Question 1 – Do you have any general comments to make about the consultation document and the approach taken to bring forward in Poole?
1 / Emma Woodhouse
National Farmers Union / The NFU note that there is no explicit reference to agricultural development and therefore it is assumed that it is zero rated in your draft schedule. This is welcomed as research by the NFU demonstrates that there is no uplift in land value when permission is granted for agricultural development.
The NFU, CLA, CAAV and TFA propose that agricultural development, as defined in Class III of Schedule 2 to the Buildings Regulations 2000 (SI No. 2531), should be excluded from the Community Infrastructure Levy. I attached the joint response to Government which clarifies the rationale behind this exemption.
(N.b - attachment not included in this table) / Agriculture not specifically mentioned in charging schedule. / Although agriculture is not specifically mentioned, it would fall within the ‘all other development’ category and is proposed to be zero rated. / No
2 / Robert Boot / Yes - Comments given: Agreed / n/a / Noted / No
15 / Michael Holm
Environment Agency / As per our previous letter, dated 25 August 2011, in response to the earlier CIL Preliminary Charging Schedule we wish to reiterate that we fully support the principles set out in the Draft Charging Schedule Consultation document.
We do have some concerns for flood risk contributions is set too high for retail development (>2500m2) and that some commercial development types will not therefore contribute towards CIL, and that this will result in lost opportunities in securing funding towards the significant funding gap identified (£205million). / With most commercial development zero rated, there will be lost funding opportunities. / CIL must be informed by viability evidence, which shows that in current market conditions it is not possible to set any CIL for commercial development bar large scale retail above 3,000 sq.m. / No
28 / David Williams (The Planning Bureau Ltd)
McCarthy & Stone Retirement Lifestyles Ltd / Consideration should be given to the timing of CIL payments and an allowance for payment by instalments. McCarthy and Stonewould welcome flexibility in the timing of CIL as payments on commencement will introduce an additional financial cost on the development prior to the receipt of any revenue from the proposed development. This would place an additional burden on the developer and would affect the viability of the development, and possibly in the case of residential development impinge upon the developer's ability to provide for affordable housing. This issue is compounded in my Client's case, and for other retirement housing providers, as developments need to be completed in their entirety before a single unit of accommodation can be sold and occupied. It is considered that at the earliest, part payment on first occupation would be fairer and would reduce unnecessary financial costs to the developer. This could then be phased depending upon occupation levels. In economic conditions such as currently being experienced, there is some merit in staged payments throughout the development. Such an approach would encourage the delivery of many worthwhile development proposals that might otherwise not commence.
There will also be a need to identify priorities in many instances between CIL and affordable housing for example where viability is marginal. The CIL becomes a very significant element of development costs which can greatly influence the amount of contribution reasonably available for affordable housing. How are the competing planning policy requirements to be weighted? For example the benefits of providing accommodation for the increasingly ageing population and affordable housing verses the CIL. The exception clause and relaxation options on CIL need to be spelt out or at the very least the process by which it will be judged. / Detail on payment system required. This should allow for flexibility in timing of payments.
Timing is particular acute for retirement housing and care homes as developments need to be completed in their entirety before a single unit of accommodation can be sold and occupied.
/ Agreed - BoP will be issuing guidance on timing of payments prior to the adoption of CIL. Not a matter for EiP though. / No
32 / Mrs Joan Jarvis / Social Issues:
Paras 1.14-15 – Many social problems due to absence of community infrastructure or inadequate provision experienced during the past three decades would not arise. The public should be in a better position for more meaningful consultation than there has been in the past / Highlighting the social benefits of providing community infrastructure. / Noted / No
33 / Mrs Joan Jarvis / Fund Allocation:
Para 2.15 – The Borough’s overall need and estimated cost up to 2026 has been stated in the illustration Table 2 – List of Infrastructure Projects. It is likely that much more will be needed for flood defences due to the on-going effects of climate change. Should this be so, CIL would not be able to contribute to the funding gap. It should not be necessary to wait until review of the PIP before acknowledging contingency and seeking advice as required regarding possible damage and additional flooding resulting from meteorological phenomena. / Cost of flood defences is potentially underestimated and needs to factor in ongoing effects of climate change. / Flood defence costs based on Flood Risk Management Strategy (2010). Where shown to be necessary and viable, CIL will rates will be amended to reflect changes in infrastructure costs such as flood defences. / No
34 / Gareth Morgan (Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners)
Talbot Village Trust (TVT) / We would reiterate our view that the document’s acknowledgement that development will not be charged twice for the same period of infrastructure through both a s106 obligation and a CIL payment is welcomed and necessary. / Ensure development is not charged twice for the item of infrastructure through s106 and CIL. / Noted – BoP will manage the CIL Regulation 123 list accordingly to ensure that this does not occur. / Yes
42 / Gary Parsons
Sport England / Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government’s sporting objectives. Maximising the investment into sport and recreation through the land use planning system is one of our priorities. You will also be aware that Sport England is a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields.
The New Sport England Strategy 2012-17 sets a challenge to:
- See more people taking on and keeping a sporting habit for life
- Create more opportunities for young people
- Nurture and develop talent
- Provide the right facilities in the right places
- Support local authorities and unlock local funding
- Ensure real opportunities for communities
The overall thrust of the statement is that a planned approach to the provision of facilities and opportunities for sport is necessary in order to ensure the sport and recreational needs of local communities are met.
Notwithstanding our comments set out in the letter attached dated 8 September 2011, we have the following two comments:
1. COMMENT – Local Plan & CIL Evidence Base
We reference PPG17 ‘Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation’ (ODPM, 2002), the national planning policy document states the Government’s guidance in developing a planned approach for open space, sport and recreation. This includes a wide range of sport and recreation facilities including playing pitches, courts, swimming pools, sports halls, etc. It stresses that to ensure effective planning for open space, sport & recreation it is essential that the needs of local communities are known. Local authorities should undertake robust assessments of the existing and future needs of their communities for open space, sport and recreation. Assessments will normally be undertaken at district level, although assessments of strategic facilities should be undertaken at regional or sub-regional levels.
Sport England advocates that new developments should contribute to the sporting and recreational needs of the locality made necessary by their development. This approach, with regard to all development not just residential, is strongly endorsed in the revised PPG17, which states in paragraphs 23 and 33 that:
“Local authorities should ensure that provision is made for local sports and recreational facilities (either through an increase in the number of facilities or through improvements to existing facilities) where planning permission is granted for new developments (especially housing).”
“Local authorities will be justified in seeking planning obligations where the quantity or quality of provision is inadequate or under threat, or where new development increases local needs.”
We are currently working with the Borough Council regarding updating the Playing Pitch Strategy (2008) and the PPG17 Built Facilities Strategy (2008) with the Council’s Sport & Leisure team to develop an evidence base for the Local Plan and CIL. It is not clear how this evidence base has been/will be taken into account to develop the CIL preliminary draft charging schedule. / Provision of sport and recreation infrastructure is critical for the health of the town.
It is not clear how the Borough’s sport and recreation infrastructure needs have been taken into account in Draft Charging Schedule / P&R have worked closely with Leisure Services to better identify the Borough’s infrastructure needs regarding sport and recreation. This work has been included in the latest version of Poole’s Infrastructure Programme (November 2011).
The PIP will continue to be updated to reflect the ongoing work between BoP and Sport England referred to in their response and identified projects will benefit from CIL in the future. / No
43 / Gary Parsons
Sport England / 2. SUPPORT – Planning Obligations/Community Infrastructure Levy to Sport
Sport England supports use of planning obligations/community infrastructure levy as a way of securing the provision of new or enhanced places for sport and a contribution towards their future maintenance, to meet the needs arising from new development. This does need to be based on a robust PPG17 evidence base. This includes indoor sports facilities (swimming pools, sports halls, etc) as well as playing fields and multi use games courts.
All new dwellings in Poole in the local plan period should provide for new or enhance existing sport and recreation facilities to help create opportunities for physical activity whilst having a major positive impact on health and mental wellbeing.
Planning, leisure and sports officers should:
- Assess existing information on the need and demand for sport and recreation provision in terms of how it will assist in creating a CIL charging schedule
- Look at the potential for adapting any existing standard charge approaches to sport, currently used for section 106 agreements, into CIL charges
- Ensure liaison between sport and planning officers results in built sports facilities, as well as outdoor facilities such as playing fields, being included in CIL charging schedules
- Consider how lists of appropriate projects, in areas affected by development, can be established and prioritised for implementation
For more information re: sport and CIL:
lities__planning/planning_tools_and_guidance/planning_contributions_-_what/community_infrastructure_levy.aspx / All new dwellings in Poole in the local plan period should provide for new or enhance existing sport and recreation facilities to help create opportunities for physical activity whilst having a major positive impact on health and mental wellbeing. / The Council fully acknowledges the importance of providing sport and recreation facilities to sustainably accommodate growth.
Such infrastructure is identified as critical strategic infrastructure and therefore will be prioritised (along with other critical strategic infrastructure such as flooding and transport) when CIL funding is allocated.
The Council agrees with the suggestion that the evidence base needs updating and works is ongoing to do this. An updated evidence base will form part of the overall governance of CIL to ensure that monies are directed towards clearly identified priorities. / No
44 / Stephen Ashworth / Object
CIL and Planning Agreements
1Thesupporting passages to the charging schedule overstate the impact of the CIL regulations on the ability of the Council to secure planning obligations. All that the regulations prevent is a planning obligation being taken into account as a "reason for approval". That does not mean that planning obligations that fall outside regulation 122 and 123 are unlawful. Indeed, in some cases they may be necessary to remove a reason for refusal. For example, a developer might to choose to fund the entirety of a roundabout that serves six developments, simply in order to be able to start building. That could, properly, be subject to a planning obligation even if it fails the regulation 122(2) test because it is not "fairly and reasonably related" to the contributing development; fails the regulation 123(2) test because the roundabout is listed in the Council's list of relevant infrastructure; and fails the regulation 123(3) test because it is one of five or more separate planning obligations that cover that project.
2 This is important because we all need to make sure that planning obligationsare, where appropriate, still used. There is also a need to make sure that, when "non-compliant" planning obligations are reported to committee, it is clear that they cannot be treated as a "reason for approval" eventhough they are a material consideration. / Consultation document overstates the impact of CIL on the ability to use s106 planning obligations. / Noted – BoP understand that site specific infrastructure will still be secured through s106. The Delivering Poole’s Infrastructure DPD makes clear the relationship and how BoP will use the two mechanisms.
The Council will ensure that due acknowledgment is taken with regard to the relationship between s106 and CIL in the submission documentation. / No
45 / Stephen Ashworth / Object
Use Classes
3 The CIL charging schedule refers, in some places, to use classes. This is, probably, not sensible. It would be better to refer simply to the use of the development so that, for example, retail includes all retail uses, and not just those that fall within class A1. Retail warehouse clubs should, for example, be caught. / Charging Schedule should not refer to Use Class but use of development / Noted. Draft Charging Schedule amended to reflect this point. / No
46 / Stephen Ashworth / Object
Instalments
4 There is no mention of an instalments policy. It is difficult to see how viability can properly be analysed if the cash flow for payments on larger developments is not modelled. The Council should set out it's intentions in relation to instalments. / Instalment policy should be made available and used in viability testing / Noted – The Council will be considering and consulting upon its instalment policy in due course. The viability work is not undermined by its absence at this stage. / No
47 / Stephen Ashworth / Object
State Aid and CIL
5 Whenever a charging authority differentiates, within its area, and applies different charges then it should consider whether there are state aid implications.There is no evidence that there has been consideration ofstate aid consequences of charging the same uses different amounts in different areas, and different amounts depending on the size of the development. / Differential rates should be considered in relation to state aid implications. No evidence of state aid considerations in the Draft Charging Schedule / The CIL Regulations require that rates are set on viability. The rates proposed are based on viability in different areas and therefore not based on granting relief which would constitute notifiable state aid. / No
48 / Stephen Ashworth / Object
Differentiation
6 Regulation 13 only allows differentiation between different intended uses of a development. There is no different intended use of development between a large retail store and a small retail store. Both are retail uses. If the Council continue to differentiate in this way then there will be a risk of challenge since examiners do not consider this type of legal issue/compliance. / Reg 13 does not allow for thresholds to be set. This is relevant to A1 split / BoP consider that where evidence can support it, the proposed retail split can be justified. / No
49 / Stephen Ashworth / Object
Affordable Housing
7 There appears to be an assumption in both the supporting viability analysis and in the draft charging schedule that the proposed CIL rates will put pressure on, if not prevent, the provision of development plan requirements in relation to affordable housing.As you may be aware, in the House of Lords during debate on theLocalism Bill, made a commitment to amend theCIL Guidance to make it clear that CIL should not prejudice affordable housing provision. Indeed, a CIL schedule that had that effect would undermine theplanning process. The rates for residential use need to be rebased at a level where there would be no material prejudice to affordable housing provision. / CIL should not prejudice delivery of affordable housing. CIL regs and guidance will be amended to reflect this. / The rates have been designed to secure the maximum amount of affordable housing shown to be possible in the 9 study areas. Indeed, Zone C was broadened specifically to allow the chances of securing affordable housing to be maximised in areas where development is expected to occur. / No
50 / Robert Lofthouse (Savills)
Solum Regeneration c/o Savills / We note that the publication of the draft Charging Schedule and the current consultation has occurred whilst the ‘Delivering Poole’s Infrastructure Development Plan Document’ is still subject to examination by the appointed Inspector. This DPD is being considered in parallel with the examination for the ‘Site Specific Allocations and Development Management Policies Development Plan Document (which allocates the former Goods Yard site for development) (Planning Inspectorate references PINS/Q1255/429/7&8). The Inspector’s report is anticipated shortly before the consultation period for this CIL Draft Charging Schedule expires – by 27th January 2012.