CIL Modification 1

My question on the community infrastructure levy is: why is it 2 to 5% of development costs? There should be economic theory supporting the percentage. Specifically, the main cost of building new housing to the existing community is the health-giving countryside that is built on. For every hectare of countryside that is built on, in theory the district council should purchase a new hectare of (equivalent) countryside nearby (eg elsewhere in south Warwickshire) to replace the land that has been lost. The community infrastructure levy should be set equal to the cost of this land purchase. If (roughly) 1/3 of the cost of a new house is land, this suggests that the community levy should be set at more like 33% rather than 2 to 5%.

A target of ~16,000 new homes in 18 years promotes an emotional reaction of shock because most locals would not want this scale of development; the price of those homes does not reflect the true cost to existing residents of that development.

In conclusion, the community infrastructure levy should reflect the cost to existing households as well as to new households. With a finite land supply, this approach would also make the council's policies sustainable.

Natural England have no further comments

The element of the Draft Charging Schedule which deals with Retail is entirely unclear.
Our representations to the original Draft Charging Schedule (in March 2015) and subsequent representations to the Revised Draft Charging Schedule (February 2017) set out our concerns regarding what is meant by "Convenience based supermarkets, superstores and retail parks". The concerns raised have not been
addressed in the Statement of Modifications and accordingly our representations remain (we rely on our earlier representations and do not re-state them here).
However, the Statement of Modifications Draft Charging Schedule adds further confusion.
The bold type heading "Retail Area" suggests that the three types of retail development listed below relate to specific geographic areas, otherwise why refer to retail "Area"? However, the 'amended zoning map' is titled "Residential Charging Zones" and makes no reference to retail at all. Accordingly, no retail zones are defined, making the Draft Charging Schedule impossible to interpret.
Even if "Convenience based supermarkets, superstores and retail parks" were a clearly defined type of development (a point which our previous representations address) the charge for which applies across the whole District, and the reference to "Retail Area" is in error in that respect, it must be the case that "Retail -
prime Leamington" does relate to a geographic area; it is inconceivable that this could be referring to a development "type". Again, the 'amended zoning map' relates to residential development only and makes no reference to retail at all. We note that this point has been raised by the Inspector in correspondence PC1
and was not addressed in the Authority's response PC1A. It has been left to be addressed in the Authority's response to the Issues & Questions and discussed at the hearing session if necessary. We consider this to be wholly unsatisfactory and prejudicial to interested parties who will be forced to respond 'on the hoof' and,
moreover, to be contrary to Regulation 16 which requires consultation.

The combined result of the absence of a clear definition of "Convenience based supermarkets, superstores and retail parks" and the absence of a retail charging zone(s) result in very considerable uncertainty. Neither a prospective developer, nor an officer of the Charging Authority could, with any certainty, predict whether a
given Class A1 development would result in a charge of £105, £65 or £0 per square metre. The implications for a development appraisal, and thus the potential effects of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development, are significant. More pertinently for the purposes of the Hearing, the Authority cannot be
shown to have complied with Regulation 13 or 14(1)(b).
Separately, we also note that the 'amended zoning map' now shows five of the strategic housing sites. However, these sites are also cross hatched with their underlying residential zone hatching (for example, the Kings Hill site H43 is shown with red hatching but is also covered with yellow hatching as part of Zone D). It
is not clear, therefore, whether a proposal (or phase of development) of less than 300 dwellings at Kings Hill would be charged at £55 or £195. The same type of development in the same geographic location could be argued to be subject to two different charges. As is the case with retail development, there is a significant
lack of clarity regarding residential development and the charge which would apply.
Given these open questions regarding what charge, if any, would apply to retail development and what charge would apply to the largest strategic housing allocations in the District, we do not believe that the Charging Authority can possibly have accurately calculated the funding from CIL. Accordingly, it cannot have
struck an appropriate balance between funding from CIL and the estimated total cost of infrastructure required to support the development of its area. Furthermore, it cannot have taken into account the potential effects of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area. In short, Regulation 14 has not been complied with.

It is considered that the evidence base is not sufficiently robust, that the proposed
categories/geographical areas in the Statement of Modifications are ill defined. The Statement of Modifications is not deemed to be 'sound' and our client would like the opportunity to speak at the future Hearing in order to ensure these matters are fully explored and understood (indeed, the Programme Officer has confirmed our attendance at the 6th July Hearing session).