RESPONSE TO ASDA ASDA REPRESENTATIONS REPRESENTATIONS SDCSDCSDCSDC5555 : RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO ASDA

RESPONSE TO ASDA ASDA REPRESENTATIONS REPRESENTATIONS SDCSDCSDCSDC5555 : RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO ASDA

1 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY CHARGING SCHEDULE CHARGING SCHEDULE CHARGING SCHEDULE CHARGING SCHEDULE INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION INDEPENDENT EXAMINATION STATEMENT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF STATEMENT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF STATEMENT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF STATEMENT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY SDC SDC SDC SDC5 5 5 5: : : : RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO RESPONSE TO ASDA ASDA ASDA ASDA REPRESENTATIONS REPRESENTATIONS REPRESENTATIONS REPRESENTATIONS

2 STATEMENT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF STATEMENT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF STATEMENT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF STATEMENT PREPARED ON BEHALF OF TH TH TH THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY E LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY E LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY E LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY SDC SDC SDC SDC5 5 5 5: RESPONSE TO : RESPONSE TO : RESPONSE TO : RESPONSE TO ASDA ASDA ASDA ASDA REPRESENTATIONS REPRESENTATIONS REPRESENTATIONS REPRESENTATIONS CONTENTS CONTENTS CONTENTS CONTENTS Page Page Page Page 1 1 1 1 OVERVIEW OVERVIEW OVERVIEW OVERVIEW OF ASDA REPRESENTATIONS OF ASDA REPRESENTATIONS OF ASDA REPRESENTATIONS OF ASDA REPRESENTATIONS 3 3 3 3 2 2 2 2 PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 4 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 SECTION 106 AND SECTION 278 PAYM SECTION 106 AND SECTION 278 PAYM SECTION 106 AND SECTION 278 PAYM SECTION 106 AND SECTION 278 PAYMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL ENTS FOR COMMERCIAL ENTS FOR COMMERCIAL ENTS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT 6 6 6 6 4 4 4 4 DISTINCTI DISTINCTI DISTINCTI DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT RETAIL USES ON BETWEEN DIFFERENT RETAIL USES ON BETWEEN DIFFERENT RETAIL USES ON BETWEEN DIFFERENT RETAIL USES 9 9 9 9 5 5 5 5 USE OF NET SALES AREAS IN DEFINING RETAIL STORES USE OF NET SALES AREAS IN DEFINING RETAIL STORES USE OF NET SALES AREAS IN DEFINING RETAIL STORES USE OF NET SALES AREAS IN DEFINING RETAIL STORES 11 11 11 11 6 6 6 6 CONVERSION SCHEMES AND NEW BUILD SCHEMES CONVERSION SCHEMES AND NEW BUILD SCHEMES CONVERSION SCHEMES AND NEW BUILD SCHEMES CONVERSION SCHEMES AND NEW BUILD SCHEMES 12 12 12 12 7 7 7 7 LINK BETWEEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT LINK BETWEEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT LINK BETWEEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT LINK BETWEEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT 13 13 13 13 8 8 8 8 S106 AGREEMENT FUNDING FOR CIL INFRASTRUCTURE S106 AGREEMENT FUNDING FOR CIL INFRASTRUCTURE S106 AGREEMENT FUNDING FOR CIL INFRASTRUCTURE S106 AGREEMENT FUNDING FOR CIL INFRASTRUCTURE 14 14 14 14 9 9 9 9 EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELIEF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELIEF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELIEF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELIEF 15 15 15 15 10 10 10 10 INSTALMENTS POLICIES INSTALMENTS POLICIES INSTALMENTS POLICIES INSTALMENTS POLICIES 16 16 16 16 11 11 11 11 FLAT RATE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT FLAT RATE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT FLAT RATE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT FLAT RATE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT 17 17 17 17 12 12 12 12 GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED FURTHER CHANGES TO THE CIL GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED FURTHER CHANGES TO THE CIL GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED FURTHER CHANGES TO THE CIL GOVERNMENT’S PROPOSED FURTHER CHANGES TO THE CIL REGULATIONS REGULATIONS REGULATIONS REGULATIONS 18 18 18 18 13 13 13 13 CORE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS STATEMENT CORE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS STATEMENT CORE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS STATEMENT CORE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS STATEMENT 19 19 19 19 Note Note Note Note: : : : T T T The abbreviation CD refers to the Examination Core Documents.

These documents are he abbreviation CD refers to the Examination Core Documents. These documents are he abbreviation CD refers to the Examination Core Documents. These documents are he abbreviation CD refers to the Examination Core Documents. These documents are available on the Local Development Framework page at available on the Local Development Framework page at available on the Local Development Framework page at available on the Local Development Framework page at http://www.sevenoaks.gov.uk http://www.sevenoaks.gov.uk http://www.sevenoaks.gov.uk http://www.sevenoaks.gov.uk and at and at and at and at the Council Offices the Council Offices the Council Offices the Council Offices

3 1. 1. 1. 1. OVERVIEW OF ASDA R OVERVIEW OF ASDA R OVERVIEW OF ASDA R OVERVIEW OF ASDA REPRESENTATIONS EPRESENTATIONS EPRESENTATIONS EPRESENTATIONS 1.1 The Council considers the key claims from the ASDA’s representations to be: • The Charging Schedule does not support the aim of promoting economic development and employment opportunities; • The viability evidence has not fully taken account of planning costs and residual Section 106 and Section 278 payments for commercial developments; • ASDA question whether a distinction between different retail uses has been identified.

• The Council should not categorise larger scale retail developments by reference to their net sales area; • The Viability Study does not acknowledge that the economics of conversion schemes are very different to those of new build schemes; • There is no evidence of the link between the charges for a particular development and the infrastructure required to support it.

The Council's CIL document does not contain details of the actual or estimated cost of infrastructure provided to support the local plan; • There is a risk that some of the infrastructure projects identified by the Council to be funded by CIL will already have been funded by undelivered projects funded by existing Section 106 commitments; • The Council should adopt exceptional circumstances relief; • The Council should adopt an instalment policy that takes account of major schemes; • The Council should apply a flat rate across all development; and • The Council should delay the preparation of its Charging Schedule until the results of the Government’s consultation on further changes to the regulations are clear.

4 2 2 2 2. . . . PROMO PROMO PROMO PROMOTING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT TING ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 2.1 As noted in SDC03, the CIL Guidance (CD301) identifies that striking what the Council considers to be the appropriate balance between funding infrastructure and development viability is its critical test in setting levy rates. The Statutory Guidance is clear that ‘charging authorities should show that the proposed rate (or rates) would not threaten the delivery of the relevant Plan as a whole’ (CD301, para 29). 2.2 The CIL Viability Assessment (CD107) appraises the viability and scope for supermarkets/superstores and retail warehouses to accommodate a CIL charge, on the basis of assumptions for rental value, yield, build cost and other development costs (C107, section 2).

Section 3.5 of CD107 notes that the development scenarios generally showed ‘good viability prospects’ (para 3.5.1) and recommends that CIL could be set at £125/m² for these forms of development (para 3.5.3). The Council considers that this level of charge represents an appropriate balance between the desirability of supermarket and retail warehouse developments contributing to infrastructure requirements (as identified in CD110) and their ability to do so. CIL will support the delivery of the Council’s Core Strategy by providing additional infrastructure, including sustainable transport schemes that will help to support access to new retail developments and reduce their impacts on the local highways.

2.3 The Council considers that the CIL Viability Assessment indicates that these forms of retail development would remain viable with the proposed CIL charge. It is, therefore, not accepted that the Charging Schedule does not support the aim of promoting economic development and employment opportunities by restricting the development of either use. The Council also does not accept that a ‘massive subsidy’ is being offered to other sectors, given that the Viability Assessment has considered a wide range of development types (see para 2.1 of SDC1) and recommended CIL charges based on their viability in accordance with the Regulations and Guidance.

The Council notes that ASDA has not put forward its own viability evidence to support its assertion that the Council’s CIL proposals will put the viability of supermarket/superstore and retail warehouse development at risk.

2.4 Notwithstanding the points above, the additional retail floorspace proposed in the Core Strategy (CD102), which the Charging Schedule is being prepared to support, has now been permitted. Only policy LO3 of the Core Strategy sets a target for additional retail

5 floorspace. Core Strategy Policy LO3 provides for approximately 4000m² of new shopping floorspace (including approximately 1,700m² of convenience and 2,300m² of comparison floorspace) to be developed in Sevenoaks town to 2026. Since that requirement was identified, the Council has permitted 4134.5m² of convenience floorspace and 3540.5m² of comparison floorspace serving Sevenoaks town (Sainsbury’s – SE/11/02087; Waitrose – SE/09/02322; Lidl – SE/12/01279; and Marks and Spencer – SE/12/01611).

As a result, whilst the Council does not consider that the CIL charges will risk the viability of new supermarket and retail warehousing developments, the delivery of the Core Strategy is no longer dependent on the delivery of additional retail floorspace. The Council considers that it is the deliverability of the Core Strategy that is the key concern when preparing a CIL Charging Schedule rather than development that may come forward on a more ad hoc basis (CD301, para 29). 2.5 At £125/m², the proposed CIL charging rate for supermarket development (and other larger format retailing) is the same as the upper of the two residential charging rates.

This is considered to be an equitable and appropriate rate supported by the viability evidence. The rate represents a modest circa 3% of Gross Development Value (CD107, Figure 12 - p75) and as the assessment states, has not been set to the margins of viability. The dynamics of development are acknowledged in the study, so that whilst particular site assumptions appraisal inputs may well vary, a reasonable overview has been made. The Council considers that, in line with the viability work, a higher charging rate might have been justified. The assumptions made on key drivers for the appraisals, are considered conservative (see para 3.4).

6 3 3 3 3. . . . SECTION 106 AND SECTION 278 PAYMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL SECTION 106 AND SECTION 278 PAYMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL SECTION 106 AND SECTION 278 PAYMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL SECTION 106 AND SECTION 278 PAYMENTS FOR COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT DEVELOPMENT 3.1 The Council’s draft Regulation 123 list (CD111) sets out the types of infrastructure that CIL will be used to fund and those that may still be sought through s106 agreements. This indicates that the majority of infrastructure currently sought from new development will be secured through CIL. Of those types of infrastructure that will continue to be secured through s106 agreements, site specific access improvements are likely to be the most costly.

However, the requirement to make such improvements will be highly site specific and, therefore, difficult to account for in a strategic viability assessment. As noted at 2.6 above, allowance has been made in the viability assessment for significant development costs, acknowledging that in practice those will be variable. Furthermore, the Council could reasonably expect that the suitability of access would be taken into account by a developer in determining the value of the site.

3.2 Appendix A of CD112 sets out the planning obligations secured for infrastructure provision / contributions between January 2009 and March 2013. The table below provides more information on planning obligations related to retail-only schemes: Application Application Application Application No No No No. . . . Address Address Address Address Pr Pr Pr Proposal oposal oposal oposal Decision Decision Decision Decision Date Date Date Date Contribution Contribution Contribution Contribution Total Total Total Total Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Infrastructure Contributions Contributions Contributions Contributions Contributions for Contributions for Contributions for Contributions for 09/02322 Waitrose 58 – 62, High Street Sevenoaks, Kent, TN13 1JR Supermarket redevelopment (1166 sq m of additional floorspace) 28/01/2010 £60,000 £45,000 Highways – Pembroke Road junction £5,000 Travel Plan Monitoring £10,000 Air Quality Contribution 11/02087 J Sainsbury Plc, Otford Road, Sevenoaks, KENT, TN14 4EG Extension to supermarket (2650 sq m gross internal area) 16/11/2011 £284,500 £12,000 Implementation Contribution £3,000 Survey Contribution £30,000 Air Quality Contribution £200,000 Highways Contribution – Bat and Ball junction £2,000 Road Signage Contribution

7 £37,500 Bus Service contribution 12/01279 Caffyns, 80 London Road, Sevenoaks Supermarket development (1918 sq m gross internal area) 05/09/2012 £5,000 Air Quality Monitoring Equipment 3.3 The Council considers that, having reviewed previous schemes, the contributions for specific highway improvements are typically for schemes that are not directly related to access to the development sites (or indeed other site-specific mitigation) and are considered generally to be of a more ‘strategic’ nature, which would warrant the use of CIL contributions rather than s.106. Both air quality contributions are for off-site monitoring schemes and an air quality alert system, which can best be secured through the pooling of developer contributions and are, therefore, more suitable uses of CIL.

It can be seen that once the contributions towards these infrastructure schemes have been subtracted, the remaining s106 contributions are minimal and are not at a level that would meaningfully adjust viability outcomes in the context and scale of the influence of other appraisal assumptions.

3.4 Whilst it is acknowledged that some schemes could generate sizeable s.106 obligations on a highly variable basis, there are no such schemes relevant to the Core Strategy on which the CIL is to be based (see para 2.4). The Council considers that its view of the overall strength of the relationship between development values and costs is reasonable in informing the proposed rates. Again, the Council considers that the Viability Assessment (CD107) takes a ‘cautious’ view of viability, including through: • Assuming 20% profit on Gross Development Value rather than, for example, 15% on cost (para 2.8.1); • Assuming BCIS build costs plus 20% allowance for external works (para 2.6.2) and 5% for contingencies (para 2.6.5); • 5.75% purchaser’s costs (para 2.8.1); and • Conservative view on rental yields (para 2.4.5) On this basis, a reasonable viability overview has been provided that allows some response to site specific factors not specifically taken into account in the viability

8 appraisals, should that scope be necessary, in any particular scheme instances that come under consideration in the context of the Core Strategy policies.

9 4 4 4 4. . . . DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT RETAIL USES DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT RETAIL USES DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT RETAIL USES DISTINCTION BETWEEN DIFFERENT RETAIL USES 4.1 ASDA claim that the viability evidence produced by the Council does not adequately address the question of whether the forms of retail development proposed to be charged CIL are actually different retail 'uses' or whether the purported differences in their viability profiles are in fact a result of the differing locations and sizes of the stores in question.

4.2 Paragraph 35 of the statutory CIL Guidance (CD301) states that ‘Regulation 13… allows charging authorities to articulate differential rates by reference to different intended uses of development provided that the different rates can be justified by a comparative assessment of the economic viability of those categories of development’. It is clear that the definition of “use” is not tied to the Use Classes Order, or to any other restricted context for how to consider and describe development uses.

4.3 Para 41 of the Guidance also suggests that Charging Authorities consider examples of how differential rates have been set by other authorities.

SDC has considered the approach taken in other sound charging schedules and notes that a number (including Portsmouth, Wycombe, Huntingdonshire and Plymouth) include differential rates for different types of retail (Examiner’s Reports for these Charging Schedules are at CD403, CD404, CD405, CD406). In two of these cases, the rates were underpinned by application of the same principles and the same consultants’ viability work. 4.4 The Council considers that the evidence from the Viability Assessment (CD107) indicates that supermarkets/superstores and retail warehouses will remain viable if developers are charged the proposed level of CIL (see section 2 of this statement).

CIL is one of a range of factors that influence viability, and as can be seen from the gradual deterioration in viability outcomes as its rate increases (CD107, Appendix IIb). It is certainly not a key driver of viability outcomes.

4.5 The evidence from the Viability Assessment Addendum (CD108 & CD109) indicates that there is doubt that other forms of retail development envisaged by the Core Strategy (CD102) and ADMP (CD104) would be viable with the same level of charge. It indicates that town centre comparison goods stores (which, in contrast, are considered to be important components of Core Strategy policies – see LO5) would not be viable with any level of CIL charge at the current time. As a result all other forms of retail development

10 have been ‘nil-rated’, aligned to avoid potential risk to the delivery of these plan- relevant development types that are considered to show much weaker viability prospects.

CD112 (para 4.10) sets out the Council’s reasoning behind this and specifically notes that this is to ensure that a competitive advantage is not given to small comparison goods stores over small convenience goods stores, which the Viability Assessment found could still be viable with a lower CIL charge (CD107, para 3.12.1). 4.6 The CIL Charging Schedule includes definitions of supermarkets/superstores and retail warehouses to enable a judgement to be made as to whether CIL is chargeable (see section 5).

11 5 5 5 5. . . . USE OF NET SALES AREAS USE OF NET SALES AREAS USE OF NET SALES AREAS USE OF NET SALES AREAS IN DEFINING RETAIL STORES IN DEFINING RETAIL STORES IN DEFINING RETAIL STORES IN DEFINING RETAIL STORES 5.1 The proposed Charging Schedule includes definitions of supermarkets/superstores and retail warehouses, which include floorspace thresholds, to enable a judgement to be made as to whether CIL is chargeable. The floorspace threshold is based on a local assessment of existing stores (set out in appendices C and D of CD112) but constitutes only one component of the definitions of a supermarket/superstore and retail warehouses.

The Council expects that proposals that clearly meet the remainder of the definition will generally be well in excess of these thresholds. It is considered that net sales area is appropriate for this definition as it relates to the primary profit generating part of a supermarket/superstore or retail warehouse development. Whilst different local authorities have taken different approaches to the floorspace figure included in definitions of supermarkets/superstores and retail warehouses in CIL Charging Schedules, the Council notes that Wycombe’s adopted Charging Schedule applies a figure based on net sales space (CD407).

12 6 6 6 6. . . . CONVERSION SCHEMES AND NEW BUILD SCHEMES CONVERSION SCHEMES AND NEW BUILD SCHEMES CONVERSION SCHEMES AND NEW BUILD SCHEMES CONVERSION SCHEMES AND NEW BUILD SCHEMES 6.1 The Council’s CIL Viability Assessment (CD107) is based on the land supply that the Council expects to see coming forward, as noted in section 2 of SDC2. As also noted in that statement and section 3 of this statement, the CIL Viability Assessment takes a suitably ‘cautious’ approach to assessing viability through the assumptions made. Whilst the Viability Assessment notes that there will be circumstances where development will not be viable (which, as is acknowledged through the principles of CIL, may be unavoidable), these factors provide a reasonable ‘cushion’ to allow developers to overcome some issues that may arise on previously developed sites in the event that there has not been the usual opportunity to reflect those through an appropriate land price negotiation.

6.2 The Viability Assessment does not take into account any deductions in CIL charges that may result from the replacement or redevelopment of existing buildings on development sites, in accordance with regulation 40 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). The impact of this will vary on a site by site basis but could reduce the CIL payments required significantly and aid the viability of developments on previously developed sites. The Government’s proposal to allow floorspace from all ‘non-abandoned’ buildings to be offset from floorspace to be developed may further reduce CIL payments from previously developed sites (CD302, para 62-66).

6.3 Notwithstanding the fact that the Council does not accept that the imposition of the proposed CIL charges will render conversions to supermarkets, superstores or retail warehouses unviable, the delivery of the Core Strategy is not dependent upon these types of schemes (see section 2 of this statement).

13 7 7 7 7. . . . LINK BETWEEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT LINK BETWEEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT LINK BETWEEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT LINK BETWEEN INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT 7.1 The statutory CIL Guidance (CD301) notes that, in setting levy rates, charging authorities must strike a balance between the funding of infrastructure and the effects on viability (para 7).

Paragraphs 12 to 19 relate to the infrastructure planning work that should be undertaken to support a CIL Charging Schedule, which the Council considers it has complied with. The Council does not understand there to be any requirement to demonstrate how the CIL receipts secured from a particular development will be used to fund infrastructure related to it. The Council’s view is that the legislation and guidance requires that the determining factor of the CIL rate for a ‘use’ is its viability (CD301, para 34). As set out in the previous sections, the Council considers that the Viability Assessment supports the proposed charges for supermarkets/superstores and retail warehouses.

14 8 8 8 8. . . . S106 AGREEMENT FUNDING FOR CIL INFRASTRUCTURE S106 AGREEMENT FUNDING FOR CIL INFRASTRUCTURE S106 AGREEMENT FUNDING FOR CIL INFRASTRUCTURE S106 AGREEMENT FUNDING FOR CIL INFRASTRUCTURE 8.1 As noted in the previous section, paragraphs 12 to 19 of the statutory CIL Guidance (CD301) relate to the infrastructure planning work that should be undertaken to support a CIL Charging Schedule, which the Council considers it has complied with. Section 2 and annex 1 of the Council’s submitted ‘Consultation Statement’ (CD106) are clear that infrastructure providers were specifically asked to consider currently committed funding when they were asked to identify projects required to support development in the District, consistent with para 12 of CD301.

8.2 The Council’s CIL Infrastructure Plan (CD110) notes that the Council has sought to estimate the likely cost of providing the infrastructure required post-2014, when the CIL Charging Schedule is expected to be adopted (para 4.5). This allows for the fact that some funding towards infrastructure projects may be secured through s106 agreements in the intervening period. The Council also notes that the CD112 (para 5.1- 5.2) identifies a significantly larger infrastructure funding gap than the anticipated receipts. Therefore, the Council does not consider it realistic to assume that contributions secured through s106 agreements will close the funding gap prior to the introduction of CIL.

15 9 9 9 9. . . . EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELIEF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELIEF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELIEF EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES RELIEF 9.1 Charging Authorities are able to prepare and publish exceptional circumstances relief policies, at their discretion, in accordance with Regulation 55 of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). Policies on exceptional circumstances relief do not need to be tested through a CIL examination. CD112 (paras 6.5 – 6.7) indicates that the Council will keep this issue under review. However, it also notes that the Council currently considers that there will be little benefit in introducing an exceptional circumstances relief policy due to the stringent regulations regarding its use, including the need to ensure compliance with EU State Aid Regulations.

16 10 10 10 10. . . . INSTALMENT INSTALMENT INSTALMENT INSTALMENTS POLICIES S POLICIES S POLICIES S POLICIES 10.1 Charging Authorities are able to prepare and publish instalment policies, at their discretion, in accordance with Regulation 69B of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended). Instalments policies do not need to be tested through a CIL examination. CD112 (paras 6.8 – 6.10) indicates that the Council will keep this issue under review and that it currently considers that there will be benefit in introducing an instalment policy.

10.2 The Council recognises that instalments policies could help to maintain the viability of development, especially in respect of larger development schemes.

The Council’s Viability Assessment (CD107, paras 3.12.8 – 3.12.9) does not allow for CIL to be paid in instalments in the viability appraisals and, therefore, any instalments policy could help to make marginal schemes viable.

17 11 11 11 11. . . . FLAT RATE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT FLAT RATE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT FLAT RATE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT FLAT RATE FOR ALL DEVELOPMENT 11.1 Regulation 13 of the CIL regulations allows charging authorities, at their discretion, to introduce differential charging rates for different uses. The Council’s Viability Assessment finds that a number of the types of development expected to come forward in the District would not be viable with a CIL charge applied (sections 3.6, 3.7, 3.8, 3.9 and 3.10 of CD107 provide further information). The Council’s proposal to ‘nil-rate’ these forms of development whilst applying charges to residential and some retail developments is considered to balance the Council’s need to ensure that development planned for in the Core Strategy remains viable, whilst maximising the opportunities to fund necessary infrastructure from CIL.

The Council considers that applying a flat rate charge for all new development would be contrary to the CIL Regulations, in the light of the findings of the Viability Assessment.

18 12 12 12 12. . . . GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT’ ’ ’ ’S PROPOSED FURTHER CHANGES TO THE CIL REGULATIONS S PROPOSED FURTHER CHANGES TO THE CIL REGULATIONS S PROPOSED FURTHER CHANGES TO THE CIL REGULATIONS S PROPOSED FURTHER CHANGES TO THE CIL REGULATIONS 12.1 The Council does not consider it necessary to delay the preparation of its CIL Charging Schedule until the Government has proposed further changes to the CIL Regulations following its recent consultation (CD302). CD302 does not suggest that local authorities take this approach.

12.2 The vast majority of the proposed potential changes relate to matters that do not affect the charge setting process.

Those proposed changes that do, such as the requirement to submit a Reg. 123 list at examination stage, would ensure that the legislation is consistent with the Guidance (CD301). The Council considers that it has prepared its charging schedule in accordance with the Guidance and a draft Reg. 123 list (CD111) has been submitted.

19 13 13 13 13. . . . CORE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS STATEMENT CORE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS STATEMENT CORE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS STATEMENT CORE DOCUMENTS REFERENCED IN THIS STATEMENT CD102 LDF Core Strategy CD104 Allocations and Development Management Plan CD106 CIL Consultation Statement CD107 CIL Viability Assessment including Appendices CD108 CIL Viability Assessment Addendum CD109 CIL Viability Assessment Addendum Appendices CD110 CIL Infrastructure Plan Submission Version CD111 Draft Reg. 123 List CD112 Summary of Evidence and Proposals CD301 Community Infrastructure Levy Guidance (CLG, April 2013) CD302 Consultation on CIL further reforms (CLG, April 2013) SDC1 SDC Response to GVA representations SDC2 SDC Response to Berkeley Homes SDC3 SDC Response to CLA Representations

You can also read