Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

Object

Representation ID: 1728

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

The CIL Guidance clearly states that "If the evidence shows that the area includes a zone, which could be a strategic site, which has low, very low or zero viability, the charging authority should consider setting a low or zero levy rate in that area. The same principle should apply where the evidence shows similarly low viability for particular types and/or scales of development." A point further emphasised by the CIL Guidance which highlights that Local Authorities have a positive duty to show that their CIL rates are appropriate: "A charging authority must use 'appropriate available evidence' to inform their draft charging schedule...Charging authorities need to demonstrate that their proposed levy rate or rates are informed by 'appropriate available' evidence and consistent with that evidence across their areas as a whole.'.

Object

Representation ID: 1729

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

In light of these decisions, we are therefore of the view that a "nominal" rate of £20 per sq m is not appropriate. Particularly as the evidence base prepared by BNP clearly indicates that the application of a CIL rate renders sites unviable.

We would therefore ask that SBC review their CIL rates.

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.