Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

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.