Question 11

Support

Representation ID: 1690

Received: 08/09/2014

Respondent: Mrs Pat Holden

no

Comment

Representation ID: 1691

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: Essex County Council

ECC wishes to stress the positive relationship which has been built up over time between ECC, Southend and its two neighbouring Essex Districts, Castle Point and Rochford, including through Thames Gateway South Essex. ECC particularly welcomes the statement in para.1.14 of the PDCS document which states that Southend will wish to work with ECC on projects on the A127 and A13. ECC will wish to continue to work collaboratively with Southend in ECC's role as Highway Authority in Castle Point and Rochford and in developing projects through the Integrated County Strategy which includes Southend, Thurrock , the 12 Essex Districts and ECC. ECC is aware that Southend is a unitary authority over which ECC has less influence than over Essex Districts on CIL and other matters

Support

Representation ID: 1694

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: Essex County Council

ECC wishes to express its broad support for Southend's CIL and its wish to work with Southend on projects such as the A127 and A13. It also wishes to suggest that Southend should complete an equality impact assessment prior to finalising the schedule. ECC has declined to answer questions 2-5 and 7-10 as it feels that to answer them might be seen as trying to 'second guess' Southend's assessment which it would not wish to do. It has taken a similar stance in responding to PDCS and DCS documents from Essex Districts.

Comment

Representation ID: 1695

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: Anglian Water

We are not able to provide costs of wastewater infrastructure required to serve the proposed growth. However, I would not expect there to be provision within the CIL for wastewater infrastructure. We would be pleased to engage in further discussion should wastewater network infrastructure be considered for inclusion.

Comment

Representation ID: 1696

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: Anglian Water

In general, wastewater treatment infrastructure upgrades to provide for residential growth are wholly funded by Anglian Water through our Asset Management Plan.

Comment

Representation ID: 1697

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: Anglian Water

Network improvements (on-site and off-site) are generally funded/part funded through developer contribution via the relevant sections of the Water Industry Act 1991. The cost and extent of the required network improvement are investigated and determined when we are approached by a developer and an appraisal is carried out. The cost and extent of the required network improvement are investigated and determined when we are approached by a developer and an appraisal is carried out. There are a number of payment options available to developers. Options include deducting the revenue that will be raised from the newly connected dwellings (through the household wastewater charges) over a period of twelve years off the capital cost of the network upgrades. The developer then pays the outstanding sum.

Comment

Representation ID: 1699

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: NHS England Essex Area Team

NHS England was consulted in the preparation of the Council's Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) prior to the publication of this Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. The initial response is reported in the IDP by Navigus Planning in June 2014, which outlined that a fee of £624,000 would be required to increase capacity and provision, in line with the Essex Primary Care Strategy, Transforming Primary Care in Essex, to meet the planned growth. However, the healthcare landscape has
changed to a degree, with the NHS Premises Strategy moving forward and coming closer to formal publication. In addition to general healthcare needs within Southend-on-Sea and the requirement of increased capacity to meet growth, there is potential for further major projects that will require funding.

Comment

Representation ID: 1700

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: NHS England Essex Area Team

Two projects have been identified (currently at inception stage) that may potentially be advanced within the forthcoming Local
Plan period and that are necessary to meet the needs of the population.
The first is the relocation of St Luke's Healthcare Centre to provide a permanent facility capable of meeting the demand (which it currently is unable to achieve due to its size and temporary accommodation nature). The second is to completely redevelop the Shoebury Health Centre at Campfield Road, which is in a poor state of repair to an extent that refurbishment is not a viable option.

Comment

Representation ID: 1701

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: NHS England Essex Area Team

At the present time neither project has an costed scheme in place, but both projects will involve new facilities with an associated high capital cost. It is considered both of these projects would benefit from CIL funding.
As these are projects that NHS England may seek to undertake in due course it is considered that these should be added to the
Infrastructure Delivery Plan for Southend, in order that they may subsequently receive CIL funding.

Comment

Representation ID: 1702

Received: 10/09/2014

Respondent: NHS England Essex Area Team

In reviewing the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule generally, it is noted that healthcare is referred to on the Regulation
123 list in 'general' terms, without being specific as to what the funding will go towards (it is noted that health
impacts arising from a large development will still be subject to S106 agreements from this list). Referring to healthcare in generic terms (non-specific and ambiguous), could prejudice NHS England's ability to obtain the necessary funding for healthcare improvements within Southend. It is suggested that there is clarification given on this matter prior to the Charging Schedule being progressed, and perhaps CIL funding expressly stated to go towards the healthcare service projects identified above. If a more detailed definition is not formulated, then certainty with regard to healthcare
funding it may be better achieved through the continued use of S106 Agreements, and therefore healthcare removed from the Regulation 123 list.
Assuming the recommendations are incorporated wholly within the future CIL Charging Schedule then NHS England would not wish to raise an objection. The recommendations set out above are those that NHS England deem appropriate having regard to the projected needs arising. However, if the recommendations are not implemented then NHS England reserve the right to make representations about the soundness of the Charging Schedule at relevant junctures during the adoption process.

Object

Representation ID: 1708

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Following a thorough review of the PDCS and supporting evidence, CLL wish to make the following key observations:
The Council does not currently have an up-to-date Objectively Assessed Housing Needs (OAHN) or NPPF-compliant Local Plan including site allocations. We would therefore recommend that this work is undertaken to inform the CIL process, prior to the Draft Charging Schedule being published for consultation;
The proposed "nominal" CIL rates are not supported by the Viability Study;
An insufficient viability buffer has been applied to the proposed CIL rates; and
A number of the assumptions adopted in the Viability Study are inappropriate and result in the Viability Study over-estimating the capacity for CIL.

Comment

Representation ID: 1709

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

This representation is made in the context of the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014 and relevant statutory guidance (February 2014). These Regulations and associated guidance came into force on 24 February 2014. The publication of the PDCS, after this date, means that the Charging Schedule will be subject to the requirements of these latest set of Regulations and Guidance.

Comment

Representation ID: 1710

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Viability is at the forefront of Local Plan and CIL testing. It is therefore important that the Council fully understands the trade-off that occurs between affordable housing, Section 106 contributions and CIL when assessing the potential for charging a CIL in the Borough.
The fundamental premise is that to enable delivery, sites must achieve a competitive land value for the landowner and provide developers the required return on investment, otherwise development will be stifled. This is recognised by the National Planning Policy Framework1 (NPPF) and is 'in-built' within the CIL Regulations (as amended). It is also the basis of the definition of viability within the Harman report.2

Comment

Representation ID: 1711

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

The CIL Regulations previously required the Charging Authority to 'aim to strike what appears to the Charging Authority to be an appropriate balance...' (emphasis added), but the amendments now mean that the Charging Authority is required to 'strike an appropriate balance'. The onus has therefore shifted away from being a matter of opinion to a matter of fact.
It is therefore of paramount importance that the proposed CIL rates are supported and consistent with the viability evidence and that the Council has undertaken sufficient work to demonstrate that the proposed rates will not put their housing supply at risk

Comment

Representation ID: 1712

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Savills has recently published research which assesses the impact of CIL on development viability, notably the delivery of affordable housing[1]. This research, which is attached to this representation, demonstrates the trade off required to enable a deliverable five year housing land supply, in respect of the level of CIL against affordable housing provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 1713

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

As discussed it is critical for the adequate delivery of housing that CIL does not threaten the delivery of the development plan. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms and supports this by highlighting that for Local Plans to be found 'sound', the identified housing supply should be deliverable within the plan period. Paragraph 137 of the NPPF states: "Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened. To ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, standards, infrastructure contributions
or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable."

Comment

Representation ID: 1714

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

The introduction of CIL represents an additional obligation and therefore must be assessed holistically to establish the combined impact of CIL and existing planning obligations to ensure that the delivery of development would not be threatened by the introduction of CIL. We have therefore reviewed the identified housing supply for the Borough to determine whether the proposed CIL rates would threaten the delivery of development within the district.

Comment

Representation ID: 1715

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

The CIL Guidance confirms that Local Authorities must have an "up-to-date" development strategy for the area in which they propose to charge CIL. In addition, it states that a Charging Authority must be able to demonstrate how the proposed levy rates will contribute towards the implementation of the Local Plan. This is not exclusive in approach and stems from the contents of Paragraph 137 of the NPPF highlighted above.
SBC has a Core Strategy, adopted in 2007, along with Saved Policies from both the Southend Local Plan 1994 and the Essex and Southend Replacement Structure Plan 2001. The local policy context for Southend therefore precedes the introduction of the NPPF. The Council has indicated that they intend to undertake a review of their Core Strategy, but this has not been undertaken at this stage.
The Core Strategy contains a housing target of 6,500 dwellings over the plan period (2001 - 2021). This equates to a figure of 325 dwellings per annum. The 2013 SHLAA update indicates that the intention is to 'front load' this figure (as shown in the table below) given the apparent overprovision in completions within the early years of the plan period.

Comment

Representation ID: 1716

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

We have noted that a substantial proportion of future dwellings in the Borough are intended to be delivered through windfall development. The NPPF (Paragraph 48) clearly sets out that Councils can include windfall sites in their five year land supply figures, but only where there is compelling evidence -
"Local planning authorities may make an allowance for windfall sites in the five-year supply if they have compelling evidence that such sites have consistently become available in the local area and will continue to provide a reliable source of supply. Any allowance should be realistic having regard to the Strategic Housing Land Availability Assessment, historic windfall delivery rates and expected future trends, and should not include residential gardens."
We have therefore looked at historic evidence (see table below), which the Council has produced. This indicates the reliance on windfall development to deliver a significant proportion of the Borough's housing need.
The Council has identified a strong and consistent historic delivery of windfall sites. However Paragraph 48 not only requires Authorities to show compelling evidence of delivery, but also that Windfall sites will continue to provide a reliable source of supply.

Comment

Representation ID: 1717

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

SBC is a reasonably constrained district in both administrative and physical terms. The potential for windfall development to be reliable in the future is therefore compromised. We would advise caution in respect of a reliance on windfall development to bring forward a significant proportion of housing supply in the future. No evidence is provided that current rates of delivery will endure. In respect of CIL, care should be taken to ensure that there would not be an over-reliance on windfall development
such that the anticipated collection of CIL funding, and consequently infrastructure delivery are compromised.

Comment

Representation ID: 1730

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

The new Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014 require the Regulation 123 list to form part of the evidence base. We therefore welcome the publication of a draft Regulation 123 list of infrastructure for the Borough. Whilst we acknowledge this is not the final version, nor will it ever be exhaustive, it does serve as a useful guide as to the direction that the Council envisages taking in providing for the delivery of infrastructure to support the Plan.
The proposed "Regulation 123 Lists" comprises the following:
*Schools, other educational facilities and employment schemes (excluding any facility/provision that will primarily meet demand arising directly from a large site)
*Health, social wellbeing and emergency services (excluding any facility that will primarily meet demand arising directly from a large site)
*Utility infrastructure except where related to a specific site
*Highway and public transport improvements except where related to site specific mitigation or demand directly arising from a site
*Flood defences and management of unstable land excluding any local and site specific mitigation measures to ensure a development meets national requirements
*Waste facilities excluding any site specific mitigation measures
*Social and community facilities (excluding any facility that will primarily meet demand arising directly from a large site)
*Leisure and recreational facilities (excluding any facility that will primarily meet demand arising directly from a large site)
* Green infrastructure and open space/public realm except where mitigating for the loss of existing provision or primarily meeting demand arising directly from a large site20

Object

Representation ID: 1731

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Whilst CLL welcomes a number of the items included on the Regulation 123 list, and the general approach taken by the Council in linking the Regulation 123 list directly with the IDP; we would highlight that a number of infrastructure projects included on the list are also likely to be delivered through Section 106. There is subsequently a high potential for 'double dipping'. We are therefore concerned that a significant amount of infrastructure will continue to be sought through "site mitigation" Section 106 obligations for items of infrastructure that could otherwise have been funded by CIL and that an insufficient allowance has been tested in the supporting Viability Study.

Object

Representation ID: 1732

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

The Council should also be aware that the use of Section 106 obligations post-CIL are limited, as explained in the CIL Guidance.
It is therefore unnecessary to repeatedly exclude demand resulting from large sites and site specific mitigations as the Section106 regulations already specify that this must be so. This is important as a single development and Section 106 agreement can have more than one obligation in relation to a type of infrastructure, which further restricts the Councils' ability to pool obligations. We would therefore recommend that the Council ensure that they understand the implications of Section 106 pooling post-CIL and its impact on their intended delivery mechanism for infrastructure, with particular focus on the use of planning obligations to secure contributions towards Education provision.

Comment

Representation ID: 1733

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

CLL would like to see further refinement of the proposed Regulation 123 list in conjunction with the production of an SPD on Planning Obligations to ensure that any potential for 'double dipping' is reduced. In addition to this whilst we welcome the close relationship between the IDP and the Regulation 123 list, the meaning of a number of the items on the Regulation 123 list is unclear and furthermore a number of items included on the list are very similar. We would therefore request that the level of complexity is reduced and clarity improved on the Regulation 123 List to ensure potential for 'double dipping' and/ or misinterpretation is minimised and certainty is provided to the development industry

Comment

Representation ID: 1734

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

The CIL Guidance places a strong emphasis on the need for Local Authorities to demonstrate, when setting their Charging Schedule, that they have been realistic, when testing viability, about what residual Section 106 and 278 requirements will remain: "When a charging authority introduces the levy, section 106 requirements should be scaled back to those matters that are directly related to a specific site... For transparency, charging authorities should have set out at examination how their section 106 policies will be varied, and the extent to which they have met their section 106 targets"22.

Comment

Representation ID: 1735

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

As noted, we would recommend that alongside its draft Regulation 123 list and CIL charging schedule the Council should be seeking to produce a Section 106 and Planning Obligations SPD. The production of an SPD would support a holistic and realistic approach to the introduction of CIL and best ensure that the delivery of the plan is not compromised.

Comment

Representation ID: 1736

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Section 106 and CIL are inextricably linked and as such should not be considered in isolation. It is therefore of paramount importance that the Council produces a draft Planning Obligations SPD document to clearly set out how CIL and Section 106 will work alongside one another on all sites. This will provide certainty to the development industry and ensure that no 'double-dipping' occurs. This should be prepared in conjunction with the draft Regulation 123 list to ensure that no items included on the list are items that the Council anticipates wanting to collect through Section 106.

Object

Representation ID: 1737

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Having reviewed this list we do not believe that the operation of CIL and Section 106 has been clearly defined and properly accounted for within the viability evidence. We are subsequently concerned about the scale of Section 106 contributions that will continue to be sought alongside the proposed CIL rates on sites within the Borough, particularly strategic or large sites. Given that a number of development scenarios tested were shown to be unviable irrespective of the introduction of a CIL, extra care should be taken to ensure that the obligations required through S106 in addition to CIL do not combine to threaten the delivery of development in the Borough.

Comment

Representation ID: 1738

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

In preparing this document, we would advise that the Council has suitable regard to the provisions of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations23 which states:
"A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is -
a)necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;
b)directly related to the development; and
c)fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development."
We would therefore highlight again that it is critical that the Council produces a Planning Obligations Strategy SPD outlining what is included within each of these generic infrastructure types. This will ensure that Section 106 and CIL can be used effectively to secure infrastructure, without 'double dipping' occurring.

Comment

Representation ID: 1739

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Despite the narrow Regulatory requirements of the Examination, our clients urge SBC to make clear at the earliest opportunity the supporting documentation needed to operate CIL and to make it available for consultation. Practically, this needs to be done prior to the Examination so that participants and stakeholders are able to comment on the effective operation of CIL. Whilst this supporting information is not tested at Examination, this information is critical to allow for the successful implementation of CIL and to demonstrate that the CIL has been prepared positively and supports sustainable development.
The documentation should include:
*Guidance on how to calculate the relevant 'chargeable development'/level of CIL;
*Guidance on liability to pay CIL/Appeals process;
*Policy for payments by instalments;
*Approach to payments in kind;
*Guidance on relief from CIL and a policy on exceptional circumstances for relief from CIL.