Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

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.

Comment

Representation ID: 1740

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Methodology
We welcome the publication of a draft Instalments Policy by the Council.
An Instalments Policy is particularly important for larger sites, notably in respect of upfront infrastructure costs typically associated with strategic development that have a significant impact on the development's cashflow. A proposed Instalment Policy should aim to reflect, as closely as possible, the timing of delivery of the development, to ensure that the CIL does not put unnecessary pressure on cashflow and viability.

Comment

Representation ID: 1741

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

We would therefore recommend that the Instalments Policy is amended to reflect the following:
Sum Number of Instalments Payments
Less than
£25,000 1
Full payment within 120 days of commencement of development
£25,000 - £74,999 3
10% of payment within 120 days of commencement
40% of payment within 180 days of commencement
50% of payment within 270 days of commencement, or remaining balance to be paid upon substantial completion should this date fall within 270 days
£75,000 or more 4
10% of payment within 120 days of commencement
30% of payment within 360 days of commencement
40% of payment within 720 days of commencement
20% of payment within 900 days of commencement,
or remaining balance to be paid upon substantial completion should this date fall within 900 days

Comment

Representation ID: 1742

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

However, as SBC is able to remove an instalments policy at any time, we would recommend that the viability testing does not include phased payments. This will ensure that sites are able to support the proposed CIL rates in the event that an instalments policy is not in place.

Comment

Representation ID: 1743

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

It is not the intention of the Council to offer discretionary charitable or social housing relief at present. We would remind the Council that such policies can only be applied if they are in force prior to an application being submitted, therefore the need for the policy will arise prior to it being made available.

Comment

Representation ID: 1744

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

We do not consider there to be any detriment arising from the Council making such reliefs available within policies as part of the Charging Schedule, as the Council will still retain control over the application of the policies. There are strict tests surrounding the availability and applicability of Exceptional Circumstances Relief. It would therefore only be applicable to those schemes that can justify the need for it and meet those strict tests.

Object

Representation ID: 1745

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

There may well be instances where CIL (even with a buffer) would render development, which the Council may otherwise want to support, unviable. For example, there can be instances where enabling development is permitted to support the delivery of some other planning objectives, such as ensuring the future of listed buildings or to facilitate the relocation of particular uses. With the lack of flexibility under CIL compared to Section 106, it is likely that such developments will simply not happen and important policy objectives might be undermined. It is also the case that where residential development is rendered unviable, by the cumulative impact of CIL and Section 106, that the only option open to the Council will be to negotiate on affordable housing. That may not always be the most appropriate planning balance. We urge therefore the Council to make available Exceptional Circumstances Relief from the adoption of CIL so that it may be available within the area should planning or other policy considerations indicate that would be the most desirable outcome.

Comment

Representation ID: 1746

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Payment in Kind
The CIL Regulations now allow for Payment in Kind through the provision of infrastructure. However, there remain notable deficiencies in the operation of CIL, caused primarily by the CIL Regulations, which places MDC and the development industry in a difficult position.

The scope to reduce the CIL liability via utilisation of Payment in Kind is therefore restricted to those items of infrastructure which are not required to mitigate the impact of a development, which for strategic sites would exclude most (if not all) site-specific and 'scheme mitigation' infrastructure.

Payment in Kind is therefore not a credible option, which further emphasises the need to ensure that the Regulation 123 list does not include any items of infrastructure intended to be delivered through Section 106 agreements.

Comment

Representation ID: 1747

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Reviewing CIL
The Council intends to monitor the operation and implementation of CIL, conducting a review of the Charging Schedule in 2018, or earlier should the market be perceived to have changed significantly.

The CIL Guidance outlines that Charging Authorities 'must keep their Charging Schedules under review' to ensure that CIL is fulfilling its aim and responds to market conditions. We welcome the Council's commitment to undertake a review "in 2018, or earlier should the market be perceived to have changed significantly".However, we would recommend that regular monitoring is undertaken to ensure that any detrimental impact of CIL on housing delivery is noticed promptly and remedied. A review period of between 2-3 years from adoption, or sooner if there is a substantive change in market conditions or Central Government policy, should be publicly committed to by the Council.