Object

Representation ID: 1794

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

No further viability testing has been undertaken since the Viability Study (May 2014) and Viability Addendum (July 2014), which was produced in support of the PDCS. We have therefore assumed that these documents form the Councils appropriate available evidence and have set out our comments below.

Interpretation of Results
As discussed in our PDCS representation, the PPG CIL Guidance clearly states that shows that the areas 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 We are therefore concerned that despite the Viability Study indicating that there is limited capacity to pay CIL in the low value areas across the Borough that a flat residential rate of £20 per sq m has been proposed across Market Areas 1-5.
We note that in the CIL Overview Document BNP has commented that: The CIL identifies that Charging Authorities do not have to set a nil rate; they can set a low rate in instances where developments appear to be unviable. It is the Charging Authoritys prerogative to establish the appropriate balance between raising money from CIL to deliver much needed infrastructure to support development in their area and not putting development across the Charging Authority area at risk. In this regard it is noted that the CIL Guidance identifies that there is no requirement for a proposed rate to exactly mirror the evidence...There is room for some pragmatism.
As BNP highlight, the PPG welcomes Local Authorities taking a pragmatic approach to setting their rates. However, do not believe that the Council has justified their interpretation of the viability results and subsequent proposed CIL rates. We would therefore ask that the Council confirms the following:
1) Which BLV is relevant for each typology?
2) Which typologies are anticipated to be most prevalent in each Market Area?
Without this information it is hard to understand how the proposed CIL rates have been determined. For example, looking at the results for Market Area 6 (South Central Area) it is clear that the results vary significantly depending on the typology and BLV being applied.