Q8. Do you agree with the proposed draft R123 list?

I object to the inclusion of HS1 as I do not think that new development should be funding this project, nor is new development dependant upon its delivery.

Given that the council are seeking to reduce the number of public conveniences that it provides and want these taken on by Own/Parish Councils I am surprised that they are on the list.

The Parish Council agrees with the list in principle, although it appears to be very "Bexhill biased". A very important local (Robertsbridge) issue relates to the increased traffic resulting from building developments in accordance with the numbers in the Core Strategy, and the potentially serious effects on the A21 junction at the top of George Hill; the Parish Council would like to see major improvements to this junction.

Sussex Police agree with and support the Draft Regulation 123 List accompanying the PDCS.

The inclusion of 'Emergency Services' to be wholly or partly funded by CIL is particularly welcomed. It is also noted that this funding is for the 'provision of facilities.' Again, this wording of 'facilities' is welcomed as this ensures the levy may be utilised for the necessary provision, expansion and adaptation of Police Stations and Estate, as well as the provision of wider community safety facilities and supporting infrastructure, as permissible under CIL Guidance.

However, it is noted that no 'Emergency Services' infrastructure is included within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan Schedule. Sussex Police would welcome inclusion of the Force's infrastructure needs within this Schedule, to further evidence that the PDCS and Draft Regulation 123 List is based on appropriate available evidence on infrastructure planning. This would also ensure that this infrastructure is included as fundamental to the delivery of the objectives and spatial strategy of the Core Strategy, and provide a timeframe and importance rating for the provision of policing infrastructure.

Sussex Police would welcome further joint work on inclusion of policing infrastructure in the IDP Schedule, in the format required and as based on the infrastructure needs set out to Rother District Council in June 2014. It is hoped that this may enable a revision to the IDP Schedule, prior to formulation of the Draft Charging Schedule, to ensure that this Schedule is based on up to date available and appropriate evidence.

Sussex Police agree with and support the Draft Regulation 123 List accompanying the PDCS.

The inclusion of 'Emergency Services' to be wholly or partly funded by CIL is particularly welcomed. It is also noted that this funding is for the 'provision of facilities.' Again, this wording of 'facilities' is welcomed as this ensures the levy may be utilised for the necessary provision, expansion and adaptation of Police Stations and Estate, as well as the provision of wider community safety facilities and supporting infrastructure, as permissible under CIL Guidance.

However, it is noted that no 'Emergency Services' infrastructure is included within the Infrastructure Delivery Plan Schedule. Sussex Police would welcome inclusion of the Force's infrastructure needs within this Schedule, to further evidence that the PDCS and Draft Regulation 123 List is based on appropriate available evidence on infrastructure planning. This would also ensure that this infrastructure is included as fundamental to the delivery of the objectives and spatial strategy of the Core Strategy, and provide a timeframe and importance rating for the provision of policing infrastructure.

Sussex Police would welcome further joint work on inclusion of policing infrastructure in the IDP Schedule, in the format required and as based on the infrastructure needs set out to Rother District Council in June 2014. It is hoped that this may enable a revision to the IDP Schedule, prior to formulation of the Draft Charging Schedule, to ensure that this Schedule is based on up to date available and appropriate evidence.

'Sporting and recreation facilities' are included within the definition of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) infrastructure in the 2008 Planning Act (section 216) which means money raised can be used to fund new or enhanced sports facilities. Sport England would suggest paragraph 20 of the CIL Schedule be amended to clarify that Sports development will be exempt from paying CIL.

Within the 'Leisure, sport, open space and green infrastructure' section of the Reg 123 (appendix 2) the Council lists a number of projects which should be funded by CIL including:
* New Bexhill Leisure Centre
* Improvements to playing pitches
* Indoor and outdoor sports and leisure provision and associated facilities

In the second column, it advises that new sports and recreation facilities which are directly related to a specific development site and are required to ensure local plan policy compliance will not be sought through CIL. Sport England are in agreement with this approach, however would recommend that it is further developed. Firstly Sport England would advise that the projects to be funded by CIL must be very specific and should be a high priority for the Council. A good example is the creation of a new leisure centre because it has political buy in and is likely to go forward, however unless there is an action plan which details the necessary improvement to playing pitch or the provision of indoor and outdoor sports leisure provision then it may be better to take these off the Reg 123 list. However in order to secure the improvements to playing pitches, there needs to be an action plan which identifies what developments (no more than five) will have S106s attached to pull the finances for such improvements. The action plan should be within the playing pitch strategy.

The playing pitch strategy should provide clear direction on what improvements are needed at pitch sites. Whilst Rother has undertaken a Playing Pitch Strategy, the site specific recommendations from the supply and demand analysis in Appendix K was not carried through into an action plan within the main document. The action plan should define time periods for undertaking the improvements/new provision and where possible should be linked to housing sites which are coming forward within the plan period. The action plan would prove useful in the determination of planning applications. The action plan would also inform the creation of CIL and a S106 obligations SPD. The Reg 123 should also be informed by Table 47 of the Hastings and Rother Leisure Facilities Strategy which provides a summary of what built sports facility provision is needed in Bexhill, Rye and Battle. This identifies the need for a swimming pool, sports halls, 3 AGPs, indoor tennis courts and a MUGA. Sport England is aware the Council is undergoing a feasibility exercise regarding a new leisure centre in Bexhill.

The IDP also identifies a number of outputs relating to sport. It identifies an undersupply of badminton courts, fitness stations, under supply of pool space and the need for a MUGA. Furthermore it identifies the need for a centralised new leisure centre in Bexhill. All of these sporting outputs are considered important to strategy. The schedule within the IDP advises that these facilities will be funded through developer contributions and by the District Council. With this in mind, it is essential to identify which of these sport provision projects will be funded by CIL and which will be funded by strategic housing allocations or other sites.

The Council will need to think quite strategically and plan effectively for sports infrastructure delivery in the future linking development sites with specific projects to meet identified sporting needs. This will enable the Council to take a proactive approach and ensure the most effective use of planning obligations and CIL together to help deliver this/meet the needs of the population.

The Council planning policy needs to be clear on which developments will be required to:
* Provide onsite sports provision/ payment in kind as part of the development
* Make a financial contribution towards an identified offsite provision - under S106
* Provide a CIL contribution (which will be used to fund major projects set out in the Reg 123 list)

It is considered that there needs to be more distinction between infrastructure which will be funded wholly or partially by CIL and that which will be funded by s106 or another mechanism. It is suggested that under the transport section the exclusion column text is changed to the following:

Site specific improvements needed to make the development acceptable in
planning terms. These exclusions can include (but are not limited to):
* Highways crossovers to access the site and local junctions;
* Deceleration and turning lanes;
* Measures to facilitate pedestrian, public transport and cyclist improvement and access;
* Lighting and street furniture needed to mitigate impact of development; and
* Mitigation works remote from the development where the need
for such works is identified in a Transport Assessment

For education it is considered that the description in the exclusion column is too general and may count as 'double dipping' with the schemes to be funded through CIL. It is suggested that as the only scheme that is appropriate to be funded through s106 is primary school provision in Bexhill that this for clarity is specifically named in the exclusion column.

It is felt that the detail on education schemes is too specific and does not reflect that given for other types of infrastructure. A bit of flexibility on exact needs will allow for slight changes in future pupil forecasts to be accommodated without requiring the Reg. 123 list to be revised.

The Reg.123 list should include a section on 'Training and Workforce Development' and cover the provision of facilities to improve local labour employment opportunities on development sites. County Council officers are happy to provide more details on possible projects in this area.

We have no comments to make on your proposed charging schedule.
With regards to your proposed Regulation 123 list (Appendix 2), we are pleased to note that "Flood Mitigation" is on the list, however we have the following recommendations.
There is the potential for new defence structures being required and in its current form Flood Mitigation would not cover new defence requirements. For example, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan June 2014 (IDP) identifies the potential for new construction of slope toe defence structure. As such we would recommend the following amendments to the text in the Regulation 123 List (List).
"Flood Defence and Mitigation
New flood defence construction.
Maintaining and improve flood and coastal defences"
We also note the exclusion "All other site specific SUDS and on-site flood mitigation improvements as identified in a site specific assessment", which we acknowledge would be a matter for addressing through the planning application process.
We would also like to draw your attention to the other service and issues identified within the IDP under the heading "Environment". Unfortunately the IDP and Regulation 123 do not appear to correlate, headings wise, so it is difficult for the reader to determine whether those matters in the IDP have been included in the List. It would appear not, therefore we would ask that the "Leisure, sport, open space and green infrastructure" section of the List is amended to include Environment, with reference to improving water quality, and the requirements of the Water Framework Directive.

PDCS Q3 - Do you agree with the proposed residential CIL charging zones?

Bovis Homes Ltd are content that strategic allocations have their own charging zone.

PDCS Q4 - Do you agree with the proposed CIL charge rates for residential uses?

Bovis Homes Ltd are in the process of preparing a masterplan for the Strategic Allocation at North East Bexhill. As soon as the scheme's parameters/development quantums are agreed with the Council, a cost and viability model will be prepared to test the scheme's viability and impact of CIL taking into account the local housing market conditions, a greater understanding of site development costs and S106 requirements not covered by CIL.

Due to unforeseen delays in agreeing the scheme's parameters, this cost and viability information will not be available before the preliminary CIL Consultation deadline on the 26 September 2014. It is therefore not yet possible to confirm whether the Council's proposed CIL rate of £100 per square metre for strategic allocations renders the NE Bexhill scheme unviable. However, experience on CIL rates in other comparable value areas would seem to suggest that the rate may be on the high side, particularly as education provision is excluded from CIL (reg 123 list). Bovis Homes Ltd therefore wish to reserve the right to provide a more definitive answer on site viability based on an agreed masterplan and up-to-date cost/market condition information through further consultation processes and potentially written statements prior to the CIL examination and at the hearing.

PDCS Q6 - Do you support the introduction of an instalment policy in Rother for CIL payments?

Bovis Homes Ltd consider it essential to introduce an instalment policy for strategic allocations. Without such an approach, the initial CIL liability may render the scheme unviable.

PDCS - Q7. Do you have any views on whether the District Council should introduce a discretionary and exceptional relief policy?

Bovis Homes Ltd consider it essential for local discretion on CIL charging, particularly on strategic allocations to take account of viability issues should they arise and should the Council's prioritise affordable housing provision over CIL receipts.

PCDS - Q8 Do you agree with the proposed Regulation 123 list?

Bexhill Homes Ltd do not agree with education facilities directly related to development being excluded from CIL. If related education facilities are required, which is the case in NE Bexhill, effectively the landowners/developers are being charged twice, to fund education facilities related to their development and other education provision elsewhere in Bexhill. The education 'bill' is very significant and a key component of determining viability. All education facilities should be provided through CIL

Rye Town Council notes the draft Infrastructure R123 list, but asks to be consulted
further on its detail to ensure that emerging findings of the Rye Neighbourhood Plan (community wishes) are fully considered, particularly in the areas of education and transport.

I am writing on behalf of Persimmon Homes in response to the consultation on the Rother District Council Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Draft R123 List. The relevant forms are enclosed and the representations are shown below.

Q1. Do you agree that Rother District Council should introduce a CIL?
No comment at this stage.

Q2. Do you agree that there is [a] clear infrastructure funding gap?
No comment at this stage.

Q3. Do you agree with the proposed residential CIL charging zones?
No comment at this stage.

Q4. Do you agree with the proposed CIL charge rates for residential uses?
Funding Gap
The gist of CIL is that a local authority identifies a level of growth and a level of infrastructure investment necessary to support that growth and then, if possible, requires a standard charge from new development to pay for that infrastructure.

However, it is unfortunately inevitable that due to the high cost of infrastructure, there is often a residual funding gap. For instance, in the neighbouring District of Wealdon, where 450 new homes are required every year and where the process of adopting CIL is more progressed, the total cost of all infrastructure is estimated at £67.5m, and with £19.1m of funding already identified it is estimated that CIL would deliver just over half (54%) of the remaining funding required (£26m out of £48.4m), leaving a residual funding gap of £22.4m.

In comparison, the PDCS explains that for Rother, where 335 new homes are required per year, a total infrastructure cost of £172m has been identified, and with £39m of funding already identified it is estimated that CIL would deliver around a quarter (24-26%) of the remaining funding required (£32-36.4m out of £133m), leaving a residual funding gap of £96.6-101m.

The Infrastructure Funding Gap Analysis (RDC August 2014) notes in conclusion that:
"...there will remain a significant shortfall in funding that will need to be found from other sources whose funding has yet to be determined." (RDC emphasis)
Rother District Council 2 26 September 2014

Thus our client is concerned that the significance of the residual funding gap could lead to pressure in the future to increase the CIL rate and adversely affect the viability of development proposals. To address this it would appear evident that the Draft Regulation 123 List requires reconsideration to reduce the overall infrastructure cost.

Anticipated Quantum of Development
Whilst the Economic Viability Assessment correctly identifies (para. 3.2.1) the Local Plan Core Strategy requirement for "at least 5,700" new homes between 2011 and 2028, later figures in the Assessment are both inconsistent and appear to reflect the lower housing target expressed in earlier versions of the Core Strategy; for instance (Table 4.7: Distribution of development):

Settlement - Anticipated number of dwellings (incl. affordable)
Bexhill & Hastings Fringe -2,000
Battle - 400
Rye - 200
Villages - 900
TOTAL - 3,500

and (Table 6.2: Residential potential CIL receipts):

Settlement - Anticipated number of dwellings (incl. affordable)
Bexhill & Hastings Fringe - 2,600
Bexhill - 600
Bexhill Strategic sites - 1,950
Hastings Fringe - 50
Battle - 160
Rye - 120
Villages - 900
TOTAL - 3,780

whereas the figures in the Submission Core Strategy and as proposed to be adopted (Figure 8 / Proposed Modification 7.14) are:

Settlement - Anticipated number of dwellings (incl. affordable)
Bexhill & Hastings Fringe - 2,095-2,330 3,200-3,350
Bexhill - 2,050-2,250 3,100
Hastings Fringe - 45-80 100-250
Battle - 400-440 475-500
Rye - 250-350 355-400
Villages - 950-1,000 1,670
TOTAL - 3,700-4,100 At least 5,700

The modified Local Plan Core Strategy even highlights that (para. 7.50 / Proposed Modification 7.15):
"Taking account of outstanding planning permissions, there is a need to provide for a 4295* dwellings in the District as a whole between 2011 and 2028"

This would suggest that the calculations of the CIL required per area of floorspace has been miscalculated on the assumption that several thousand homes less than are in fact planned will be provided. On this basis it wold appear that the proposed CIL rates could be reduced and yet CIL overall generate the same contribution towards infrastructure funding.

Proposed CIL Rates
With regard to the proposed CIL rates for residential uses, there would appear to be no justification for these. Having analysed the potential maximum (CIL) headroom (Table 4.7) (otherwise referred to as the 'overage'), the Economic Viability Assessment then states (para. 4.4.1) that a CIL charge is set that is well under this point for a number of reasons. It then states (para. 4.4.2) that whilst it would be conceivable to adopt an arithmetic approach to converting the 'overage' into a CIL rate, the Assessment states that PBA "prefer to use our professional judgement based on experience...and make recommendations for the LPA to consider"; no other explanation is given for how the recommended rates were arrived at - in other words the figures appear to have been plucked out of thin air.

On this basis the Assessment (Table 4.8) makes the following recommendations:
Charging Zone, Charging Area, CIL Rate (£ / sqm)
1 - Battle & Rural North & West - £240
2 - Rye & Rural East - £160
3a - Bexhill Central & East - £40
3b - Bexhill West - £200
4 - Strategic Allocations - £100

Whilst the Assessment states that the recommended rate has not been calculated but rather that it is based on a professional judgement, it is notable that the recommended CIL rate is generally between 32-48% (i.e. almost exactly a third to a half) of the overage; it thus appears that the figures recommended do in fact derive from a very crude calculation.

Without any further explanation, the PDCS then proposes (Table 1) different rates for two zones:

Charging Zone, Charging Area, CIL Rate (£ / sqm)
3a - Bexhill Central & East - £100
3b - Bexhill West - £180

On the basis of an average three-bedroom house of circa. 100 sqm this equates to a CIL Levy of:

Charging Zone, Charging Area, CIL Rate (£ / sqm)
1 - Battle & Rural North & West - £24,000
2 - Rye & Rural East - £16,000
3a - Bexhill Central & East - £10,000
3b - Bexhill West - £18,000
4 - Strategic Allocations - £10,000

By way of comparison, the process of adopting CIL in the neighbouring District of Wealdon is more advanced than in Rother. Wealdon abuts two of the proposed charging zones - Zone 1: Battle, Rural North & West, and Zone 3a: Bexhill West. Whilst the rates proposed for within Rother are, respectively, £240 and £180, the rates chargeable immediately across the District boundary are, respectively, £180 and £110. For an average three-bedroom house of circa. 100 sqm this equates to an additional cost of between £6-7,000.

Throughout the development of the Local Plan Core Strategy the Council emphasised the difficulty in bringing forward residential development within the District. Our client is this concerned that such a high CIL rate, and also such a high cost when compared to the neighbouring District, is likely to result in decreased in the housing market within Rother.

On this basis our client cannot agree with the proposed CIL rates for residential uses.

Q5. Do you agree with the proposed CIL rates for non-residential development?
No comment at this stage.

Q6. Do you support the introduction of an instalment policy in Rother for CIL payments?
Yes; however, our client has no suggestions on the form of instalment policy that should be adopted by the Council, but would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further and make further submissions should these be considered of assistance, following this consultation or through later consultations.

Q7. Do you have any views on whether the District Council should introduce a discretionary and exceptional relief policy.
Yes; however, as the Council has not made a decision on whether to adopt a discretionary and exceptional relief policy, our client has no suggestions on the form of instalment policy that should be adopted by the Council, but would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further and make further submissions should these be considered of assistance, following this consultation or through later consultations.

Q8. Do you agree with the proposed draft R123 list?
The NPPG advises (Paragraph: 096 Reference ID: 25-096-20140612) that:
"Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations...provides for charging authorities to set out a list of those projects or types of infrastructure that it intends to fund, or may fund, through the levy."

However, there is a distinct lack of correlation between the Draft Regulation 123 List of infrastructure and the infrastructure projects listed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (RDC, June 2014), and many projects identified in the IDP are only listed as being at 'concept' stage, with some even only being described as 'desirable', yet they appear in the Draft Regulation 123 List.

A number of infrastructure projects identified in the Draft Regulation 123 List are also not identified in the IDP as being the recipients of CIL funding; for instance the £130m funding required for the upgrading of the rail line is identified in the IDP as being funded by the DfT, Network Rail and SELEP.

The NPPG also advises (Paragraph: 097 Reference ID: 25-097-20140612) that:
"Where the regulation 123 list includes a generic type of infrastructure (such as 'education' or 'transport'), section 106 contributions should not be sought on any specific projects in that category." and (Paragraph: 100 Reference ID: 25-100-20140612) that: "Individual projects on the charging authority's list of infrastructure that it proposes to fund from the levy...cannot be funded by s106 contributions."

The Draft Regulation 123 List as contained within the PDCS contains a number of generic entries such as "bus shelters", "public realm improvements", "improvements to walking and cycling corridors", "public car park facilities", "children and young people's play areas", "Coombe Valley County Park", and so on and notes that exclusions will be facilities required in direct relation to a specific development.

However, it is unclear exactly what is proposed to be funded by direct contribution and what is to be funded through CIL. As such it is not clear to developers whether they will be liable for CIL and for other unspecified facilities that the Council considers to be directly-related to a specific development proposal.

On this basis our client cannot agree with the proposed draft R123 list.

Q9. Do you have any further comments on the PDCS?
No comment at this stage.

Consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Draft R123 List

I am writing on behalf of Marchfield (Strategic Land) Ltd in response to the consultation on the Rother District Council Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule and Draft R123 List. The relevant forms are enclosed and the representations are shown below.

Q1. Do you agree that Rother District Council should introduce a CIL?
No comment at this stage.

Q2. Do you agree that there is [a] clear infrastructure funding gap?
No comment at this stage.

Q3. Do you agree with the proposed residential CIL charging zones?
The supporting document to the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) the 'Rother District Council Community Infrastructure Levy Economic Viability Assessment' (PBA, July 2014) states (para. 4.3.24) that:

"The Core Strategy identifies a strategic site at North East Bexhill and the Council considers that two further sites at Battle and Bexhill could also be considered as strategic in nature. Whilst the further site at Bexhill and the one at Battle has not been specifically tested, the Council may want to take a similar approach to North East Bexhill and separately identify them within the charging schedule."

At Bexhill the Local Plan Core Strategy (as proposed to be modified and adopted) identifies a 'Strategic Growth Location' to the north-east of the town, often referred to as 'North-East Bexhill' and two 'Potential Broad Locations for Future Development', one to the north of the town and one to the west, often referred to as 'North Bexhill' and 'West Bexhill'. The North-East Bexhill site is a continuation of the current, saved, allocation in the previous Local Plan. The two Broad Locations are new to the Local Plan Core Strategy.

Clearly, if one Broad Location (North Bexhill) is to be identified as a 'strategic site' then the other Broad Location (West Bexhill) should be similarly identified. No explanation is provided in any of the documentation relating to the PDCS as to why the West Bexhill site has been omitted.

On this basis our client cannot agree with the proposed residential CIL charging zones.

Moreover, the PDCS refers to the three 'strategic sites' as 'strategic allocations' yet the sites at North Bexhill and West Bexhill are only 'Broad Locations' and have not yet been allocated for development, thus the terminology used in the PDCS could be viewed as misleading.

Q4. Do you agree with the proposed CIL charge rates for residential uses?
Funding Gap
The gist of CIL is that a local authority identifies a level of growth and a level of infrastructure investment necessary to support that growth and then, if possible, requires a standard charge from new development to pay for that infrastructure.

However, it is unfortunately inevitable that due to the high cost of infrastructure, there is often a residual funding gap. For instance, in the neighbouring District of Wealdon, where 450 new homes are required every year and where the process of adopting CIL is more progressed, the total cost of all infrastructure is estimated at £67.5m, and with £19.1m of funding already identified it is estimated that CIL would deliver just over half (54%) of the remaining funding required (£26m out of £48.4m), leaving a residual funding gap of £22.4m.

In comparison, the PDCS explains that for Rother, where 335 new homes are required per year, a total infrastructure cost of £172m has been identified, and with £39m of funding already identified it is estimated that CIL would deliver around a quarter (24-26%) of the remaining funding required (£32-36.4m out of £133m), leaving a residual funding gap of £96.6-101m.

The Infrastructure Funding Gap Analysis (RDC August 2014) notes in conclusion that:
"...there will remain a significant shortfall in funding that will need to be found from other sources whose funding has yet to be determined." (RDC emphasis)
Thus our client is concerned that the significance of the residual funding gap could lead to pressure in the future to increase the CIL rate and adversely affect the viability of development proposals. To address this it would appear evident that the Draft Regulation 123 List requires reconsideration to reduce the overall infrastructure cost.

Anticipated Quantum of Development
Whilst the Economic Viability Assessment correctly identifies (para. 3.2.1) the Local Plan Core Strategy requirement for "at least 5,700" new homes between 2011 and 2028, later figures in the Assessment are both inconsistent and appear to reflect the lower housing target expressed in earlier versions of the Core Strategy; for instance (Table 4.7: Distribution of development):

Settlement - Anticipated number of dwellings (incl. affordable)
Bexhill & Hastings Fringe - 2,000
Battle - 400
Rye - 200
Villages - 900
TOTAL - 3,500

and (Table 6.2: Residential potential CIL receipts):

Settlement - Anticipated number of dwellings (incl. affordable)
Bexhill & Hastings Fringe - 2,600
Bexhill - 600
Bexhill Strategic sites - 1,950
Hastings Fringe - 50
Battle - 160
Rye - 120
Villages - 900
TOTAL - 3,780

whereas the figures in the Submission Core Strategy and as proposed to be adopted (Figure 8 / Proposed Modification 7.14) are:

Settlement - Anticipated number of dwellings (incl. affordable)
Bexhill & Hastings Fringe - 2,095-2,330 3,200-3,350
Bexhill - 2,050-2,250 3,100
Hastings Fringe - 45-80 100-250
Battle - 400-440 475-500
Rye - 250-350 355-400
Villages - 950-1,000 1,670
TOTAL - 3,700-4,100 At least 5,700

The modified Local Plan Core Strategy even highlights that (para. 7.50 / Proposed Modification 7.15):
"Taking account of outstanding planning permissions, there is a need to provide for a 4295* dwellings in the District as a whole between 2011 and 2028"

This would suggest that the calculations of the CIL required per area of floorspace has been miscalculated on the assumption that several thousand homes less than are in fact planned will be provided. On this basis it wold appear that the proposed CIL rates could be reduced and yet CIL overall generate the same contribution towards infrastructure funding.

Proposed CIL Rates
With regard to the proposed CIL rates for residential uses, there would appear to be no justification for these. Having analysed the potential maximum (CIL) headroom (Table 4.7) (otherwise referred to as the 'overage'), the Economic Viability Assessment then states (para. 4.4.1) that a CIL charge is set that is well under this point for a number of reasons. It then states (para. 4.4.2) that whilst it would be conceivable to adopt an arithmetic approach to converting the 'overage' into a CIL rate, the Assessment states that PBA "prefer to use our professional judgement based on experience...and make recommendations for the LPA to consider"; no other explanation is given for how the recommended rates were arrived at - in other words the figures appear to have been plucked out of thin air.

On this basis the Assessment (Table 4.8) makes the following recommendations:

Charging Zone, Charging Area, CIL Rate (£ / sqm)
1 - Battle & Rural North & West - £240
2 - Rye & Rural East - £160
3a - Bexhill Central & East - £40
3b - Bexhill West - £200
4 - Strategic Allocations - £100

Whilst the Assessment states that the recommended rate has not been calculated but rather that it is based on a professional judgement, it is notable that the recommended CIL rate is generally between 32-48% (i.e. almost exactly a third to a half) of the overage; it thus appears that the figures recommended do in fact derive from a very crude calculation.

Without any further explanation, the PDCS then proposes (Table 1) different rates for two zones:

Charging Zone, Charging Area, CIL Rate (£ / sqm)
3a - Bexhill Central & East - £100
3b - Bexhill West - £180

On the basis of an average three-bedroom house of circa. 100 sqm this equates to a CIL Levy of:

Charging Zone, Charging Area, CIL Rate (£ / sqm)
1 - Battle & Rural North & West - £24,000
2 - Rye & Rural East - £16,000
3a - Bexhill Central & East - £10,000
3b - Bexhill West - £18,000
4 - Strategic Allocations - £10,000

By way of comparison, the process of adopting CIL in the neighbouring District of Wealdon is more advanced than in Rother. Wealdon abuts two of the proposed charging zones - Zone 1: Battle, Rural North & West, and Zone 3a: Bexhill West.

Whilst the rates proposed for within Rother are, respectively, £240 and £180, the rates chargeable immediately across the District boundary are, respectively, £180 and £110. For an average three-bedroom house of circa. 100 sqm this equates to an additional cost of between £6-7,000.

Throughout the development of the Local Plan Core Strategy the Council emphasised the difficulty in bringing forward residential development within the District. Our client is this concerned that such a high CIL rate, and also such a high cost when compared to the neighbouring District, is likely to result in decreased in the housing market within Rother.
On this basis our client cannot agree with the proposed CIL rates for residential uses.

Q5. Do you agree with the proposed CIL rates for non-residential development?
It is presumed that the references in the PDCS to 'residential uses' are intended to refer to development in Use Class C3 'Dwelling Houses' and that the reference, under 'Non-Residential Development' to 'Assisted Living / Extra Care Housing' is intended to refer to development in Use Class C2 'Residential Institutions'.

It is noted that the CIL Rate for 'Assisted Living / Extra Care Housing' is specified where there is no affordable housing. As affordable housing is not required for solely Use Class C2 proposals, this caveat is not required.

As with the setting of the CIL rates for residential uses, the Economic Viability Assessment has not explained the method by which the recommended figure of £250 / sqm (which is first and only mentioned in the overall report

Recommendations (Table 6.1)) was arrived at. It is thus assumed that as with the recommended residential CIL rate where this appears to be between a third and a half of the overage, the figure recommended in relation to Assisted Living / Extra Care Housing of £250 / sqm is almost exactly half the overage (£498 / sqm, reported in the Assessment as £500 / sqm); no explanation or justification for the proposed rate has been provided.

For a nursing home of up to 3,000 sqm as proposed by our clients on land to the west of Bexhill, this would result in a CIL cost of £750,000, which our clients predict would have a significant effect on the viability of the development and the likelihood of it being delivered.

On this basis our client cannot agree with the proposed CIL rates for non-residential development.

Q6. Do you support the introduction of an instalment policy in Rother for CIL payments?
Yes; however, our client has no suggestions on the form of instalment policy that should be adopted by the Council, but would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further and make further submissions should these be considered of assistance, following this consultation or through later consultations.

Q7. Do you have any views on whether the District Council should introduce a discretionary and exceptional relief policy.
Yes; however, as the Council has not made a decision on whether to adopt a discretionary and exceptional relief policy, our client has no suggestions on the form of instalment policy that should be adopted by the Council, but would welcome the opportunity to discuss this matter further and make further submissions should these be considered of assistance, following this consultation or through later consultations.

Q8. Do you agree with the proposed draft R123 list?
The NPPG advises (Paragraph: 096 Reference ID: 25-096-20140612) that:
"Regulation 123 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations...provides for charging authorities to set out a list of those projects or types of infrastructure that it intends to fund, or may fund, through the levy."

However, there is a distinct lack of correlation between the Draft Regulation 123 List of infrastructure and the infrastructure projects listed in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) (RDC, June 2014), and many projects identified in the IDP are only listed as being at 'concept' stage, with some even only being described as 'desirable', yet they appear in the Draft Regulation 123 List.

A number of infrastructure projects identified in the Draft Regulation 123 List are also not identified in the IDP as being the recipients of CIL funding; for instance the £130m funding required for the upgrading of the rail line is identified in the IDP as being funded by the DfT, Network Rail and SELEP.

The NPPG also advises (Paragraph: 097 Reference ID: 25-097-20140612) that:
"Where the regulation 123 list includes a generic type of infrastructure (such as 'education' or 'transport'), section 106 contributions should not be sought on any specific projects in that category."
and (Paragraph: 100 Reference ID: 25-100-20140612) that:
"Individual projects on the charging authority's list of infrastructure that it proposes to fund from the levy...cannot be funded by s106 contributions."

The Draft Regulation 123 List as contained within the PDCS contains a number of generic entries such as "bus shelters", "public realm improvements", "improvements to walking and cycling corridors", "public car park facilities", "children and young people's play areas", "Coombe Valley County Park", and so on and notes that exclusions will be facilities required in direct relation to a specific development.

However, it is unclear exactly what is proposed to be funded by direct contribution and what is to be funded through CIL. As such it is not clear to developers whether they will be liable for CIL and for other unspecified facilities that the Council considers to be directly-related to a specific development proposal.

On this basis our client cannot agree with the proposed draft R123 list.

Q9. Do you have any further comments on the PDCS?
No comment at this stage.