis, the DCS should be found unsound by the Examiner in its current form.
Moreover, the Government confirmed at paragraph 2.29 within the Housing White Paper (2017), published on 7th February, that it will undertake examination of the options for the long-term reform of the existing system of developer contributions. It will also respond to the independent national CIL Review published alongside the Housing White Paper. The White Paper highlights that this has been influenced by the findings of the CIL Review which concluded that the current system of CIL and Section 106 Agreements is not as fast, simple, certain or transparent as originally intended. It advocates the abolition of CIL and its replacement with a two-tier Local Infrastructure Tariff (LIT) and Strategic Infrastructure Tariff (SIF) regime by 2020 (at the latest).
The White Paper confirms that the Government will consult upon improving arrangements for capturing uplifts in land value for community benefit, whilst seeking to simplify the system of developer contributions. The Government's examination is underway and the response to the CIL Review is to be made at the Autumn Budget 2017. On this basis, for Warwick District Council to proceed with implementing a CIL Charging Schedule at a time when the regime is facing imminent significant overhaul or altogether abolition is wholly inappropriate. It represents frivolous use of taxpayer's money as well as necessitating the incurring of abortive costs to the development industry in engaging in a regime that is unlikely to be adopted for a worthwhile period of time.
Assuming that the Council adopts its CIL Charging Schedule in Autumn 2017, it could be redundant before the turn of the calendar year. Moreover, it is likely to only be operational for a maximum of two years (i.e. to 2020). The scope to accrue and spend CIL liability on the delivery of new infrastructure during this short period will be highly limited. It may even dissuade and stall the commencement of new development (or submission of planning applications) if the industry considers that the reforms to the regime would reduce the cost burden on development, or simplify payment for (and delivery of) infrastructure if delivery occurs beyond the transition period. This, in itself, poses a significant risk to the delivery of the Local Plan for it could undermine the ability of the Council to demonstrate a deliverable 5-year housing land supply.
In summary, it is IM's firm recommendation that the Council holds the process of adopting a CIL Charging Schedule in abeyance until the Government's intentions for reform of the CIL and developer contributions regime are announced within the Autumn Statement, or such time that clarity is provided over transitional arrangements. Until this time, the DCS should progress no further than this consultation.
Notwithstanding this, in accordance with the Council's request for responses to the DCS consultation, the following representation is structured to respond to each section of the DCS, evaluating the underpinning methodological approach and evidence base, and makes recommendations for necessary improvement in accordance with Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and the CIL Regulations.
Section 3 of the DCS outlines that a series of viability studies have been undertaken on the Council's behalf, by BNP Paribas Real Estate (BNPPRE), to provide an evidence base to assess the impact of the proposed CIL rates on the deliverability and viability of development across the borough.
The Community Infrastructure Levy: Viability Study 2016 (hereafter the 'VS 2016',) informs the rates set within the current DCS. It represents an update to the Community Infrastructure Levy: Viability Study 2013 (hereafter the 'VS 2013').
IM is highly concerned that there are significant shortcomings within the VS 2016, which will overstate the propensity of development to accommodate CIL. The focus of IM's concerns is with respect to the financial viability evidence base utilised to support the proposed residential rates within the DCS.
Development Typologies
Testing should be applied to development typologies likely to be brought forward in delivering the Local Plan.
PPG states that:
"The sampling should reflect a selection of the different types of sites included in the relevant Plan, and should be consistent with viability assessment undertaken as part of plan-making. Charging authorities that decide to set differential rates may need to undertake more fine-grained sampling, on a higher proportion of total sites, to help them to estimate the boundaries for their differential rates." (Ref: Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (2014) - Paragraph 019, Reference ID 25- 0190-20140612.)
The residential typologies appraised within the VS 2016 (table 4.11.1) fail to appropriately represent the different scale of sites allocated within the Draft Local Plan and envisaged as critical to meeting the objectively assessed needs of the borough.
There are 9 non-strategic typologies of between 4 and 100 units tested with varying housing type, densities, site area and land classification (urban/ greenfield). Only one typology is for 100 units - and this is for a 100% flatted scheme.
However, the Draft Local Plan (Note: and more recently published Proposed Modifications to the Publication Draft Local Plan (Part 1) January 2016,) proposes the allocation numerous non-strategic sites of between 75- 300 dwellings, which clearly represent an important component of housing supply. It is IM's firm opinion that the viability evidence base should include an expansion of the typologies tested to appropriately assess the impact of CIL on the full range of sites forming non-strategic allocations within the Local Plan (i.e. 100 - 300 dwellings). This should include as a minimum:
* 100 units: 100% houses (greenfield) at 20dph and at 35dph
* 150 units: 100% houses (greenfield) at 20dph and at 35 dph
* 200 units: 100% houses (greenfield) at 20dph and at 35 dph
* 250 units: 100% houses (greenfield) at 20dph and at 35 dph
* 300 units: 100% houses (greenfield) at 20dph and at 35 dph
Presently, the use of a maximum scheme size of just 75 dwelling houses represents a very small nonstrategic upper scheme size for viability appraisal. On this basis, the VS 2016 does not appropriately represent the development land supply characteristics within the borough. Further testing and consultation is required.
Unit Mix
Whilst the proportional mix of residential unit types within each typology is set out within Table 4.11.2 of the VS 2016, this does not confirm the actual unit sizes utilised within the viability appraisals. Neither does it appear to be confirmed elsewhere within the published evidence base. This is inappropriate and opaque. It has a threefold impact.
Firstly, it is impossible for stakeholders to assess whether the unit sizes utilised are representative of current market facing product delivered by developers within the Warwickshire and wider West Midlands market. This is critical if the evidence base is to appropriately represent the type of development to be brought forward through the Local Plan. This should be based upon 'appropriate' market evidence, which should be 'available' to both the Council/BNPPRE and stakeholders. Presently, it is neither confirmed as appropriate and is unavailable. The unit sizes should be confirmed, the supporting market evidence published, and both tested with stakeholders within a further consultation process.
Secondly, the absence of this information renders the viability appraisal results within Appendix 3 of the VS 2016 as of limited use. It is impossible for stakeholders to understand and sense-test the calculation basis upon which the residual land value (RLV) of each appraisal typology has been tested - given this is dependent upon the scale of development (square metres) that is assumed (yet not disclosed) by BNPPRE.
Moreover, given the approach of the VS 2016 is to test the impact of CIL on RLV by applying a £/m2 rate on chargeable floorspace, and then comparing this to a benchmark land value (BLV) for each appraisal, it is absolutely critical that stakeholders (and the Examiner) can understand the basis for determining CIL chargeable floorspace. It represents an absolutely fundamental component of viability testing and should be both 'available' and demonstrated by the Council/BNPPRE to be 'appropriate'.
Despite reams of summaries within Appendix 3, the VS 2016 effectively represents a 'black box' viability assessment, which is advised against by the Planning Advisory Service (PAS) and the Government within PPG. Both recommend transparency in viability modelling and presentation of assumptions. Without disclosure of the unit size information and headline viability appraisals it is impossible to address whether the available evidence is appropriate, and has been appropriately applied, for the proposed setting of the CILrates within the DCS. Thirdly, garages (whether integral, attached or detached) fall within the RICS definition of Gross Internal Area (GIA). This is the basis upon which CIL liability is calculated in accordance with the CIL Regulations. All charging authorities are therefore charging CIL liability on garages in addition to the habitable area of the built residential unit.
It is not possible to determine from the evidence presented within the VS whether this has made any floorspace allowance for garages in preparing the viability appraisals. Should allowance have not specifically been made, this means that BNPPRE is vastly underestimating the CIL chargeable floorspace within development. Moreover, if garages are not specifically allowed for, this in itself will underestimate the construction costs of development. Based on IM's experience of working with national housebuilders across the West Midlands and Warwickshire it is anticipated that all 3+ bedroom open market dwellings would provide at least a single garage, with 4+ bedroom dwellings providing double garages (or triple garages in limited cases). Within the typologies tested within the VS 2016, it is clear that the unit mix would lean considerably towards provision of units with garages.
Whilst garages are unlikely to attract a full BCIS £/m2 cost, the current costs are substantial - ranging from circa £25/m2 for integral garage construction through to £45/m2 - £50/m2 for detached garages
(dependent on whether single, double or triple). Failure to accommodate and clearly set out these costs represents a shortcoming of the VS 2016.
Pre-empting a possible response, it is not appropriate or sufficient for such a cost to be met within any 'buffer' allowance. The buffer is to allow for unforeseen costs, fluctuations in market conditions, and to recognise that there will be variation in the viability of specific sites that the VS cannot account for. The VS 2016 should, however, be more than capable of estimating and accounting for the cost of garage provision within viability appraisal. Evidence will be readily available based on recently consented and completed development schemes via the Council's records.
IM requests confirmation if garages have been taken account in the manner described above within viability assessment and CIL rate setting, and seeks a full explanation of approach from BNPPRE. If not accounted for, this represents a major flaw within the viability evidence base. It will substantially underestimate construction costs, which will overstate the viability of sites to accommodate CIL, whilst also underestimating the square meterage to which CIL liability will be applied in practice. This will overstate the propensity of sites to accommodate CIL on a £/m2 basis - as the square meterage will be insufficient to represent the reality of built development within each typology.
Development Costs
Construction Costs IM has assessed the base build costs utilised within the VS 2016, as set out in Table 4.16.1 on page 14 for their validity.
IM obtained mean average RICS BCIS build cost data for 'Estate Housing - Generally' and for 'Flats (apartments) - Generally' and re-based this to Warwick as at Q4 2016 with an appropriate restriction to tenders recorded over the last 5 years ('the 5 year period'). This is considered the most robust basis for utilising BCIS costs, for it draws on those tendered schemes that will have constructed to current Building Regulations (and recent versions) and excludes more historic tenders for schemes dating back beyond 5 years, which would now lack relevance (and would unduly skew costs downwards). IM is comfortable that the cost of £1,127/m2 utilised within the VS 2016 is consistent with the cost for 'Estate Housing - Generally' published by the RICS BCIS as at Q4 2016.
However, IM is concerned that the cost of £1,330/m2 utilised within the VS 2016 for 'Flats (apartments) - Generally' is inconsistent with the cost data published by the RICS BCIS at Q4 2016. RICS BCIS records this cost as £1,380/m2.
This inconsistency is not explained or justified within the VS 2016, which purports alignment with RICS BCIS. IM considers this an error. The viability appraisals for typologies that include flatted units will not be based on the reasonable costs published by RICS BCIS - and will undercount construction costs by £50/m2. When the cumulative costs of contingency allowance, professional fees and finance are added, it would be reasonably expected for this error to undercount the development costs of typologies including apartments by some £60/m2 to £70/m2.
Anticipating the Council's probable response, this cost difference represents a deficiency of between 3.8% and 5.3% of costs (the former only base costs and the latter including cumulative costs). This would clearly utilise a large proportion, if not all, of the contingency allowance attributable to apartments. This cost is for unforeseen construction costs - not quantifiable costs - and it is not appropriate for the Council to rely on this sum in any case given it may well be insufficient to bridge the identified deficit.
Considered in comparison to the residential CIL rates proposed within Table 2 of the DCS, this development cost undercount would be expected to necessitate a substantial reduction in residential rates - given the direct relationship - unless the Council and BNPPRE 'squeezes' the 'buffer' allowance.
It is strongly recommended that the appraisal typologies including flatted development are re-run to assess the viability of flatted development at the construction cost that is genuinely consistent with RICS BCIS.
The RICS BCIS data is attached at Appendix 1 for transparency.
Professional Fees
The VS states professional fees covering cost of design, consultation, planning etc., are applied at 10% of build costs within the appraisals. This rate is at the lower end of industry expectations on medium and larger development sites, where the Harman Guidance (Ref Local Plans Housing Delivery Group (2012)
Viability Testing Local Plans: Advice for Planning Practitioners ('the Harman Guidance') Appendix B p.44- 45,) advocates a range of 8 - 20%. IM would expect to see professional fees at 10% (including planning, surveying, NHBC etc.) on sites of less than 100 units, but would fully anticipate professional fees to increase to 12-15% on sites of 100-300 units - particularly those requiring promotion through the planning system (e.g. Local Plan allocations; CIL representations/Examination etc.). For sites larger than 300 units, and strategic sites, IM has experience of professional fees increasing to a range of 15% - 20% of total construction costs. This is clearly recognised as a realistic, necessary and appropriate order of cost within the Harman Guidance (Ref: Ibid). The VS 2016 should re-run the viability assessment incorporating increased professional fees allowances to reflect the fee ranges set out above.
Professional fees will also be incurred on the design and delivery of external works (e.g. highways; sewerage; services infrastructure etc.). The application of professional fees should be broadened to cover both base construction costs and external works within the viability appraisals. Failure to do so will overstate development viability and propensity to demonstrate CIL 'headroom'.
Contingency Allowance
BNPP have adopted a 5% contingency rate and applied this to base construction costs. This would be the absolutely minimum rational contingency allowance. To reflect industry practice, the contingency allowance should be extended to cover both external works and professional fees.
Site Enabling or Abnormal Works - Brownfield Sites
There is no specific allowance for site enabling or abnormal costs on brownfield sites within the assessment. IM considers this as unusual, given such costs are to be expected, and this does not appear to have been factored into the benchmark land values (BLVs) utilised within the VS 2016.
IM would expect such costs to cover demolition, service diversions and potential site remediation prior to development occurring. Indeed, the VS 2016 confirms within paragraph 6.16 and the subsequent bullet that abnormal or 'exceptional' costs pose one of the major risk factors to the ability of residential development to absorb CIL rates.
The VS 2016 suggests that allowance of a 'buffer' in setting rates back from the margins should reduce this risk. It is IM's view that this is a flawed recommendation given that there a numerous issues identified within this representation that indicate that the VS 2016 is substantially over-stating viability, even before accounting for the additional risk factors it identities. The 'buffers' are not clearly set out in any case, and are expected to be far smaller in reality than the VS 2016 suggests within chapter 6.
Instead, to guard against this risk, and appropriately accommodate this issue within viability testing, IM consider that it would be sensible for an allowance of £200,000 per net hectare to be applied to the
brownfield site typology appraisals. This approach has been taken by other practitioners and has been supported at CIL Examination.
Re-testing should be undertaken and consulted upon. Failure to do so will increase the risk that brownfield sites are not redeveloped where an overbearing CIL liability reduces the maximum bid for acquisition below the minimum competitive landowner's expectation (i.e. the BLV).
Residual S106/S278 Cost Allowance & Emerging Regulation 123 List
Paragraph 173 of the NPPF clearly states that the combined impact of CIL and S106 / S278 obligations should not threaten viability and the delivery of the development plan.
The VS 2016 confirms that the viability appraisals contain an allowance of £1,500 per unit to address residual S106 and S278 contributions alongside CIL on non-strategic sites.
IM is highly disappointed that the Council has opted not to publish a draft Regulation 123 List alongside the DCS for stakeholder consideration and comment. This document is essential for stakeholders to understand the intended division between CIL-funded infrastructure and planning obligations continuing to be sought by the Council via S106/S278.
Equally, a draft Regulation 123 List should inform the residual sum for S106/S278 costs to be incorporated within the viability assessment evidence base. In the absence of a draft Regulation 123 List, IM questions the robustness of assumption within the VS 2016 that residual S106/S278 costs will equate to £1,500 per unit on non-strategic sites.
PPG requires that, as background evidence, the charging authority should also provide information about the amount of funding collected in recent years through section 106 agreements. Whilst the Council has not explicitly undertaken this exercise for CIL setting purposes, review of the Council's latest published 'Section 106 spreadsheet' last dated January 2017, indicates that the Council has secured contributions towards highways, education, healthcare, open space, sports provision and other various obligations that far and away exceed £1,500 per unit on non-strategic sites.
IM request that the Council both formally publish evidence of the S106/S278 funding secured in recent years, with clear disaggregation by number of units. A draft Regulation 123 List should be published alongside this information, and the Council should undertake an analysis to demonstrate that, on average, a sum of £1,500/unit represents an evidenced and reasonable sum to cover the cost of residual S106/S278 contributions following adoption of CIL.
Developer's Profit
IM considers that the proposed developer's profit of 20% of gross development value (GDV) of market units and 6% of GDV for affordable units is misrepresentative of current market conditions. National housebuilders are operating on increased hurdle rates following the EU Referendum, and as a result the economic and housing market uncertainty widely anticipated as a result of the looming exit from the EU ('Brexit'). It is IM's view that the developer's profit should be a minimum of 20% of GDV irrespective of tenure.
Development Revenue
Open Market Sales Values Relevant RICS guidance (Ref: RICS (2012) Financial Viability in Planning, Reference (GN/94 2012) advocates that development sales values should be supported by local comparable evidence. Guidance within the Harman Report also confirms:
"...when considering information on sales values and rates care should be taken to reflect current market
conditions having regard to net sales revenues rather than asking prices."
The VS 2016 presents sales values on a square foot and square meter basis over 5 market areas:
'Warwick and East Leamington Spa,' 'Most of Leamington Spa,' 'Kenilworth,' 'Rural areas (higher value-
Rowington, Leek Woolton, Ashlow, Hunningham, Cubbington, Norton Lindsey, Shrewley, Bishop's
Tachbrook)' and Rural areas (lower values). There is no accompanying map to define these areas.
These values are understood to have been derived by applying 33.2% uplift to the historic sales values within the VS 2013 (Table 4.4.3). The uplift is stated within the VS 2016 as being reflective of the Land Registry House Price Index (LRHPI), rebased to Warwick.
IM is highly concerned that the pricing proposed within Table 4.4.3 of the VS 2016 fails to reflect their expectations and understanding of overall and variations in pricing across the borough. IM is particularly concerned that the open market price of £4,236/m2 (£393/ft2) utilised across a very wide charging zone comprising the 'higher value rural area' and 'most of Leamington Spa' is too high and misrepresentative of pricing across large swathes of this zone.
IM has reviewed the residential pricing methodology applied within the 2013 VS to inform these original open sales prices. IM is concerned that the pricing analysis was not robust at this point. It is stated within paragraph 4.2 of the VS 2013 that comparable evidence of 'transacted properties' and 'properties on the market' has been considered to establish values. It also suggests that analysis draws on the findings of the Council's 2011 affordable housing viability evidence base.
IM views this as deficient for the following reasons:
* The comparable pricing evidence has not been published, meaning the evidence is not 'available' before stakeholders or the Examiner and cannot be determined as robust as a basis for setting CIL rates;
* There is no confirmation in the VS 2016 or VS 2013 that the pricing evidence was based on new build properties that reflect the characteristics of units that will be developed on sites allocated within the draft Local Plan;
* There is no confirmation that the pricing evidence was based on net sales prices to reflect discounting from asking prices;
* There is no way of confirming whether the sample of pricing evidence is of a sufficient volume and spatial distribution to robustly justify the introduction of the differential zones proposed within the VS 2016 and DCS; and
* There is no way of confirming the transaction dates for properties within the sample to understand the period over which sales prices were assessed and conclusions reached.
Such deficiencies are compounded by applying an extremely crude uplift to un-evidenced 2013 values using LRHPI. The rudimentary approach applied in the VS 2016 fails to reflect disparities in price changes that have occurred spatially across the borough since 2013, and is in no way a reliable basis upon which to set differential charging rates.
IM firmly requests that the market pricing evidence base that underpinned the VS 2013 is published for consultation and stakeholder comment / review. As stated within the Harman Report, sales values within viability testing should be informed by net achieved sales and represent market actualities. It is strongly recommended that BNPPRE undertakes a refreshed market pricing analysis to sense-test the prices within the VS 2016 and provide the industry / Examiner with the necessary available local market evidence. The burden of evidence is placed firmly with the Council to confirm the evidence supports an 'appropriate balance'. Without evidence, this cannot be demonstrated.
In addition, IM requests that the LRHPI data is published. It is absent from the VS 2016, which means that the validity of the applied uplift cannot be confirmed.
Affordable Housing Values
Paragraphs 4.4 - 4.9 of the VS 2016 are set out under a heading 'Affordable housing tenure and values'. This is misleading as the affordable housing values applied within the VS 2016 appraisals are not stated in this section or elsewhere within the evidence base.
Given that 40% affordable housing is applied within the appraisals, of which 80% is social rent in tenure and 20% is shared ownership, it forms a key component of the built development and revenue stream for each site. IM request that the Council / BNPPRE transparently set out what capital values they are applying to:
* Social rent units - this should be consistent across the typologies, but vary by dwelling
size; and
* Shared ownership units - this should vary depending on unit size/type and linked to open market sales values (i.e. by zone).
Appropriate evidence should be obtained from RP's active in the local area to demonstrate that these capital values are realistic and achievable (or exceeded) based on transactions in practice. At present, it is unclear whether this appropriately reflects the local property market, or has been based on any available market evidence.
Until this information is provided, IM reserves the right to provide further comment and analysis on this issue, but is highly concerned by a lack of transparency in the calculation of development value within the viability evidence base.
Development Programme & Instalments Policy
IM notes that the development programme for each typology is summarised within a table format in Figure 4.19.1 of the VS 2016. IM considers the sales rate of 3 private units per calendar month to be appropriate on non-strategic sites.
However, the VS 2016 does not confirm the rate of revenue receipts assumed for affordable units.
The timing of this revenue will have a bearing on cashflow and the accruing of development finance charges. IM requests that this is clarified by the Council / BNPPRE for transparency and to ensure that it appropriately reflects market realities.
Secondly, IM notes that the timing of residual S106 contribution costs is placed in between 50% and 75% of the way through the sales programme on non-strategic sites of 75+ units. The intended nature of residual S106 contributions has not yet been disclosed by the Council via a draft Regulation 123
List, which is a deficiency that has been highlighted already within this representation. However, further review of the Council's latest published 'Section 106 spreadsheet' last dated January 2017 indicates that the Council has sought to secure the vast majority of larger-scale planning obligations with triggers prior to 1st occupation, or with staged payments on 1st occupation, 25% of occupations and 50% of occupations, on similar sized and larger non-strategic sites. This clearly demonstrates a
predisposition of the Council to secure S106 contributions far earlier than simply at 50% of occupations. On this basis, IM considers that the development programme within the VS 2016 is overly generous towards S106 payment triggers based on the Council's recent track record. This will push costs back in the development programme and will understate likely finance costs incurred in reality by developers. It is IM's view that, in order, to take a pragmatic and conservative assessment, the appraisals for non-strategic typologies of 75+ units should be run to include all residual S106/S278 costs to be incurred prior to 1st occupation (given this will be the Council's sought position).
Thirdly, the Council has yet to publish a draft Instalment Policy for the payment of CIL liability. This is disappointing as it is generally considered good practice nationally for this to be consulted upon with the industry in a collaborative manner. IM notes that the Council has stated under paragraph 6.6 of the DCS that it intends to allow payment of CIL by instalments depending on the total amount of the liability. Yet no detail is provided, with the Council stating merely: "Details of the instalments policy will be determined prior to adoption of CIL".
However, IM is concerned that the VS 2016 has already included pre-determined instalments for the payment of CIL liability within the approach to viability testing to assess the propensity of sites to accommodate CIL. Inspection of the development programme for each typology summarised in figure 4.19.1 of the VS 2016 confirms that payment of CIL liability is assumed in 3 instalments for all typologies - over varying timescales. No explanation is provided as to the rationale behind this, or to the scale of each instalment - for example - are such instalments all equal or weighted?
IM consider this as unusual practice. The approach adopted within the VS 2016 to include predetermined (and unjustified/unexplained) instalments poses a downside risk to viability of development in reality post-adoption. For example, the Council may not opt to introduce the payment of instalments in the manner applied within the VS 2016 viability testing, and may instead introduce fewer instalments or require payments to occur earlier. They may ultimately determine not to permit instalments at all for liability under a certain threshold. This would have a negative impact on development cashflow by increasing finance costs, and reducing development viability - and hence the propensity of sites to provide a CIL payment.
In the absence of a published draft Instalments Policy to which the Council confirms its commitment, the appraisals for all typologies should be re-run and based upon the payment of CIL liability within 60 days of commencement (i.e. same quarter that commencement of construction occurs). This is consistent with Regulation 70(7). This would be representative of a pragmatic and conservative approach, which would reduce the risk to development viability posed by the introduction of CIL, and reflects the CIL Regulations and guidance within PPG where an Instalments Policy is yet to be published and adopted.
Benchmark Land Values (BLV)
IM is highly concerned with the BLV's utilised within the VS 2016 to test the viability of the sites to accommodate CIL liability.
The greenfield BLVs (BLV 3 & 4) are drawn from a Department for Communities and Local Government
(CLG) research paper (Ref: CLG (2011) "Cumulative Impacts of Regulations on House Builders and Landowners," DCLG Publications published in 2011,) and based on evidence preceding this date. This information is now outdated and the VS 2016 does not make reference to any cross-checking of local market activity to confirm whether these land values are representative of the minimum competitive returns being sought by landowners and agreed with developers within transactions.
In addition, the very assumption that open market sales values have increased by 33.2% since 2013,
yet the expectations of landowners have not risen proportionally since either 2011 or 2013 ignores the fundamentals of the economy, land and property market.
Landowner's reasonable expectations of competitive returns for the sale of their landholdings are not fixed in a point in time. If the economy improves, housing demand increases. If housing demand increases prices grow and land supply is placed under greater pressure, which increases landowner's expectations as competition for land rises in a competitive market.
Despite this, the VS 2016 uses the exact same BLVs as used within the VS 2013, which are based on
report from 2011. IM sees this as fundamentally flawed and lacking common sense. It follows that, if
house prices have increased since 2013 (and further since 2011), so will have landowner's expectations of minimum competitive returns for the disposal of their landholdings for housing development. The BLV 3 and BLV 4 benchmarks bear no representation to the non-strategic land supply allocated within the Draft Local Plan.
It is IM's view that a BLV4 has no relationship with non-strategic sites and should not be used as a measure of BLV. Instead, a single re-calibrated BLV3 should be utilised. Based on IM's exposure to the land market and negotiations with landowners across Warwick, and wider Warwickshire, IM consider that an appropriate BLV 3 threshold would equate to a minimum of £650,000 per gross ha or £1.3m per net ha (£0.26m per gross acre or £0.53m per net acre) - assuming a 50% net developable area (as per the VS 2016). This is representative of 'mid-range' market conditions in Warwick and should be the minimum BLV against which non-strategic site typologies are appraised within the viability evidence base.
IM strongly recommends that the appraisals within the VS 2016 are re-run to incorporate the revised BLV3 as set out above for the non-strategic sites.
Appendix 1 - see attached
For the reasons set out within this representation, it is IM's firm view that the proposed charging rates within the CIL DCS are fundamentally flawed.
The CIL DCS is based upon an inadequate viability study (the VS 2016), which fails to represent appropriate available evidence in accordance with the CIL Regulations and PPG as a basis for setting CIL rates. It is considered that the flaws within the VS 2016 significantly overstate the propensity of sites to accommodate CIL and, consequently, the rates within the CIL DCS are erroneously skewed upwards.
IM has made multiple requests for additional clarifications, corrections and the preparation of additional supporting viability evidence within this representation. Without provision of this additional evidence, IM maintains that the CIL DCS should be found unsound at Examination.

Thank you for your request to provide a representation on the above consultation document.
When consulted on land use planning matters, HSE where possible will make representations to ensure that compatible development within the consultation zones of major hazard establishments and major accident hazard pipelines (MAHPs) is achieved.
We have concluded that we have no representation to make at this stage of your local planning process. This is because there is insufficient information in the consultation document on the location and use class of sites that could be developed. In the absence of this information, HSE is unable to give advice regarding the compatibility of future developments within the consultation zones of major hazard establishments and MAHPs located in the area of your local plan.
Planning authorities are advised to use HSE's Planning Advice Web App to verify any advice given. The Web App is a software version of the methodology used in providing land use planning advice. It replaces PADHI+. Please see the advice note below for further information on the Web App including accessing the package.
Future Consultation with HSE on Local Plans
HSE acknowledges that early consultation can be an effective way of alleviating problems due to incompatible development at the later stages of the planning process, and that we may be able to provide advice on development compatibility as your plan progresses. Therefore, we would like to be consulted further on local plan documents where detailed land allocations and
use class proposals are made; e.g. site specific allocations of land in development planning documents.

See attached

1. Whilst little comment can be made as to the actual charging levels, Kenilworth Town Council appreciate the need for different rates across the District, but see the resulting zones as a rather coarse solution. There is as much logic for a variable rate within the town as there is between Kenilworth and Warwick. It would seem more logical to relate somehow to total house price rather than floor area, but the Town Council assume that this is not possible?

2. Kenilworth Town Council are totally intrigued by the defined boundary for Kenilworth, which reflects neither the Town Boundary nor the projected urban area in the Local Plan, and would welcome an explanation.

Sport England do not object to the CIL Draft Charging Schedule but would like to make the following general comments to inform Warwick DC's CIL 123 List:

It is considered that the following three guidelines should apply:
1. CIL should specifically exclude any mitigation measures required to make a development proposal satisfactory in planning terms, e.g. if housing is proposed on playing field the mitigation for that loss under NPPF Para 74 should be dealt with OUTSIDE of CIL.
2. CIL 123 lists should only include defined projects and not use generic statements such as 'Indoor Sports Provision' and 'Outdoor Sports Provision'. Our understanding of the legal position is that where a generic statement is used for a facility type then all provision is caught within CIL and therefore none can be delivered via S106 (to avoid double dipping). Whilst there is some clarity re. what S106 will cover (providing clarity in those instances only) the fact that no projects have been listed under the CIL column for CIL funding will mean all outdoor sports projects not listed in the S106 column will by default be expected to be funded by CIL therefore the LA will be prevented from seeking S106 funding for anything other than clear mitigation on those sites listed. Sport England therefore suggests the CIL column is revised in terms of both Indoor and Outdoor Sports Provision to include ONLY SPECIFIC PROJECTS THAT CAN REASONABLY BE FUNDED THROUGH CIL.
3. CIL 123 lists should be kept to a list of major key priority projects and not seek to deliver all infrastructure. These projects should be the big ticket items where S106 pooling restrictions prevent S106 agreements being a practical tool and where CIL receipts are sufficient to deliver within a reasonable timescale. The project list should exclude smaller projects/improvement schemes that are simpler/quicker/more enforceable for developers/LAs to deliver on or off site via S106 agreements where delivery can become a planning requirement.

Sport England therefore recommends:
1. The CIL list includes specific projects for sport facilities (indoor and/or outdoor) and not generic statements.
2. The statement clarifies that:
a. Mitigation for loss under NPPF Para 74 falls OUTSIDE of CIL
b. Clarification that S106 agreements will be used to secure new sports facilities needed to meet new demand arising from development for sports facilities (indoor and outdoor) where not already sought through the CIL (e.g. CIL may be used to fund a new leisure centre to meet growth in demand for swimming pool BUT S106's would be used to fund

1.3
It should be included and made clear in this paragraph that extensions to existing buildings are not to be charged.
Since only the ground space and roof space covered by the new development effects the need for access and additional water run off, it is arguable that it is unfair to charge for additional floors of living space.

1.4
2- 5 % of total development costs is a hefty fee, not a modest one, and a may encourage developers to cut corners on quality elsewhere. It will raise house prices even more, which are already high.
Is this to replace Section 106 planning obligation? Is so, it would be better to make that clear.
There should be no discrepancy between area with or without a Neighbourhood Plan. Areas without a Neighbourhood Plan are probably more in need than those with, therefore the funds allocated to the Local communities should all be at the higher rate of 25%.

1.5
The infrastructure should include rainwater harvesting and renewable energy specifically.

All references to the direct impact of development should take into account environmental sustainability specifically, not just landscaping and access roads. This is to be in accordance with
The Strategic Environmental Assessment Directive: Guidance for Planning Authorities
https://www.warwickdc.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/1105/chapter_3.pdf

Please set out full details of your objection or representation of support. If objecting, please set out what changes could be made to resolve your objection (Use a separate sheet if necessary).

2.2
The list of items of new or improved infrastructure does not include provision for rainwater collection or renewable energy. These are very real needs of buildings as they place increased burden on the power demands of a community and the additional pressure on the water resources, plus increased pressure of water run off on roofs and increased risk