Appendix A
Name / Organisation / Comment / Recommended Response1 / Mr Christopher Wheeler / Essential to stress the need for arterial cross routes from Dover to Exeter, Bournemouth to Swindon,and Bournemouth to Bath. / Outside scope of SEDTCS2 to deliver.
None.
2 / Mr Paul Tory / Fowler Fortescueon behalf of Hurn Estate / It would seem unfair to retrospectively charge an applicant for being granted permission when the impact of this possible cost could have affected their decision on their development and may result in it being unfeasible. In addition if a site receiving planning since 1st April 2011 has subsequently been sold then should the seller (who obtained the permission)or purchaser (now proceeding with the development) be liable for the payment. The resulting legal dispute couldwastevaluable funds due to such a charge being made retrospective particularly as no vehicular movement calculations would have been supplied. / Any previously signed agreement (since 1 April 2011) with a developer contribution in excess of £350 per trip rate will be reduced accordingly.
The owner of the site is liable for the contribution as the permission (and associated land charges such as a S106 agreement) run with the land not the applicant.
(re: Application of the policy retrospectively).
Text altered to improve clarity
3 / Mr John Probert / It is fundamentally unsound economics to impose a 'front-end' tax orlevy ondesirable capital investment such as commercial property and housing (inflatingthe initial cost) especially in view of the urgent need for 'affordable' housing.Once occupied, such developmentsboostthe public revenue, throughannual rates andcouncil taxes, thuscontributing to infrastructure investment in an affordable and sustainable way.We must not put the cart before the horse.....
A simpler and fairer method would be tolevy an annual land value tax. / Outside scope of SEDTCS2 as Land Value Tax not supported by government.
NoteLand Value Tax not to be confused with CIL. As Land Value Taxation is a method of raising public revenue by means of an annual charge on the rental value of land. Where as CIL is a one off charge on new developments to be used to fund infrastructure.
(re: Financial Viability)
None.
4 / Mr Gary Platt / Property Services- Bournemouth Borough Council / Provision of infrastructure is a function of government, which should be paid for via taxation. In the current economic climate additional costs will stifle redevelopment and prejudice economic regeneration.
Firstly, I do not accept that developer contribution should be collected at all. If they are, then the maximum proportion that the developer should contribute to the cost of new infrastructureshould be calculated by dividing the additional traffic generated from the development by the total number of daily journeys in Dorset. It is unreasonable for development to simplybridge any funding shortfall.
This contribution policy is based on a costed shopping list of schemes. It undermines the whole principle if it can spent on other schemes - at that point it becomes a development tax not an infrastructure levy.
A Dorset-wide approach is flawed. It is difficult to sustain an argument that a development in rural Dorset should contribute towards Poole bridge. Only local and direct impacts should be considered.
Number of trips is just one factor. Length of trips and timing of trips is just as important. For example, off-peak trip generation may not add to congestion at all.
It is too remote from most ofthe developments proposed. Levies should be spent within the boundaries of the collecting authority.
This equates to a charge of £2,100 per dwelling. If you then add the cost of affordable housing contributions, open space contributions and heathland mitigation contributions, the total package is unsupportable from development. This form of silo mentality will simply stifle the economic recovery.
The net impact of developer contributions is to squeeze land values to such an extent that there is little incentive for landowners to sell their land - the price they receive no longer gives them an adequate share of Gross Development Value. This is not addressed in theviability tests - there needs to be a reference to a minimum share, e.g. 1/3 of GDV for a development of less than 6 dwellings. Otherwise, the supply of town centre redevelopment sites will dry up.
Any reduction should be applied retrospectively. However, I do not agree with the figure.
The approach is clear but the underlying assumptions are intrinsically flawed.
With the cost of motoring rising and personal incomes falling in real terms, do we really need to invest further in infrastructure or will the number of cars fall as we lurch deeper into recession. Also, better roads and less congestion encourages more road use. / SEDCST2 takes the approach of seeking a proportionate contribution based on the impact of additional development against the overall mitigation cost. The Authorities and the Government are providing the majority of the infrastructure costs with the development industry providing that associated with development mitigation.
Contributions will be collected and spent in the same authority on the schemes which are relevant for that authority with the exception of the A31. A proportion of the monies collected by each authority will be pooled to go towards the Strategic A31 scheme. This will total no more than 13.1% of the total scheme cost. The additional trips associated with development have been modelled and equates to the trips added (each development then contributes to its share).
The local impact of each development will be mitigated by the local schemes supported through its contribution.
Net additional daily trips is the clearest measure of identify the impact of a development.
The contribution amount is calculated on the required level of mitigation as a part of the total infrastructure needed to ensure that the highway network can support the anticipated demand from new development. Without transport and other contributions such as heathland mitigation and open space the infrastructure required from new development will not be delivered at the cost of residents, businesses and visitors alike.
The Councils has no control over whether landowners want to sell their land or not. By providing information on the potential transport contribution required this can be factored into negotiations regarding land value.
The mitigation strategy is deliverable. If a site is unviable a mechanism exists for this to be determined independently and this policy fully supports that approach.
The DfT’s National Traffic Model predicts that total traffic is forecast to grow by 32% over the period to 2025. Car traffic growth follows that of total traffic very closely as car traffic accounts for 80% of total traffic in 2025. The mitigation strategy predominately supports a transfer to sustainable modes through measures such as public transport improvements, travel behaviour, journey planning, investment in walking and cycling facilities and opportunities as well as limited road construction.
(re: Financial Viability)
(re: Link between site and its mitigation measures)
(re: Use of daily trips in place of peak hour trips)
Text altered to improve clarity.
5 / Ms Ellie Challans / Environment Agency / This questionnaire is outside the remit of the Environment Agency - please ignore any yes/no answers. There was not an option for no comment. / None.
6 / Mr Marc Turner / Natural England / Natural England have no comment to make on this document. / None.
7 / Mr Mark Keighley / Business Development Manager Bournemouth Transport Ltd / More emphasis needs to be placed on developments making contributions for public transport through s106 agreements which should be specifically determined and agreed beforehand. Key improvements to public transport infrastructure such as the Bus Showcase Corridor programme and RBH Bus Interchange should also be prioritised.
Alternatively, a percentage of the total cost of the development could be considered of say 5% or for residential developments, a fixed amount per dwelling of c£1000. A further option for housing developments is that the developer contributions are used to provide each householder with a 12 month free bus pass through a s106 agreement.
The proposal for a bus operator to be a member of the TCE is most welcome and Bournemouth Transport would be more than willing to participate given the Company's knowledge of the local area. / The RBH Bus Interchange is included in SEDTCS2 as LTP funding and the A35 Bus Showcase Corridor fund improvements. The Bus Showcase Corridors are heavily prioritised by SEDTCS2.
The suggestion for a 12month bus pass as a part of new developments is welcomed, especially for developments with few car trips.
None.
8 / Mr Keith Holland / Planning Inspectorate / It looks fine to me assuming that the intention is to apply the pooling arrangement up to April 2014 after which you will of course be restricted to 5 contributions. Also I assume none of the partaking authorities will be adopted their own CIL before then as that will, as I understand it, also prevent them from participating. / As each authority adopts CIL SEDTCS2 will be superseded in their authority area. This will not prevent the remaining Councils from continuing to apply SEDTCS2. Any CIL adopting authority will ensure that strategic schemes are fully funded as required by the mitigation strategy and Memorandum of Understanding.
(re: Implications of when CIL is adopted)
Text altered to improve clarity.
9 / Ms Rose Freeman / The Theatres Trust / Due to the specific nature of the Trust’s remit we are concerned with the protection and promotion of theatres and having perused the document we find this consultation is not directly relevant to the Trust’s work. We therefore have no comment to make but look forward to being consulted on further planning policy documents in due course. / None.
10 / Mr Richard Burden / Cranborne Chase & West Wiltshire Downs
Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty / Thank you for including the AONB in this consultation on developer contributions. As you may know, the AONB Management Plan, adopted by DCC, has a policy [K4] for directing developer contributions / CILs to AONB management plan objectives. We are, therefore, particularly interested in the topic.
I don’t recall the AONB being involved in earlier considerations of this strategy although we have contributed to Poole’s consultation on the topic for their area. Nevertheless, my immediate reaction to seeing the area to which this charging would apply includes the south-eastern section of this, CCWWD, AONB is that as public transport is pretty poor for inhabitants of the AONB it seems unreasonable to ask them to pay more, and for services that appear to be Bournemouth / Poole focussed! I think it would be very helpful if at least Linda and myself could be fully briefed on this as extra charges in the current climate are just a tiny bit sensitive! / Some of the LTP schemes will address local harm from developments in the AONB.
(re: Link between site and its mitigation measures)
Concerns noted.
11 / Mr Simon Webb / i-Transport on behalf of Taylor Wimpey / The first issue we raise relates to the unit upon which the charge is levied – that of the ‘standard daily trip’. You define this as the ‘net additional daily vehicular trips’ arising from a development (ref: paragraph 2.8). We support the concept of a ‘net’ increase over that which could be generated by an existing lawful use. Our contention with the use of the daily vehicular trips is that this does not result in an equitable system of charging because additional vehicular trips made during the highway network peak hours will have a proportionally greater impact than trips made at other times of the day. It is stated that the contributions collected will only be spent improving transportation to mitigate the impact of development (ref. paragraph 3.8); accordingly, it is appropriate to only consider those trips that need to be mitigated against; i.e. trips made in the peak hours. As it stands, the use of the daily trip is not 'fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development' as required by the CIL test (ref: CIL: An Overview (May 2011) paragraph 62).
Additionally, you state that 'where all or a substantial proportion of the trips [associated with a development] are made by sustainable transport modes the relevant Transport Authority will use vehicular trips as a proxy to assess the likely impact on the network' (ref: paragraph 2.8). We seek confirmation of the justification and methodology for this; it seems contradictory and not within the planning tests to raise a levy on developments which generate trips predominantly by sustainable modes (and which may not have an adverse impact) when one of the objectives of the levy is to encourage the uptake of non-car modes. For instance, you state that, 'in order to mitigate the impact of traffic the adopted strategy aims to encourage public transport use and improve accessibility, and therefore sustainability, by improving access for other modes of transport as well as providing improved capacity when appropriate.' (ref: paragraph 4.19). It is not considered that the application of the levy in this way is 'necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms' (ref: CIL An Overview paragraph 62).
2. Calculation of the Net Standard Daily Trip
The second issue we wish to raise relates to the calculation of the net standard daily trip. We welcome that the quantum of standard daily trips associated with a development will be obtained from the Transport Assessment (TA) or Transport Statement (TS) forming part of the planning application where this is provided. However, we note that you suggest that, 'if any building(s) which generate trips are demolished prior to registration of the application no trip 'credit' will be allowed for this building(s)' (ref: paragraph 9.4). This is contrary to the Department for Transport's Guidance on Transport Assessment (March 2007), which states that 'if the site of the proposed development has a current use or an extant planning permission with trip patterns/volume, the net level of change that might arise out of the new proposals should be set out' (ref: GTA paragraph 3.4), and that 'where the site is vacant, or partially vacant, the person trips which might realistically be generated by any extant planning permission or permitted uses [should be quantified]' (ref: GTA paragraph 4.7).
Our client's position is that the comment on demolished buildings should be removed and that the quantum of net standard daily trips associated with a development be wholly derived through scoping discussions with the local highway authority and agreement of the TMS submitted in support of the development (where this is required). In this way, other issues that are integral to the calculation of the impact of a development in terms of vehicular trips can be fully considered, such as the impact of Travel Plans on the mode share and the different types of vehicular trips that are likely to be generated (e.g. new/pass-by/linked/diverted/transferred). This will ensure that the levy is applied equitably and is related to the impact of the development in accordance the three CIL tests.
3. Schemes to be Funded
Our third issue relates the schemes that will be funded through the levy. We welcome that the schemes where the mitigation is to be applied will be identified before the planning authority determines the application in order that the relationship of the transport schemes to the development is identified (ref: paragraph 4.13) and that 'the precise nature and extent of the improvements will be agreed with the developer through a Section 106 Agreement’ (ref: paragraph 11.2). You set out that the levy will be used to fund:
- ‘locally important (LTP) schemes in the vicinity of the development’ (typically one to four local schemes will be identified);
- ‘the A31 Ameysford-Merley Scheme’; and
- ‘Strategic schemes of local importance’ (ref: paragraph 4.13).
4. Relationship with Planning Obligations
The forth point we wish to raise is that it is not clear from your document what the relationship will be between the levy and site specific planning obligations. Where a developer makes a contribution to off-site highway works or sustainable transport measures as part of a planning obligation which will be beneficial to the wider community, the developer should no then be required to meet the full levy. This matter needs to be made clear. If locally important schemes are not covered by the levy and are therefore funded through a planning obligation, and yet a developer was still required to meet the full levy, then a large proportion of the funds raised through the levy would be used on schemes remote from the development. This would not meet the planning test.
5. Timescale for Using the Funds
Our fifth issue relates to the timescale for spending or returning the developer contribution. You state that, ‘any unused contribution will be returned to the developer after 15 years from the signed date of the legal agreement’ (ref: paragraph 11.5). The 15 year timescale is excessive and is inconsistent with the CIL overview document which states that ‘it is important that the infrastructure needed by local communities is delivered when the need arises’ (ref: CIL: An overview paragraph 17). In order for the contribution to be directly related to the development we consider that a much shorter time period of perhaps five years is appropriate. In addition, the guidance should set out a period within which the contribution must be returned to the developer should the timescale be exceeded. We would suggest a maximum of one month following the expiry of the timescale.