3.1

Showing comments and forms 1 to 30 of 48

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1707

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

See attachment - submitted by Planning Potential Ltd on behalf of ALDI Stores Ltd

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1758

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

We note that the DCS has been derived following a Viability Study undertaken by BNP Paribas Real Estate, which we have reviewed accordingly. Our primary concern is that despite the recognition of the different types of convenience retail format being pursued - through the viability testing of three development scenarios of a 279 sq.m unit, 1,000sq.m unit and a 5,000 sq.m unit -this is subsequently not reflected in the draft charging schedule. While the smallest 'express' type convenience units are subject to a proposed charge rate of £10 per sq.m, all foodstores greater than 280 sq.m floorspace are subject to the same £70 per sq.m blanket charge rate.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1759

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

This blanket charge rate is unfair and would prejudice against LAD operators, such as ALDI, by subjecting them to a charge rate that is considered equally viable for larger supermarket developments, more typical of the Big 4 operators, which are based on entirely different operational formats.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1760

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

While we support the use of a floorspace threshold to differentiate between large supermarket formats and the express formats, we believe that it would be appropriate to introduce an additional tier of differentiation within the charging schedule which would recognise LADs as operationally different to larger superstore formats.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1761

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

ALDI, as an LAD, operates on low profit margins, and their business model is based on high levels of efficiency and low overheads to enable cost savings to be passed on to their customers. There appears to be a perception that food retailers can afford to pay equal CIL charges, and that the viability of all convenience retail formats would not be jeopardised. Whilst this may be applicable for the larger 'supermarket' formats typical of the 'Big 4' operators, it is not the case for discounters.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1762

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

We consider that a 'like for like' comparison between convenience retail formats above 280 sq.m is not possible, and the generalisation of trading formats is a flaw when assessing viability. It is unreasonable for an LAD to pay a CIL charge that can be far more easily absorbed by a large format store or superstore. We remind the Council that at paragraph 37, the CIL Guidance (April 2013) states 11Charging schedules should not impact disproportionately on particular sectors or specialist forms of development. "Discount operators provide a valuable role in the convenience market, extending the local retail offer and delivering choice for those suffering from social exclusion: a key issue within the NPPF. In respect of viability, the high CIL rate may jeopardise the ability of discount convenience operators to deliver such benefits, in conflict with Paragraph 14 (1b) of the CIL Regulations 2010, which states that Councils should consider lithe potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of the CIL on the economic viability
of development across its area".

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1763

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

The creation of a physical retail destination can introduce a number of benefits, including enhancing retail choice, stimulating competition, creating employment opportunities, and generating spin-off trade through stimulating linked trips and increased footfall, in some cases facilitating other development nearby.
Essentially, we would encourage a more representative charging schedule which fully acknowledges the different types and format of convenience retail development. We would suggest that this subsequently leads to fairer representation for unique formats such as LADs in a revised charging schedule. Practically, the most effective method of differentiation would be to use an additional floorspace threshold, above and below which charge rates vary.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1764

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

Given the NPPF sets a threshold of 2,500 sq m for new development requiring full retail assessments to be undertaken, it is considered that those developments that exceed the threshold are likely to have a greater impact on local shopping patterns than those below it. We therefore consider this to be a sensible threshold to differentiate between convenience retail formats in the context of CIL. The approach would take account of different levels of viability, with non-LAD formats typical of the 'Big 4' retailers, which have greater turnover potential, exceeding the threshold, and discount operators falling within it. Both formats could continue to be separated from the smaller express format, which is already made distinct in the draft charging schedule.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1765

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

Furthermore, in considering the value that convenience retail development can have in ensuring the vitality and viability of town centres, the subsequent effect of deterring such development could be severe, with adverse impacts on the communities and neighbourhoods they serve possible. This argument was highlighted in the Examiner's report on Trafford Borough Council's Draft Charging Schedule, dated 31 January 2014. The report concluded that, in order to ensure that a CIL charge would not harm the vitality and viability of Sale Town Centre, by making a supermarket development proposal unviable, town centre supermarket developments should be exempt from the levy.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1766

Received: 01/12/2014

Respondent: ALDI Stores Ltd

Agent: Planning Potential Ltd

Representation Summary:

In summary, we would hope the Council will take on board these comments and consider the appropriateness of defining between the differing formats within the
convenience retail sector.

Introducing an additional floorspace threshold would help to quantify large convenience retail developments and allow LADs and smaller formats to be considered separately to larger supermarkets. Ultimately, larger foodstores would be liable for a higher levy rate, commensurate with their typical operation and average sales densities.

ALDI has an active interest in delivering new investment in the district and look forward to exploring further site-specific opportunities to do so. However, it is hoped that the Council ensures that a commercially realistic CIL charging schedule is pursued, to ensure that the appetite for beneficial investment in the district is not discouraged. We realise that the levy is at present only in draft form, with scope for review in light of the representations received. We would be grateful if you could keep us informed of CIL progress in the borough

Support

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1769

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: NHS England Essex Area Team

Representation Summary:

The Charging Schedule proposes a CIL charge of £0 per square metre for all new healthcare floorspace. This is wholly endorsed and welcomed by NHSE, as healthcare infrastructure should not be liable to pay CIL since it is a key component contributing to an area's well-being and sustainability.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1772

Received: 02/02/2015

Respondent: NHS England Essex Area Team

Representation Summary:

NHSE does not wish to comment on the chargeable rates on other floorspace that Southend Council has set, except for requesting that these are assessed appropriately and are directly costed against the likely infrastructure costs across the borough during the plan period, and are proportional to assist in the smooth delivery of services.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1776

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

Cogent has fundamental concerns with the approach proposed by the Council notably:
* Unviable Rates - The current proposed CIL rates are unviable and risk rendering a significant
* proportion of the housing supply across the District undeliverable;
* 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;
* Housing Delivery Cogent believes it is important to highlight that an unviable CIL poses a real risk of a materially reduced housing delivery, which in turn will affect the level of receipts collected. This is important as the Council is relying on CIL contributing to the significant funding gap in the Borough;
* Charging Zones - scale of development. Whilst the principle of applying differential rates is not questioned, the proposed Charging Zone 1 includes areas that the viability evidence proves cannot support a CIL rate; and
* Housing Supply There has been persistent under-delivery housing supply is heavily reliant on unplanned development across the Borough. This is particularly important as the future housing requirements for the Council, based on emerging information from the Thames Gateway Partnership, indicates significantly higher numbers than previously delivered under the Core Strategy. It is therefore essential that a higher buffer (minimum of 40%) is incorporated to reflect the already existing risk to the housing supply and to ensure the delivery of infrastructure and community facilities required to support the enhanced level of growth across the Borough, whilst ensuring that SBCs strategic objectives are met.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1777

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

As a result of these concerns we do not believe that the Council has demonstrated that the proposed rates are viable and will not threaten the delivery of the Plan. We have subsequently prepared the following representation, which looks at the following:
* Section 1 Is the DCS supported by background documents containing appropriate available evidence?
* Section 2 Are the proposed rates informed by and consistent with the evidence on economic
* Section 3 Has SSBC provided evidence that shows that the proposed rates would not threaten delivery of the relevant Plan as a whole?
* Section 4 The Effective Operation of CIL
Where relevant this representation provides comment on the supporting evidence/ existing guidance and also makes reference to policy documents, a list of which can be found at Appendix 1.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1778

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

In submitting this representation, we are only commenting on particular key areas of the evidence base. Cogent particular comments relate to the proposed rates for residential development and specifically the rate in Zone 1 (£20 per sq m).

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1779

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

We would highlight that the lack of reference to other parts of the evidence base cannot be taken as agreement with them and we reserve the right to make further comments upon the evidence base at the Examination stage.
Finally, the objective of this representation is not to oppose CIL; it merely seeks to ensure that viable rates, based on the evidence and a collective interest to deliver well planned, viable and feasible development in the Borough are adopted.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1780

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

Is the DCS supported by background documents containing appropriate available evidence?
As raised at the start of this representation, the Council will be required to demonstrate at Examination that the DCS is supported by appropriate available evidence (emphasis added). It is therefore essential that the viability appraisals are fit for purpose and strike an appropriate balance.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1781

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

Appropriate Available Evidence
Owing to the key test of Regulation 14(1) it is important that the viability appraisals prepared are fit for purpose. For the purpose of the DCS we have assumed that SSBC is relying on the following documents prepared by BNP Paribas Estate
*CIL Viability Study (May 2014);
*CIL Viability Addendum Note (July 2014); and
*Responses to Savills Representation (September 2014)
We have therefore reviewed the viability evidence set out above. Our specific comments in relation to these documents are set out

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1782

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

Up-to-date Evidence
It is fundamental that the supporting viability work incorporates reasonable assumptions reflective of the current market to ensure that the rates are set at viable levels. We are therefore concerned that the Viability Study has not been updated since the PDCS stage. This is important; as by the time the DCS is examined the data and assumptions adopted in the viability testing will be almost 12 months out of date.
We would therefore strongly advise that SSBC update their Viability Study to ensure that the data and inputs are appropriate.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1783

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

Viability Inputs
Cogent and Savills continue to fundamentally disagree with a number of the assumptions made by BNP in the viability testing. These are discussed in greater detail below.
As stated in our previous representations, the blended profit rate adopted by BNP in the Viability Study is below the minimum level required by national housebuilders, developers and land promoters.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1784

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

We note that in their representation responses to Savills, BNP has made the following comment "BNPRE strongly disagrees (that) the profit margin relates to risk.The approach taken reflects the reduced risk associated with developing affordable housing as any risk associated with take up of intermediate housing is borne by the acquiring RP, not by the developer. A reduced profit level on the affordable housing reflects the GLA Development Control Toolkit and the Homes and Communities guidelines in both its Economic Appraisal Tool (EAT) and Development Appraisal Tool (DAT). We would also highlight that this approach has been accepted at numerous CIL examinations and site assessments BNPPRE has undertaken"

In response, we would highlight the following:
*Relationship between profit and risk BNPhave commented that they do not agree that profit margins relate to risk. This contradicts the NPPF which states that to ensure viability; developments should provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer. We would also highlight a recent appeal decision where the Inspector commented that 'The amount required by a developer to undertake the development is a reflection of the anticipated risk;
*Brownfield Land on previously developed land. These sites by their very nature can require significant upfront costs and abnormal costs that would not be required on greenfield sites. In these instances, the profit margin and Return on Capital Employed (ROCE) becomes much more important. The minimum profit margin required by housebuilders and their lenders is 20% on gross development value (GDV). However, this increases where the risk and/or upfront costs are higher, i.e. for regeneration and brownfield sites. We would therefore expect a minimum of 20% on GDV (blended) to be tested;
*Reduced risk for affordable housing - We strongly disagree with the assertion from BNP that risk associated with take up of intermediate housing is borne by the acquiring RP, not by the developer it assumes that the developer has already secured a Registered Provider prior to securing the site. It is increasingly common for developers to purchase land prior to securing an offer from Registered Providers. In these instances, the risk has not been lowered and developers will subsequently apply the same risk profile to the entire site;
*Toolkits The GLA and HCA toolkits were produced when grant funding was still readily available for affordable housing. In todays market, grant funding for affordable housing is less readily available. It is therefore common practice for developers to purchase sites before they have secured the sale of the affordable housing. Developers are subsequently subject to market risk across both the private and affordable housing. There is subsequently a risk associated with the affordable housing, in addition to increased holding and finance costs that was not present under previous systems of funding. A blended rate reflective of this increased risk should therefore be applied across the entire site;
*Blended Rates BNP have applied a profit rate of 20% on GDV for the private element and 6% on GDV for the affordable. This reflects the following blended rates, which are significantly below the minimum level accepted by national house builders:
* 30% Affordable Housing 15.8% on GDV
* 20% Affordable Housing 17.2% on GDV
In support of the above, we have attached a report on Competitive Developer Return (Appendix 3), which provides further evidence on the minimum profit margins required by Plc housebuilders. Taking all of this in to account, we would therefore ask that a minimum profit level of 20% on GDV (blended) plus 25% ROCE across all tenures, subject to consideration of the risk profile of the scheme, is adopted in the viability testing.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1785

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

Professional Fees
As discussed previously, we would advocate an allowance of 12% for professional fees on all typologies tested in Southend-on-Sea. We note that BNP fees range between 8% and 12%, depending on the nature of the site. This is important, as the nature of the site can have a significant impact on the level of professional fees incurred.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1786

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

The majority of sites coming forward in Southend-on-Sea are brownfield sites. There is subsequently a strong likelihood that additional abnormal costs will be associated with their redevelopment, which will incur additional professional fees. We would also highlight that as the BLVs for these sites are based on existing use value, it is assumed that these sites do not benefit from planning permission. In our experience the following professional fees would therefore apply:
*Planning application fees;
*Planning consultant fees;
* Architects;
*Quantity Surveyor;
*Engineer;
*Site surveys (i.e. building, demolition, asbestos, ground conditions);
*Building Regulation fees; and
*NHBC and EPC certificates.
In light of the above and the nature of the sites coming forward in the Borough over the plan period, we would recommend that 12% would be a suitable allowance for professional fees.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1787

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

Abnormals
We note that BNP have confirmed in the response document that no abnormal costs have been factored in to the appraisals and it is not possible or reasonable to incorporate abnormal costs such as for remediation within an area wide viability study. These costs are site specific and as such will vary across all sites. The main reason for In light of this, we would recommend that the proposed CIL rates are set with a significant buffer (minimum 40%). This will ensure that there is sufficient room for site specific abnormal costs and prevent the CIL rates being set at the margins of viability.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1788

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

Benchmark Land Values
In our PDCS representation, we questioned the methodology and assumptions relating to the BLVs. We are therefore disappointed to note that the Council has failed to acknowledge our request for confirmation of which BLV is most appropriate for each market area. This is essential as the viability results vary substantially depending on which BLV is applied.
It is currently unclear how BNP has established which BLVs are appropriate in the absence of a Site Allocations Document to understand what type of site will be coming forward for development in each value area. We would therefore ask that the Council provides confirmation of which BLV is applicable to each typology in each of the Market Areas. This will ensure that the analysis and interpretation of the viability results is correct.

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1790

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

Alternative Viability Appraisals
Each of the points raised above will result in additional development costs for each of the typologies modelled. This will subsequently have a negative impact on the residual land value. We believe that BNP have under-estimated the costs associated with brownfield development across the Borough, which would reduce the capacity for sites to support CIL even further.
Given these concerns, we have produced a set of alternative viability appraisals in order to demonstrate the impact of the underestimation of these inputs on the residual land values (RLV). For the purpose of reaching a consensus on appropriate residential CIL rates, and to enable the Examiner to make direct comparisons between our evidence and that of the Council, we have focused on two points which we feel are of the upmost importance:
*Developer's Profit
*Professional Fees

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1791

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

It should be noted that failure to run sensitivity testing on consider the additional points (i.e. Section 106) discussed above does not indicate acceptance of these assumptions. However, until further evidence is provided by the Council in support of these assumptions we have excluded them from our analysis. We therefore reserve the right to submit further comments and/or sensitivity testing once this additional information has been made available.
For simplicity, using the same assumptions BNP has used for T3 - 12 Houses , we have prepared a base appraisal and then undertaken subsequent sensitivity testing on alternative assumptions as set out in the table below.

Comment

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1792

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

BNP have provided their viability appraisals in Appendix 1 of the Viability Study. We have therefore been able to use the appraisal summary of T2 -12 Houses to re-create, as close as possible, the residual land value reported by BNP. In doing so we have used ARGUS Developer appraisal software and incorporated the assumptions set out in Table 1.
We have subsequently used the above RLV as our baseline position for comparison purposes. The results of the sensitivity testing for the alternative assumptions is set out in Table 3:

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1793

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

When both the profit margin and professional fees are combined, in appraisal D, the cumulative impact is significant and results in the site becoming unviable. This is important, as if assumptions are set incorrectly (as in the BNP appraisals); the appraisals over-estimate the capacity for CIL.
We would therefore ask that further viability testing is undertaken on all of the typologies, incorporating the points discussed above.

Are the proposed rates informed by, and consistent with, the evidence on economic viability across the Borough?

Object

Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule (Nov 2014)

Representation ID: 1794

Received: 12/12/2014

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Representation Summary:

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.