9

Showing comments and forms 1 to 13 of 13

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21760

Received: 23/03/2015

Respondent: Northiam Parish Council

Agent: Northiam Parish Council

Representation:


The rate for Northiam is shown as £200 per dwelling
NPC requests that the allocation be spent within the Village.
Northiam is in desperate need of new burial provision for the residents.
Therefore the cost of providing a new Cemetery/extension should be a condition and paid for by the developer. Northiam does not require on want large developments. Therefore a Cemetery should be a provided in order to offset all the chaos and inconvenience that a large development will generate.

Full text:

The rate for Northiam is shown as £200 per dwelling
NPC requests that the allocation be spent within the Village.
Northiam is in desperate need of new burial provision for the residents.
Therefore the cost of providing a new Cemetery/extension should be a condition and paid for by the developer. Northiam does not require on want large developments. Therefore a Cemetery should be a provided in order to offset all the chaos and inconvenience that a large development will generate.

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21762

Received: 27/03/2015

Respondent: The Planning Bureau Limited

Representation:

The extent of communal floorspace provision used to test the viability of this form of accommodation has been significantly underplayed. The RHG's guidance advises that communal non-saleable floor space for Sheltered / Retirement housing is between 20%-30%. The level of communal floorspace tested is the lowest of the margins set by the RHG.

Both Companies have provided number of developments within Rother and nearby Local Authorities in the recent past. Whilst efficiencies of under 25% are possible they are few and far between, with the majority of sheltered / retirement schemes delivered comfortably providing over 25% communal floorspace provision.

Full text:

This is a representation on behalf of McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd. As the market leaders in the provision of retirement housing for sale to the elderly, McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd considers that with its extensive experience and expertise in providing development of this nature it is well placed to provide informed comments on the emerging Rother District Council Community Infrastructure Levy insofar as it affects or relates to housing for the elderly.

We previously provided pre-consultation commentary on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule in September 2014 in which we in turn expressed our concern that the emerging CIL could prohibit the development of specialist accommodation for the elderly at a time when there is an existing and urgent need for this form of development. Notably we raised concerns over the methodology used to determine the viability of Retirement Housing and Extra Care accommodation.

In response to our representation we note that the Council commissioned testing of older person's accommodation and revised its Charging Schedule accordingly. We commend the Council's considered response to our objection and its willingness to test and ensure that specialist accommodation for the elderly remains deliverable under the proposed CIL regime.

We also appreciate the additional details on the viability assumptions used for testing the viability of both Sheltered / Retirement housing and Extra Care accommodation provided in the Addendum to the Viability Assessment. Accordingly we have a more robust understanding of the methodologies used and consider we have had sufficient opportunity to scrutinise the Council's findings in detail.

Extra Care Accommodation

Whilst there are still some differences between our respective methodologies for testing the viability of Extra Care accommodation, we do not consider these to be sufficient to significantly affect the findings of the assessment. Moreover we note that the proposed greenfield and brownfield CIL rates for Extra Care accommodation incorporate a reasonable buffer. We therefore remove our objection to the rates for Extra Care Accommodation.




Sheltered / Retirement Housing

It is noted and appreciated that Peter Brett Associates have utilised the Retirement Housing Group's (RHG's) methodology for testing the viability of Sheltered / Retirement housing. McCarthy and Stone consider that this methodology is a largely robust and fair method for testing the viability of this form of accommodation.

We are therefore largely in agreement with the overwhelming majority of the viability inputs proposed.

Regrettably however we consider the extent of communal floorspace provision used to test the viability of this form of accommodation has been significantly underplayed. The RHG's guidance advises that communal non-saleable floor space for Sheltered / Retirement housing is between 20%-30%. The level of communal floorspace tested is the lowest of the margins set by the RHG.

Both Companies have provided number of developments within Rother and nearby Local Authorities in the recent past. Whilst efficiencies of under 25% are possible they are few and far between, with the majority of sheltered / retirement schemes delivered comfortably providing over 25% communal floorspace provision.

This was successfully proved at the Examination of the Tandridge District Council CIL Examination and the Bath and North East Somerset CIL Examination.

The table below is a list of 10 recent developments in the South East of England by both developers and summaries the extent of communal floorspace provision. This is as measured by qualified architects of the in-house design teams of the respective companies in accordance with the RICS Code of Measuring Practice.

(See attachment)

The aforementioned table alongside the floor plans and sales area sheets were submitted to the Tandridge CIL examination.

Subsequent to the submission of the aforementioned evidence both the Council and the Examiner accepted that the average provision of communal floorspace in sheltered / retirement schemes were 30%, with the Examiner's Report stating:

The viability assessments for retirement housing use increments of 5% when allowing for non-saleable floorspace. The Representors' evidence shows an average for sheltered/retirement schemes of 28.6 which, also bearing in mind the additional factors mentioned in their evidence, referred to in paragraph 27 above, leads me to conclude that it is prudent to take 30% as the appropriate level for assessment purposes. For extra care developments this figure should be rounded to 40%.

(Paragraph 29 Tandridge District Council - Examiner's Report)

In light of the Examiner's judgment at Tandridge we do not feel it is necessary to provide the floor plans and sales area sheets for above developments, although should the Council consider this necessary we are happy to do so. There is clear, established evidence demonstrating that Sheltered and Retirement housing provide communal facilities of over 25% - testing 20% communal floorspace provision is therefore considered unrepresentative for this form of development.

We therefore maintain our objection to the proposed CIL rates for Sheltered / Retirement housing and respectfully request the opportunity to be heard at Examination in public .

We respectfully request that the viability appraisals for sheltered / retirement accommodation are repeated with a more representative quantum of communal floor space provision.

Should a suitably revised viability appraisal still show Sheltered / Retirement housing could support the proposed CIL rates then we would be willing to withdraw our objection the Charging Schedule. We would be happy to discuss this with the Council and their consultants prior to submission so as to not unduly delay the preparation of CIL.

Thank you for the opportunity for comment.

Yours faithfully,



Ziyad Thomas
Policy Planner
The Planning Bureau Ltd.

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21768

Received: 27/03/2015

Respondent: Bovis Homes Ltd

Agent: Bidwells

Representation:

NE Bexhill land values (PBA report)
The PBA report does not confirm whether the NE Bexhill Strategic Allocation threshold land value of £700,000 is related to a net developable hectare or gross developable hectare of the strategic allocation. The NE Bexhill masterplan currently has a relatively low (compared to smaller sites) net to gross development ratio, due to the need for strategic open space corridors, landscaping, sports pitches, primary school and ecology mitigation corridors etc. The Strategic Allocations rate may be on the high side, as primary education provision and off site highways infrastructure is excluded from CIL.

Full text:

Proposed CIL charge rates for Strategic Allocations (paragraph 9)
Bovis Homes Ltd is in the process of preparing a masterplan to support a planning application for the Strategic Allocation at North East Bexhill. The masterplan is still in preparation and discussions continue with the Council to agree the scheme's parameters/development quantums (residential and commercial uses, open space and other supporting infrastructure etc). Discussions have also commenced with the Council regarding the S106 to accompany the planning application. Currently the S106 is progressing on the basis that the application will be determined prior to the adoption of CIL, but with the potential for it to be varied should CIL be adopted prior to the determination of the application.

Bovis Homes Ltd are preparing a cost and viability model to inform the planning application and S106 discussions and until such time as the scheme's parameters/development quantums and its accompanying s106 package (i.e. including those items that would still be required in the event of CIL being adopted) are agreed with the Council, the cost and viability model cannot be finalised and it is not yet possible to properly and thoroughly test the scheme's viability, taking into account the impact of the proposed CIL rate (£100), additional s106 package and the local housing market conditions etc. It is therefore not yet possible to confirm whether or not, the proposed CIL rate of £100 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 Strategic Allocations rate may be on the high side, particularly as primary education provision and off site highways infrastructure is excluded from CIL for the strategic allocation (reg 123 list).

Bovis Homes Ltd therefore wish to register a holding representation and reserve the right to provide a more definitive answer on the CIL Charge rate and site viability (based on an agreed masterplan and up-to-date cost/market condition information) potentially through written statements prior to the CIL examination (if requested by the Inspector) and at the hearing sessions.

CIL Charging Zones (paragraph 10)
Bovis Homes Ltd supports the proposal that strategic allocations have their own charging zone.

Proposed Instalment Policy (paragraph 12)
Bovis Homes Ltd considers it essential to introduce an instalment policy for strategic allocations. Without such an approach, the initial CIL liability may render the scheme unviable. Bovis Homes Ltd, hope to be consulted on the Instalment policy for the Strategic Allocations.

Exemptions and Discretionary Relief from CIL (paragraph 15)
Bovis Homes Ltd consider it essential for local discretion on CIL charging, particularly on strategic allocations to take account of viability issues and should the Council's prioritise affordable housing over CIL receipts.

Proposed Regulation 123 list (paragraph 17)
Bovis Homes Ltd does not agree with the regulation 123 list's exclusion of a new primary school and nursery at the NE Bexhill Strategic Allocation from the items covered by CIL. If related education facilities are required, which is the case in NE Bexhill, effectively the NE Bexhill strategic allocation's landowners/developers are being charged twice, to fund primary education facilities related to their development and also other primary education provision elsewhere in Bexhill. The education 'bill' is very significant part of the s106 and a key component of determining the allocation's viability. All education facilities should be provided through CIL.

NE Bexhill land values (PBA report)
The PBA report does not confirm whether the NE Bexhill Strategic Allocation threshold land value of £700,000 is related to a net developable hectare or gross developable hectare of the strategic allocation. The NE Bexhill masterplan currently has a relatively low (compared to smaller sites) net to gross development ratio, due to the need for strategic open space corridors, landscaping, sports pitches, primary school and ecology mitigation corridors etc. Bovis Homes Ltd will have clearer view of the threshold land values at NE Bexhill following the completion of the viability modelling, and will be able to advise through the submission of additional material to/appearance at the hearings. Also, the fact the Council has allowed for elements of the NE Bexhill Strategic Allocation in advance of the main part of the site will have some effects on viability and threshold land values.

Comment

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21773

Received: 23/03/2015

Respondent: Rye Town Council

Representation:

As Rye Town Council is making a Neighbourhood Plan to allow the community to influence growth, it NOTES that it will have the right to receive and spend 25% of CIL contributions on local projects.

Full text:

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) - PROPOSED ROTHER DISTRICT (DC) CHARGING SCHEDULE

Background

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6313/1897278.pdf

"Communities should reap the benefits of new development in their area and these reforms will put in place a fairer system for funding new infrastructure while also providing certainty for industry. Too little of the benefits of development go to local communities, and our ambition is to correct that with a reformed levy under genuine local control." Minister Greg Clark in late 2010

"Communities with approved neighbourhood development plans will receive 25% of any CIL raised from housing developments within their area. The money will be paid directly to parish and town councils, which can use it to back their priorities for their communities, although they would be expected to work with the local planning authorities."

Planning Minister Nick Boles on 11 Jan 2013

In August 2014, Rother DC circulated its intention to introduce the CIL to part-replace the existing means of securing developers' contributions using S106 procedures. Rye Town Council is now invited to AGREE these comments on the Rother DC proposals.

Summary of Main Changes since August 2014
- Para 3: Benefits of CIL: still no mention of benefits to those councils Neighbourhood Planning
- Para 5: Change to justification: £49m costs; perceived £32m income from CIL; therefore funding gap. Detailed justification of gap has been adjusted in a separate analysis. (£49m = education - 15m; transport 5m; community infrastructure , including Rother Eastern Tidal Walls = 30m)
- Para 8: Inclusion that CIL rates to be reviewed after 3 years
- Para 9: Rates reduced: Zone 2 residential from £160 to £135
- Para 16: Inclusion that further relief policy to be published later
- Para 20: Inclusion that councils with NP receive 25% of levy
- Appx 2: Draft 123 list amended to be less specific. There is a need to ensure that the categories are complete because change will require public consultation.
- IDP:
o It is noted that there is nothing planned by way of improvements to the A259 corridor east of Hastings.
o An assumption is that if the business case for fast Javelin (HS1) succeeds, then the infrastructure project to introduce the service would be funded by Central Government.

What are the Key Questions?

When the last draft was circulated there was extensive discussion in the community about the justification for CIL and how infrastructure related to development should be funded. The RNPSG has re-visited some of the key questions.

Should there be Developers' Contribution for related infrastructure?

Almost all developments have some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities. Therefore as the majority of new build residential development is zero rated for VAT, it is only fair that such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially from successful planning proposals should contribute some of that gain to the community.

Why is CIL proposed to part-replace the current S106 Procedure?

The Government considers that CIL would be fairer, faster, more certain and transparent than the current system of planning obligations to contribute. Presently, contributions are negotiated on a 'case-by case' basis.
Statistics show that under the current system of developers' contributions only 6% of all planning permissions nationally (usually the largest schemes) have contributed to the cost of supporting infrastructure. Through CIL, all but the very smallest building projects will contribute.

Rye TC NOTES that the Government suggests that there are a range of benefits accrued from the CIL process, including that the Levy:

a) collects contributions from a wider range of developments, providing additional funding to allow local authorities to carry out a range of infrastructure projects that support growth and benefit communities;
b) provides those parishes with Neighbourhood Plans (NP) a receipt of 25% of the CIL to spend on local infrastructure projects. For Rye, some guidance on the likely receipts to 2028 would be from:
- dwellings:
 160 dwellings; deduct around 60 likely to come forward as planning proposals before CIL introduction, balance say 100.
 Average dwelling is 88-100sq m X £135 = around £12k
 100 dwellings x 12k = £1.2m;
 25% of receipts to Rye to 2028 = around £300k
- commercial development. This is more difficult to estimate because of the differing types of contributions, that might be negotiated. But, Rother DC has advised that some 25% of any CIL collected would pass to Rye TC for recorded local infrastructure projects. What is possible is to catalogue the sort of infrastructure that has been or will be funded by developers' contributions as below:

Valley Park: SUDS installation, roads, recreational equipment, cycle and footpaths and planting.

Former Tilling Green School Site: Roads and green space and planting, affordable housing, community centre and flood mitigation.

Former Lower School Site: Roads, planting and Station Approach improvements. (The Javelin proposal now makes uncertain any talk of rail crossing improvements in this category of works).

Former Freda Gardham School Site: Affordable housing, roads and pathways, planting and flood defence improvements.

Rock Channel and Strand: Roads and pathways, riverside walks, planting and affordable housing.

Rye Harbour "Saltings": contamination clearance, roads and compensating nature reserve assets.

c) gives authorities greater flexibility to set their own priorities on projects benefitting the wider community affected by development, unlike S106 funds which require a direct link between a contributing development and an infrastructure project;

d) provides developers with clarity about the level of contributions which are required from any development and provides transparency for local people;

e) is non-negotiable and therefore should save time by removing the need for negotiations between the local authority and developers as occurs under S106. f) requires Rye TC to make a local Infrastructure Delivery Plan as an adjunct to the Neighbourhood Plan. Site assessments will inform infrastructure requirements and involve liaising with the relevant agencies - EA, Highways etc. Examples would be the Eastern Rother Tidal Wall for Frieda Gardham, the community centre for Tilling Green or a suitable access arrangement for the Lower School Site.

g) is being adopted fairly slowly by the 433 principal authorities in England and Wales. This is partly attributed to the government extending the deadline for S106 pooling contributions until April 2015. Post April 2015 it is expected that many authorities will put more resource into getting CIL adopted, because LPAs will wish to secure the advantage of infrastructure contributions under CIL from developers. The legislative framework is expected to work against them if they do not have CIL in place.

As Rye Town Council is making a Neighbourhood Plan to allow the community to influence growth, it NOTES that it will have the right to receive and spend 25% of CIL contributions on local projects.

Is there an infrastructure funding gap in Rother District?
On the figures provided in the revised Rother DC analysis - particularly in terms of education capacity, flood defences and transport schemes - Rye Town Council AGREES that there is an infrastructure funding gap, even without considering any infrastructure projects yet to be generated by the Rye NP.

What are the rates for residential uses?

Rye Town Council NOTES that the proposed rate has been reduced (£160 to £135 per sq m) and that "strategic allocations" (Zone 4) have been omitted. However it continues to emphasise that the level of CIL must be "appropriate" because of the risk that it might render future development non viable and therefore deter development.

Will not the charges increase house prices? A common misconception is that CIL will drive up local house prices. While development economics are complicated, the prices of new houses are usually set by agents with regard to comparable existing properties and market forces. CIL will either reduce the profits of developers or, more likely in the longer term, the price that they pay for the land. CIL could be regarded as a development land tax, giving local communities some of the uplift in land values as a consequence permission to build. Rother DC advises that CIL rates assume substantial returns to landowners, ranging from at least £700,000 per hectare in Bexhill to £1.3m per hectare in most rural areas. It is also estimated that the CIL charge will be a small percentage of the total build costs and significantly lower than the affordable housing contribution. CIL is not seen as impacting significantly on developers' profit margins (industry standard being 20%). It is likely to be landowners who will see a correction in future land deals.

What are the rates for non-residential development?

Rye Town Council NOTES that the proposed charges remain in the upper part of the band being set by Councils. Rye TC NOTES that high rates of CIL should not discourage development (reducing employment opportunities and local tax revenues) by increasing the cost (freehold or leasehold) of commercial property.
Rye Town Council NOTES that there will be an instalment procedure for developers' contribution.

What is the discretionary and exceptional relief policy?

Rye Town Council NOTES that some details are published as before, but others will come separately. It RECOMMENDS that it be consulted about what more will be included.

For example, while it is important to exempt those developments, which would be rendered uneconomic by the levy, does Rother DC have in mind to exempt some sort of "strategic" developments as other Councils are doing? Rye Town Council RECOMMENDS that it is consulted, to avoid it being denied the levy from developments in its NP.

What is in the draft 123 list?

Rye Town Council NOTES the changes in the draft Infrastructure R123 list. Further it notes that any significant change would have to go to public consultation. It is expected that all infrastructure projects emerging from the Rye NP are likely to be covered in the draft list of categories, such as education, health, community infrastructure and transport.

Are there any omissions from the proposed schedule?

S106 versus CIL?

National guidance indicates that the CIL will run in tandem with some residual Section 106 obligations. Rye Town Council NOTES the remarks in the draft schedule about the intention not to "double dip" (applying both CIL and S106). However, for many, what is not clear is the precise relationship between these two charges. Professional planners acknowledge that the rules for the future application of CIL and residual s106 are complex. On the assumption that CIL is agreed, section 106 planning obligations will continue to be secured, although application will be scaled back. Site-specific planning obligations will be sought where infrastructure:
 does not appear on the Regulation 123 list;
 does not conflict with the Regulation 123 pooling restriction, that limits the pooling of s106 payments to no more than five planning obligations; and
 fulfils the planning obligation tests set out in Regulation 122.
Many councils have attempted to clarify the position by producing a typical guidance chart below. Rye Town Council continues to RECOMMEND that Rother District Council produces some similar clarification, perhaps along the lines of that below.

Comparing CIL and s.106 - Typical Explanatory Chart
Infrastructure funded by CIL
Infrastructure funded by S106
Provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of education facilities
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of health care facilities
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of clearly
identified infrastructure projects, such as transport.
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of public open space
S106 for affordable housing
S106 for standard site /design mitigation
Development specific mitigation
Public Realm projects or types that are pre-defined.
Employment and skills training
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of public sports and leisure
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of community facilities (as identified in the Neighbourhood Plan)

What are the means for Enforcement and Appeals?

Rye TC NOTES that there is no explanation of enforcement and appeals. The draft schedule makes it clear that "CIL is non-negotiable" and that there are significant powers and penalties to deal with failure to pay: Stop Notices, surcharges, late payment interest and prison terms.

Rye TC RECOMMENDS that Rother DC advises on those situations where appeals by developers might be possible, which it understands might include circumstances where officers have incorrectly:

 calculated the amount of CIL. (Before making the appeal the developer must first request an internal review by the Council).
 apportioned liability between landowners.
 determined Charitable Relief.
 applied surcharges.
 determined the date at which any development has commenced.
 issues a Stop Notice for non-payment.

Comment

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21775

Received: 23/03/2015

Respondent: Rye Town Council

Representation:

What are the rates for non-residential development?
Rye Town Council NOTES that the proposed charges remain in the upper part of the band being set by Councils. Rye TC NOTES that high rates of CIL should not discourage development (reducing employment opportunities and local tax revenues) by increasing the cost (freehold or leasehold) of commercial property.

Full text:

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) - PROPOSED ROTHER DISTRICT (DC) CHARGING SCHEDULE

Background

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/6313/1897278.pdf

"Communities should reap the benefits of new development in their area and these reforms will put in place a fairer system for funding new infrastructure while also providing certainty for industry. Too little of the benefits of development go to local communities, and our ambition is to correct that with a reformed levy under genuine local control." Minister Greg Clark in late 2010

"Communities with approved neighbourhood development plans will receive 25% of any CIL raised from housing developments within their area. The money will be paid directly to parish and town councils, which can use it to back their priorities for their communities, although they would be expected to work with the local planning authorities."

Planning Minister Nick Boles on 11 Jan 2013

In August 2014, Rother DC circulated its intention to introduce the CIL to part-replace the existing means of securing developers' contributions using S106 procedures. Rye Town Council is now invited to AGREE these comments on the Rother DC proposals.

Summary of Main Changes since August 2014
- Para 3: Benefits of CIL: still no mention of benefits to those councils Neighbourhood Planning
- Para 5: Change to justification: £49m costs; perceived £32m income from CIL; therefore funding gap. Detailed justification of gap has been adjusted in a separate analysis. (£49m = education - 15m; transport 5m; community infrastructure , including Rother Eastern Tidal Walls = 30m)
- Para 8: Inclusion that CIL rates to be reviewed after 3 years
- Para 9: Rates reduced: Zone 2 residential from £160 to £135
- Para 16: Inclusion that further relief policy to be published later
- Para 20: Inclusion that councils with NP receive 25% of levy
- Appx 2: Draft 123 list amended to be less specific. There is a need to ensure that the categories are complete because change will require public consultation.
- IDP:
o It is noted that there is nothing planned by way of improvements to the A259 corridor east of Hastings.
o An assumption is that if the business case for fast Javelin (HS1) succeeds, then the infrastructure project to introduce the service would be funded by Central Government.

What are the Key Questions?

When the last draft was circulated there was extensive discussion in the community about the justification for CIL and how infrastructure related to development should be funded. The RNPSG has re-visited some of the key questions.

Should there be Developers' Contribution for related infrastructure?

Almost all developments have some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities. Therefore as the majority of new build residential development is zero rated for VAT, it is only fair that such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially from successful planning proposals should contribute some of that gain to the community.

Why is CIL proposed to part-replace the current S106 Procedure?

The Government considers that CIL would be fairer, faster, more certain and transparent than the current system of planning obligations to contribute. Presently, contributions are negotiated on a 'case-by case' basis.
Statistics show that under the current system of developers' contributions only 6% of all planning permissions nationally (usually the largest schemes) have contributed to the cost of supporting infrastructure. Through CIL, all but the very smallest building projects will contribute.

Rye TC NOTES that the Government suggests that there are a range of benefits accrued from the CIL process, including that the Levy:

a) collects contributions from a wider range of developments, providing additional funding to allow local authorities to carry out a range of infrastructure projects that support growth and benefit communities;
b) provides those parishes with Neighbourhood Plans (NP) a receipt of 25% of the CIL to spend on local infrastructure projects. For Rye, some guidance on the likely receipts to 2028 would be from:
- dwellings:
 160 dwellings; deduct around 60 likely to come forward as planning proposals before CIL introduction, balance say 100.
 Average dwelling is 88-100sq m X £135 = around £12k
 100 dwellings x 12k = £1.2m;
 25% of receipts to Rye to 2028 = around £300k
- commercial development. This is more difficult to estimate because of the differing types of contributions, that might be negotiated. But, Rother DC has advised that some 25% of any CIL collected would pass to Rye TC for recorded local infrastructure projects. What is possible is to catalogue the sort of infrastructure that has been or will be funded by developers' contributions as below:

Valley Park: SUDS installation, roads, recreational equipment, cycle and footpaths and planting.

Former Tilling Green School Site: Roads and green space and planting, affordable housing, community centre and flood mitigation.

Former Lower School Site: Roads, planting and Station Approach improvements. (The Javelin proposal now makes uncertain any talk of rail crossing improvements in this category of works).

Former Freda Gardham School Site: Affordable housing, roads and pathways, planting and flood defence improvements.

Rock Channel and Strand: Roads and pathways, riverside walks, planting and affordable housing.

Rye Harbour "Saltings": contamination clearance, roads and compensating nature reserve assets.

c) gives authorities greater flexibility to set their own priorities on projects benefitting the wider community affected by development, unlike S106 funds which require a direct link between a contributing development and an infrastructure project;

d) provides developers with clarity about the level of contributions which are required from any development and provides transparency for local people;

e) is non-negotiable and therefore should save time by removing the need for negotiations between the local authority and developers as occurs under S106. f) requires Rye TC to make a local Infrastructure Delivery Plan as an adjunct to the Neighbourhood Plan. Site assessments will inform infrastructure requirements and involve liaising with the relevant agencies - EA, Highways etc. Examples would be the Eastern Rother Tidal Wall for Frieda Gardham, the community centre for Tilling Green or a suitable access arrangement for the Lower School Site.

g) is being adopted fairly slowly by the 433 principal authorities in England and Wales. This is partly attributed to the government extending the deadline for S106 pooling contributions until April 2015. Post April 2015 it is expected that many authorities will put more resource into getting CIL adopted, because LPAs will wish to secure the advantage of infrastructure contributions under CIL from developers. The legislative framework is expected to work against them if they do not have CIL in place.

As Rye Town Council is making a Neighbourhood Plan to allow the community to influence growth, it NOTES that it will have the right to receive and spend 25% of CIL contributions on local projects.

Is there an infrastructure funding gap in Rother District?
On the figures provided in the revised Rother DC analysis - particularly in terms of education capacity, flood defences and transport schemes - Rye Town Council AGREES that there is an infrastructure funding gap, even without considering any infrastructure projects yet to be generated by the Rye NP.

What are the rates for residential uses?

Rye Town Council NOTES that the proposed rate has been reduced (£160 to £135 per sq m) and that "strategic allocations" (Zone 4) have been omitted. However it continues to emphasise that the level of CIL must be "appropriate" because of the risk that it might render future development non viable and therefore deter development.

Will not the charges increase house prices? A common misconception is that CIL will drive up local house prices. While development economics are complicated, the prices of new houses are usually set by agents with regard to comparable existing properties and market forces. CIL will either reduce the profits of developers or, more likely in the longer term, the price that they pay for the land. CIL could be regarded as a development land tax, giving local communities some of the uplift in land values as a consequence permission to build. Rother DC advises that CIL rates assume substantial returns to landowners, ranging from at least £700,000 per hectare in Bexhill to £1.3m per hectare in most rural areas. It is also estimated that the CIL charge will be a small percentage of the total build costs and significantly lower than the affordable housing contribution. CIL is not seen as impacting significantly on developers' profit margins (industry standard being 20%). It is likely to be landowners who will see a correction in future land deals.

What are the rates for non-residential development?

Rye Town Council NOTES that the proposed charges remain in the upper part of the band being set by Councils. Rye TC NOTES that high rates of CIL should not discourage development (reducing employment opportunities and local tax revenues) by increasing the cost (freehold or leasehold) of commercial property.
Rye Town Council NOTES that there will be an instalment procedure for developers' contribution.

What is the discretionary and exceptional relief policy?

Rye Town Council NOTES that some details are published as before, but others will come separately. It RECOMMENDS that it be consulted about what more will be included.

For example, while it is important to exempt those developments, which would be rendered uneconomic by the levy, does Rother DC have in mind to exempt some sort of "strategic" developments as other Councils are doing? Rye Town Council RECOMMENDS that it is consulted, to avoid it being denied the levy from developments in its NP.

What is in the draft 123 list?

Rye Town Council NOTES the changes in the draft Infrastructure R123 list. Further it notes that any significant change would have to go to public consultation. It is expected that all infrastructure projects emerging from the Rye NP are likely to be covered in the draft list of categories, such as education, health, community infrastructure and transport.

Are there any omissions from the proposed schedule?

S106 versus CIL?

National guidance indicates that the CIL will run in tandem with some residual Section 106 obligations. Rye Town Council NOTES the remarks in the draft schedule about the intention not to "double dip" (applying both CIL and S106). However, for many, what is not clear is the precise relationship between these two charges. Professional planners acknowledge that the rules for the future application of CIL and residual s106 are complex. On the assumption that CIL is agreed, section 106 planning obligations will continue to be secured, although application will be scaled back. Site-specific planning obligations will be sought where infrastructure:
 does not appear on the Regulation 123 list;
 does not conflict with the Regulation 123 pooling restriction, that limits the pooling of s106 payments to no more than five planning obligations; and
 fulfils the planning obligation tests set out in Regulation 122.
Many councils have attempted to clarify the position by producing a typical guidance chart below. Rye Town Council continues to RECOMMEND that Rother District Council produces some similar clarification, perhaps along the lines of that below.

Comparing CIL and s.106 - Typical Explanatory Chart
Infrastructure funded by CIL
Infrastructure funded by S106
Provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of education facilities
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of health care facilities
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of clearly
identified infrastructure projects, such as transport.
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of public open space
S106 for affordable housing
S106 for standard site /design mitigation
Development specific mitigation
Public Realm projects or types that are pre-defined.
Employment and skills training
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of public sports and leisure
Provision, improvement, replacement,
operation or maintenance of community facilities (as identified in the Neighbourhood Plan)

What are the means for Enforcement and Appeals?

Rye TC NOTES that there is no explanation of enforcement and appeals. The draft schedule makes it clear that "CIL is non-negotiable" and that there are significant powers and penalties to deal with failure to pay: Stop Notices, surcharges, late payment interest and prison terms.

Rye TC RECOMMENDS that Rother DC advises on those situations where appeals by developers might be possible, which it understands might include circumstances where officers have incorrectly:

 calculated the amount of CIL. (Before making the appeal the developer must first request an internal review by the Council).
 apportioned liability between landowners.
 determined Charitable Relief.
 applied surcharges.
 determined the date at which any development has commenced.
 issues a Stop Notice for non-payment.

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21781

Received: 16/03/2015

Respondent: Robertsbridge Enterprise Group

Representation:

2 The great differential between Zone 1 and Zone 2 rate at the boundary line seem very difficult to justify. By way of comparison, at the western boundary of Zone 1, Wealden are proposing charging £200, or £150 in the southern parts. That would appear to be a fairer differential, considering the relative few differences at the border between Zones 1 and Zone 2 as to the vibrancy and attractiveness of the respective communities.

Full text:

On behalf of Robertsbridge Enterprise Group, we would wish to make the following comments:

1 Our first comment is unrelated to the specific detail in this consultation document, but is a simple question; why has it taken RDC so long to get to this stage, particularly in the light of its performance in using s106 obligations? The funding gap of £45m could have been so much smaller had RDC seized the opportunity from the start to investigate CIL.
2 The great differential between Zone 1 and Zone 2 rate at the boundary line seem very difficult to justify. By way of comparison, at the western boundary of Zone 1, Wealden are proposing charging £200, or £150 in the southern parts. That would appear to be a fairer differential, considering the relative few differences at the border between Zones 1 and Zone 2 as to the vibrancy and attractiveness of the respective communities.
3 We refer to the statement in Appendix 2 and particularly to the fact that it states: 'RDC retains the right to determine where CIL contributions are spent and projects and priorities will be set out through governance protocols'. Where then is the consultation about these all-important 'governance protocols' which would appear to go the heart of any fair operation of CIL levies?
4 It is interesting to note that the only place-specific projects referred to are in Bexhill, Battle and Rye. Why is this? Does it mean that priorities have already been accorded to these projects as they are now site-specific?
5 If it is possible to identify certain road projects in Bexhill, why has it not been possible to identify road projects elsewhere in Rother?
6 What consultation will take place with parishes, and in particular parishes with emerging Neighbourhood Plans, on specific ideas for the R123 list?
7 There are a number of worthy project ideas listed in Infrastructure Delivery Plan (February 2015) but no sites are identified. Therefore it is impossible to know whether any specific project, say for transport, (improvement of bus services) or (improvement to walking and cycling corridors) or (access improvements to stations) or (more bus/transport services serving groups with access difficulties) can be appreciatively assessed or indeed prioritised. The same question applies to other sections such as library services, green infrastructure, environment and emergency services.

If you need any further information, please let me know.

Yours faithfully

Stephen Hardy
Chairman
Robertsbridge Enterprise Group

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21787

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Land Securities plc

Agent: CGMS Ltd

Representation:

The CIL rates proposed for out of centre retail floorspace are unrealistic, have not been properly substantiated by appropriate evidence, are inconsistent with rates now being charged or promoted by other local authorities in the region. This would have the effect of discouraging further investment. Applying the proposed rate to larger retail park operators could be prohibitive and significantly affect potential viability.

The draft Schedule for Rother is not consistent with those levels already adopted and/or being charged for out of retail development elsewhere in ES and underestimates build and design costs as well as competition from internet retailing.

Full text:

Proposed CIL Rates

The draft charging schedule proposes for all in centre convenience retail for all three centres (Bexhill, Rye and Battle) a flat rate of £100 per sqm. For out of centre retail, the proposed rate for convenience floorspace is £120 per sqm and comparison floorspace is £250 per sqm. There is a nil chargeable rate for in centre comparison goods.

We are concerned that the CIL rates proposed for out of centre retail floorspace are unrealistic, have not been properly substantiated by appropriate evidence, and are inconsistent with rates now being charged or promoted by other local authorities in the region. If the rates for out of centre floorspace were to be adopted at the level proposed, this will discourage not only our client from making its investment but are also likely to deter other potential developments in Rother. We believe that the proposed charges will directly lead to new development, investment and jobs being lost from Rother to other areas nearby with lower, more realistic CIL rates.

In making the representations CgMs, wish to formally request:

(a) Notification of the draft schedule being submitted to the Examiner appointed by the Secretary of State to consider the Draft Charging Schedule;
(b) The right to be heard by the appointed Examiner at the examination;
(c) Notification of the publication of the recommendations of the Examiner; and
(d) Notification of the approval of the adopted Charging Schedule.

Government Advice1 makes it clear that contributions should not be set at levels which will discourage development; it clearly states:

"Charging authorities wishing to introduce the levy should propose a rate which does not put at serious risk the overall development of their area. They will need to draw the infrastructure planning that underpins the development strategy for their area. Charging authorities will use that evidence to strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure from the levy and the potential effects of the levy upon economic viability of development across their area."

Rationale for Different Charges for Retail

The Schedule seeks to impose substantially higher rates on retail development at out of centre locations. However, conversely the turnover, rents and indeed, the traffic generation associated with retail stores is not directly proportionate to the size of the retail unit. For example, most retailers on retail parks would have larger proportions of back of house use than the town centre units.
Applying the proposed rate to larger retail park operators as explained above could be prohibitive and significantly affect potential viability.

Level of Charge

It is noteworthy that the level of charge for major retail development contained in the draft Schedule for Rother is not consistent with those levels already adopted and/or being charged for out of retail development elsewhere in the region.
Table 1 summaries charging schedules for large scale retail development in other nearby districts that are being proposed at the time of writing. These districts are in more advanced stages in terms of CIL preparation.

Eastbourne £80sqm

Wealdon £20-100sqm

Lewes £75

In light of the above, we have reviewed the Council's evidence which seeks to substantiate the proposed rate. We consider that this evidence, in itself, does not
adequately justify what is, for comparison goods development in particular, an exceptionally high rate for out of centre retail development.

The Economic Viability Assessment supporting the proposed DCS for retail warehouse acknowledges that the retail warehouse market has been relatively flat in recent times, in terms of new build the consultants consider that there may potentially be more activity in the future. The figures are based on the assumption that building costs for retail warehouses are relatively low, and generate more value when there is occupier demand. However, there is a lack of information on how this has been calculated. Furthermore, we consider that this does not reflect likely future costs and values. The retail warehouse market has been affected by rising costs and diminishing margins partly affected by the growth in internet retailing. In addition, many Councils, including Rother, require high quality design for new retail development and do not accept standard retail designs, which significantly increase development costs and, necessarily affect profitability. If the nature of the site is constrained, further costs would arise such as highway solutions and ground conditions.

The proposed comparison goods CIL level in the draft Schedule is more than double the convenience figure although Valuation Office figures within the District do not show a material difference in rateable value psm and turnover densities for convenience goods are generally much higher for foodstores than for retail warehouses. For example, turnover psm for Tesco is £11,715 whereas B&Q is £1,433 psm and Pets at Home is £2,156. In most areas, accordingly, the CIL rate for convenience goods is higher than for comparison goods and Rother's figures are inconsistent with that pattern.

Having reviewed the evidence issued in support of the proposed charging rate, we believe that insufficient evidence has been presented to explain the significant differential that exists between rate being proposed for out of town retail development in Rother with comparable rates already proposed elsewhere in the region. In the light of advice contained in the Council's own evidence base, and the experience of other districts in arriving at their own rates for out of centre retail scheme, we would recommend that the proposed rate in the draft Charging Schedule be reduced to a more realistic level which will not discourage inward investment into the district.

Discretionary Relief for Exceptional Circumstances

The Regulations provide the Charging Authority with discretionary powers to grant relief in exceptional circumstances. We are concerned that the Council does not intend to implement any discretionary exemptions.

By at least safeguarding the option for discretionary relief, the Council will be able to assess major development on a case by case basis. We would strongly recommend that the Council maintains the flexibility in its Charging Schedule to assess whether the provisions contained in a S106 or other agreement might represent a more appropriate mechanism to secure contributions and/or infrastructure than monies raised via CIL. The preparation and inclusion of infrastructure elements to the Regulation 123 List needs to be clearly defined and understood to avoid double counting (known as "double -dipping"). In conclusion therefore, we believe that, in accordance with prevailing guidance, the Council needs to pay closer regard to the balance between funding required infrastructure through its CIL and the potential impact that the imposition of the levy might have on economic viability of large scale retail development. As a result, we believe that the proposed rate for large scale retail development in the draft Charging Schedule is too high. Were it to be applied in the way proposed to large retail proposals, it would put development at risk and, in doing so, prevent much-needed economic development coming forward in the Borough and/divert it elsewhere. I would be grateful if in the light of the above representations, the Council consider appropriate amendments to rates for out of centre retail development contained in the draft Charging Schedule in order to address the issues raised.

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21790

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Exigo Project Solutions

Agent: Exigo Project Solutions

Representation:

High cost associated with promotion of sites and this is not reflected in the viability assessment. The professional fees need to account for the full costs associated with bringing forward and implementing development, this must include planning costs, reserved matters and the discharge of planning conditions, public engagement and consultation and environmental impact assessment compliance. Peter Brett Associates has used a blanket figure of 12% across all developments, however fees of up to 20% can be incurred on sites which are not straightforward, therefore this figure will not be accurate in many cases.

Full text:

Promotion Costs

The cost of promoting a site through the planning process can be considerable and in particular strategic promotion of larger sites may incur costs over a number of years prior to commencing a planning application. We do not believe that the Viability Appraisal recognises or allows for these costs and as such we would request that this cost is considered in setting the CIL rates.

Professional Fees

The professional fees need to account for the full costs associated with bringing forward and implementing development, this must include planning costs, reserved matters and the discharge of planning conditions, public engagement and consultation and environmental impact assessment compliance. Peter Brett Associates has used a blanket figure of 12% across all developments, however fees of up to 20% can be incurred on sites which are not straightforward, therefore this figure will not be accurate in many cases. A percentage increase in build costs will have a substantial effect upon profit and a developer's profit margin can soon be eroded on more complicated sites.
West Bexhill CIL Rate

The document identifies the adopted Core Strategy (2014) 'Broad Location for Growth' at North Bexhill as a 'Strategic Growth Location' and consequently affords it with a lower rate of CIL of £100 per square metre compared with £170 per square metre for West Bexhill. In respect of why West Bexhill (also identified within the adopted Core Strategy as a 'Broad Location for Growth') does not have a lower tariff, the Statement on the Preliminary CIL Consultation (February 2015) sets out that the land at North Bexhill has significant infrastructure costs and the delivery Strategy for Bexhill is not dependent on the site (West Bexhill) coming forward.

The Core Strategy requires significant housing provision which will need to be met in the 'Broad Locations for Growth' in order for Rother to deliver its housing requirements. Whilst specific sites will be confirmed through detailed planning applications and the Rother Site Allocations and Development DPD, it is clear that residential development in these locations is required to meet the delivery strategy not only for Bexhill, but for Rother as a whole. Therefore the CIL rate should be lowered for West Bexhill to facilitate and promote development.

CIL Rate

The CIL rate which applies to West Bexhill (greenfield sites) is £170 per square metre. In our opinion this is considered to be relatively high.

Rother has been under delivering against the relevant housing targets since 2008, key to the Inspector finding the Core Strategy sound was the presumption of 3,100 new dwellings being delivered at the broad locations identified in Bexhill. The most recent publication on housing completions in December 2014 showed a shortfall of 48% between April and September 2014. It is therefore imperative that the CIL does not overburden potential development sites.

A review has been undertaken of neighbouring authorities' comparable adopted and emerging CIL rates and found that for locations similar to West Bexhill the range of tariffs for residential development are £50 to £150 per square metre. The implication of this is that this high CIL tariff will act as a strong disincentive and will potentially 'price out' developers who wish to bring forward residential schemes in Bexhill.

Relief

The CIL Regulations allow for the Council to provide further relief, at their discretion. However the Council has stated that this is not part of the charging schedule but may be published at a different time.

Our view is that this such relief should be made explicit at the time CIL is adopted and not at a later date, simply for the reason that the Council urgently needs to significantly boost its supply of housing and cannot afford to implement a charging schedule which will make housing sites unviable upon its adoption.

Review

The document states that once the CIL levy has been embedded locally there will be an opportunity to review rates taking into account local market signals. It is envisaged that this will take place within 3 years of its introduction.

The CIL Guidance outlines that the Government 'strongly encourages' reviews to ensure that CIL is fulfilling its aim and responds to market conditions. If the CIL is set at too high a rate, the delivery of housing will be put at risk. Regular monitoring is required to ensure that any detrimental impact of the CIL on delivery is noticed promptly and remedied. It should be borne in mind that, in reviewing the CIL rates, the same charge setting process and procedures are required to be followed and therefore there will be an inevitable delay until any deficit in delivery can be remedied.

We agree that authorities should have a clearly defined review mechanism, however we strongly suggest that monitoring takes place on a 6 monthly basis rather than in 3 years time. Regular monitoring is key to ensure that CIL does not stifle development in the right locations.

Conclusion

Whilst our client supports the overall premise of CIL and the certainty it gives the development industry, it is imperative that CIL tariffs are fully justified and are set at a level that allows the development strategies of local planning authorities to be delivered. Our concern with the current draft of Rother District Council's CIL charging schedule is that the tariff for residential development is set too high for West Bexhill, both in relation to other areas of the town (i.e. North Bexhill) and in comparison to neighbouring authorities.

Against the backdrop of the Council needing to deliver significant housing over the plan period it is vital that the CIL tariff does not discourage development and allows relief and regular reviews.

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21791

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Exigo Project Solutions

Agent: Exigo Project Solutions

Representation:

The CIL rate should be lowered for West Bexhill to facilitate and promote development at West Bexhill and should be put into lower CIL rate of £100 per sqm (Urban Extensions). Rother has been under delivering against the relevant housing targets since 2008 and meet the delivery strategy for Bexhill

Review has been undertaken of neighbouring authorities' comparable adopted and emerging CIL rates and found that for locations similar to West Bexhill the range of tariffs for residential development are £50 to £150 per square metre.

The CIL rate should be lowered for West Bexhill to facilitate and promote development.

Full text:

Promotion Costs

The cost of promoting a site through the planning process can be considerable and in particular strategic promotion of larger sites may incur costs over a number of years prior to commencing a planning application. We do not believe that the Viability Appraisal recognises or allows for these costs and as such we would request that this cost is considered in setting the CIL rates.

Professional Fees

The professional fees need to account for the full costs associated with bringing forward and implementing development, this must include planning costs, reserved matters and the discharge of planning conditions, public engagement and consultation and environmental impact assessment compliance. Peter Brett Associates has used a blanket figure of 12% across all developments, however fees of up to 20% can be incurred on sites which are not straightforward, therefore this figure will not be accurate in many cases. A percentage increase in build costs will have a substantial effect upon profit and a developer's profit margin can soon be eroded on more complicated sites.
West Bexhill CIL Rate

The document identifies the adopted Core Strategy (2014) 'Broad Location for Growth' at North Bexhill as a 'Strategic Growth Location' and consequently affords it with a lower rate of CIL of £100 per square metre compared with £170 per square metre for West Bexhill. In respect of why West Bexhill (also identified within the adopted Core Strategy as a 'Broad Location for Growth') does not have a lower tariff, the Statement on the Preliminary CIL Consultation (February 2015) sets out that the land at North Bexhill has significant infrastructure costs and the delivery Strategy for Bexhill is not dependent on the site (West Bexhill) coming forward.

The Core Strategy requires significant housing provision which will need to be met in the 'Broad Locations for Growth' in order for Rother to deliver its housing requirements. Whilst specific sites will be confirmed through detailed planning applications and the Rother Site Allocations and Development DPD, it is clear that residential development in these locations is required to meet the delivery strategy not only for Bexhill, but for Rother as a whole. Therefore the CIL rate should be lowered for West Bexhill to facilitate and promote development.

CIL Rate

The CIL rate which applies to West Bexhill (greenfield sites) is £170 per square metre. In our opinion this is considered to be relatively high.

Rother has been under delivering against the relevant housing targets since 2008, key to the Inspector finding the Core Strategy sound was the presumption of 3,100 new dwellings being delivered at the broad locations identified in Bexhill. The most recent publication on housing completions in December 2014 showed a shortfall of 48% between April and September 2014. It is therefore imperative that the CIL does not overburden potential development sites.

A review has been undertaken of neighbouring authorities' comparable adopted and emerging CIL rates and found that for locations similar to West Bexhill the range of tariffs for residential development are £50 to £150 per square metre. The implication of this is that this high CIL tariff will act as a strong disincentive and will potentially 'price out' developers who wish to bring forward residential schemes in Bexhill.

Relief

The CIL Regulations allow for the Council to provide further relief, at their discretion. However the Council has stated that this is not part of the charging schedule but may be published at a different time.

Our view is that this such relief should be made explicit at the time CIL is adopted and not at a later date, simply for the reason that the Council urgently needs to significantly boost its supply of housing and cannot afford to implement a charging schedule which will make housing sites unviable upon its adoption.

Review

The document states that once the CIL levy has been embedded locally there will be an opportunity to review rates taking into account local market signals. It is envisaged that this will take place within 3 years of its introduction.

The CIL Guidance outlines that the Government 'strongly encourages' reviews to ensure that CIL is fulfilling its aim and responds to market conditions. If the CIL is set at too high a rate, the delivery of housing will be put at risk. Regular monitoring is required to ensure that any detrimental impact of the CIL on delivery is noticed promptly and remedied. It should be borne in mind that, in reviewing the CIL rates, the same charge setting process and procedures are required to be followed and therefore there will be an inevitable delay until any deficit in delivery can be remedied.

We agree that authorities should have a clearly defined review mechanism, however we strongly suggest that monitoring takes place on a 6 monthly basis rather than in 3 years time. Regular monitoring is key to ensure that CIL does not stifle development in the right locations.

Conclusion

Whilst our client supports the overall premise of CIL and the certainty it gives the development industry, it is imperative that CIL tariffs are fully justified and are set at a level that allows the development strategies of local planning authorities to be delivered. Our concern with the current draft of Rother District Council's CIL charging schedule is that the tariff for residential development is set too high for West Bexhill, both in relation to other areas of the town (i.e. North Bexhill) and in comparison to neighbouring authorities.

Against the backdrop of the Council needing to deliver significant housing over the plan period it is vital that the CIL tariff does not discourage development and allows relief and regular reviews.

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21797

Received: 26/03/2015

Respondent: Peacock & Smith Ltd

Representation:

Peacock and Smith on behalf of Wm Morrison object to the proposed CIL rate of £100 or £120/sq. m. for Convenience Retail. The draft CIL charge will put undue additional risk on the delivery and will be an unrealistic financial burden on new development.

Test for a large convenience store of circa 5,000 sqm,

Increased level of developers' profit to reflect risk,

Underestimated build costs assumptions,

Has sensitivity analysis been applied to accommodate costs and values,

The viability appraisals need to allow for marketing and letting/sales costs,

Clarification is required as to the finance rate that has been adopted.

Full text:

Morrisons have further instructed Aspinall Verdi to review the CIL evidence base. There is concern that the previous comments provided by Aspinall Verdi have not been addressed and that the proposed CIL rate is on the 'margins of viability'. We consider that the draft CIL charge will put undue additional risk on the delivery of any such proposals and will be an unrealistic financial burden on new retail development. This, in turn, poses a significant threat to potential new investment and job creation in the local area at a time of economic recession and low levels of development activity. Our client is concerned that a balance has not been found between infrastructure funding requirements and viability and subsequently the suggested charge will have a significant adverse impact on the overall viability of future retail development in the district.They conclude that the viability study requires further work and revisions. In particular:

We recommend that a further retail typologies are tested, in particular a large convenience store of circa 5,000 sqm.

We would suggest an increased level of developers' profit to reflect the risks involved in retail development.

The build cost assumptions which are approximately 23% cheaper than the BCIS benchmarks we have identified for supermarkets.

Details are required as to how the viability buffer has been calculated and whether this buffer is based on the findings of sensitivity analysis which test the impact of changes in costs and values on the surplus available for CIL.

The viability appraisals need to allow for marketing and letting/sales costs as these are real costs that will be incurred by a developer seeking to bring forward a retail convenience scheme.

Clarification is required as to the finance rate that has been adopted and also the programme assumptions used in the financial model, given that even slight changes in timings can have a significant impact on viability.

The residual land value calculation needs to be reviewed given our comments above and the CIL charging needs to be amended accordingly.

Aspinall Verdi's comments can be viewed by clicking on the following link:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23610

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21800

Received: 27/03/2015

Respondent: Persimmon Homes South East

Agent: Savills

Representation:

Unviable Rates - RDC's proposed CIL rate for SUEs in Bexhill have been found to be unviable for residential development. We have not been able to test the other proposed rates in light of PBA not disclosing their viability appraisals; however, we are concerned that the other proposed rates are set too high especially the rate for Zone 1, Battle, Rural North and West at £200 per sqm

Full text:

To view Savills representation on behalf of Persimmon Homes Plc please click on the following link:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23612

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21801

Received: 27/03/2015

Respondent: Persimmon Homes South East

Agent: Savills

Representation:

Incorrect Assumptions - A number of the key viability inputs adopted by PBA are incorrect. This results in an over-estimation of the maximum CIL rates that can be supported.

Full text:

To view Savills representation on behalf of Persimmon Homes Plc please click on the following link:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23612

Object

Draft Charging Schedule and Draft Regulation 123 List

Representation ID: 21802

Received: 27/03/2015

Respondent: Persimmon Homes South East

Agent: Savills

Representation:

Application of Buffer - It is fundamental that a minimum viability cushion of 30% should be adopted within the proposed CIL rates to minimise risk to the housing supply, particularly when RDC has such a significant history of under delivery of private and affordable housing.

Full text:

To view Savills representation on behalf of Persimmon Homes Plc please click on the following link:

http://www.rother.gov.uk/CHttpHandler.ashx?id=23612