Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

Object

Representation ID: 1748

Received: 30/01/2015

Respondent: Cogent Land LLP (Cogent)

Conclusion
Three of the key tests of the examination of a Charging Schedule are that:
i."the Charging Authority's Charging Schedule is supported by background documents containing appropriate available evidence";
ii."the proposed rate or rates are informed by and consistent with, the evidence on economic viability across the Charging Authority's areas"; and
iii."evidence has been provided that shows the proposed rate would not put at serious risk overall development of the area".
The assessment of planned development and its viability is therefore an inherent test of the Examination. The following points are therefore significant:
The Council does not currently have an up-to-date Objectively Assessed Housing Needs (OAHN) or a NPPF-compliant Local Plan. It is therefore difficult for the Council to accurately assess the potential impact of CIL on the delivery of the housing supply. 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 CIL rates are at the margins of viability. Given the Council's lack of a five year land supply (applying a 20% buffer) and historic under delivery there is a subsequent risk that the CIL rates could further threaten the housing delivery in the Borough. We would therefore recommend that a minimum 40% buffer is included on all CIL rates, as all identified sites and a significant number of windfall sites need to come forward for development.
The numerical inputs of the Viability Study are generally considered to be reasonable however there are some background assumptions that need to be re-tested. Our clients would therefore like to see these changes incorporated in to the appraisals and re-run.
The draft Regulation 123 list is too complex and risks 'double dipping'. We would recommend that this list is simplified to include only those items that are essential for the delivery of the Aligned Core Strategy.
The "nominal" rate of £20 per sq m is not supported by viability evidence and risks putting the housing supply at risk.
A Planning Obligations SPD should be produced to ensure that the use of Section 106 contributions and CIL does not threaten the delivery of housing allocations and to ensure that no 'double dipping' will occur.

Moving forward, our clients are open to a meeting with SBC and its advisors to discuss the approach taken and to discuss common ground in advance of the publication of the Draft Charging Schedule.