Under Regulation 14 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 ("CIL Regulations") the Council's primary duty when setting the level of Community Infrastructure Levy ("CIL") charge is to strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding the cost of infrastructure required to support development from CIL and its potential effects on the economic viability of development.

In our view, the approach taken to assessing the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule does not achieve an appropriate balance between these two objectives.

We wish to object to the approach taken to assessing the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule on the following grounds:

1. The Viability Study fails to adequately take account of major changes introduced by the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014/385

2. the impact on policies enhancing economic performance;

3. the financial assumptions and viability assessments contained in the Council's Viability Study;

4. the proposal to split convenience and comparison retail development;

5. issues relating to State Aid; and

6. concerns about the Council's approach to setting CIL charges generally.


Question 5: Do you agree with the proposed CIL Rates for non - residential development?

We will not repeat the Council's strategic objectives contained in its Local Plan in full here, but in order to achieve its Vision and Overall Objectives, it will be important for the Council to set an appropriate CIL charge to encourage new development to come forward. An appropriate CIL charge will encourage new development and promote redevelopment to create employment and ensure a range of shopping choices for consumers and enhance the vitality and viability in district and local centres.

The proposed retail CIL rates would discourage larger retail developments and would not ensure that the relevant retail and employment aims of the Vision and Overall Objectives are met. This could have the effect of reducing the range, variety and choice of retail shopping and, if no redevelopment or regeneration schemes are put forward, then existing buildings are unlikely to be refurbished and re-used.

It is our view that if the retail charges set out in the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule are adopted, there will be several consequences across the Borough that will put the Council's ability to achieve its key objectives at risk. For example:

* All other forms of development will receive a significant subsidy at the expense of retail schemes; and

* There will be a corresponding disincentive (and market distortion accordingly) to investment in this sector of the local economy.

The Government is keen to encourage the creation of additional employment across the economy and the retail sector as a whole is one of the largest employers and the largest creator of new jobs at the present time as well as being one of the most dynamic and innovative sectors within the UK economy.
Asda example 1

ASDA has a proven track record of investing in local communities and of creating jobs within these areas. For example, of the 123 colleagues recruited for the ASDA store in Tunbridge Wells, 76 colleagues (71%) were previously unemployed.

The supporting papers do not acknowledge this trend nor do they fully assess the role of retail within the national economy. They simply assert that large scale retail is performing stronger in comparison to the other aspects of the retail sector and accordingly, it implies that large scale retail establishments have the capacity to pay potentially very large sums of CIL.

Any CIL schedule that imposes a substantial CIL charge on superstores or supermarkets and a very low or nil rate on all other uses could effectively undermine the retail function of local and town centres, detracting from their viability and vitality as large scale retail developers would be discouraged by the imposition of CIL.