From:To:Subject:Date:Importance:

Gary ParsonsCIL EnquiriesCornwall preliminary draft CIL DRAFT charging schedule 17 January 2017 13:25:22High

Thank you for inviting Sport England to comment on the primarily draft CIL draftCharging Schedule consultation.

Sport England is the Government agency responsible for delivering the Government’ssporting objectives. Maximising the investment into sport and recreation through theland use planning system is one of our priorities. You will also be aware that SportEngland is a statutory consultee on planning applications affecting playing fields.

Sport England advocates that new developments should contribute to the sporting andrecreational needs of the locality made necessary by their development. ThereforeSport England supports use of CIL as a way of securing the provision of new orenhanced places for sport and a contribution towards their future maintenance, to meetthe needs arising from new development. This does need to be based on a robustNPPF sport and recreation evidence base. This includes indoor sports facilities(swimming pools, sports halls, etc) as well as playing fields and multi use gamescourts.

All new dwellings in Cornwall in the local plan period should provide for new orenhance existing sport and recreation facilities to help create opportunities forphysical activity whilst having a major positive impact on health and mentalwellbeing.

A CIL review every 2 or 3 years should be encouraged to pick up any changes in theeconomic climate, evidence base and monitoring the delivery of the Cornwall LocalPlan.

Evidence Base

Sport England’s view is that, in order to meet the requirements of the National PlanningPolicy Framework (NPPF), this should include a strategy (supply and demand analysiswith qualitative issues included) covering the need for indoor and outdoor sportsfacilities, including playing pitches. DCLG make reference to Sport England guidanceon their website in relation to how to assess the need for sports and recreation facilities.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) published in March 2012 states:

Paragraph 73 – Access to high quality open spaces and opportunities for sportand recreation can make an important contribution to health and well-being ofcommunities. Planning policies should be based on up-to-date assessment ofthe needs for open space, sport and recreation facilities and opportunities fornew provision. The assessments should identify specific needs and quantitativeor qualitative deficits or surpluses of open space, sports and recreationalfacilities in the local area. Information gained from the assessments should beused to determine what open space, sports and recreational provision isrequired.

We raise concern that there does not appear to be a robust and up to dateevidence base for sport and recreation in Cornwall to inform the Infrastructure

Delivery Plan (IDP) and / or the Community Infrastructure Levy

It is crucial that the Council have an up-to-date and robust evidence base in order toplan for the provision of sport both playing fields and built facilities. Sport England wouldhighly recommend that the Council undertake a playing pitch strategy (PPS) as well asassessing the needs and opportunities for sporting provision. Sport England providescomprehensive guidance on how to undertake both pieces of work.

Playing Pitch Strategyhttp://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/playing-pitch-strategy-guidance/This guidance document provides a recommended step by step approach to developingand delivering a playing pitch strategy (PPS). It covers both natural and artificial grasspitches. Sport England believes that to ensure there is a good supply of high qualityplaying pitches and playing fields to meet the sporting needs of local communities, alllocal authorities should have an up to date PPS. By providing valuable evidence anddirection a PPS can be of significant benefit to a wide variety of parties and agendas.

Assessing needs and opportunity for sports provision (Indoor and Outdoor)http://www.sportengland.org/facilities-planning/planning-for-sport/planning-tools-and-guidance/assessing-needs-and-opportunities-guidance/This guide is complimentary with the PPS guidance providing the recommendedapproach for assessing the need for pitch provision. Sport England believes thatproviding the right facilities in the right place is central to enabling people to play sportand maintain and grow participation. An assessment of need will provide a clearunderstanding of what is required in an area, providing a sound basis on which todevelop policy, and make informed decisions for sports development and investment infacilities.

The evidence base for sport and recreation should directly link into the development ofan Infrastructure Delivery Plan and / or SPD Development Contributions and / or theCommunity Infrastructure Levy.

Action – update the sport and recreation evidence base and devise a strategy forthe delivery or sport and recreational land and buildings as per the NPPF.

Use of s106 to mitigate loss in a planning application

The purpose of Reg 123 list is to set out what infrastructure will be funded by newdevelopment under CIL and is to avoid duplicate payments by development for thesame items of infrastructure, once through S106 and once through CIL. This is referredto as ‘double dipping’ on the planning portal.

Reg 123 of CIL can prevent planning permission being granted if site specific sportsfacility mitigation can only be secured through a planning obligation (direct provision orfinancial contribution).

The inclusion of ‘sport’ including playing fields as a generic term on the draft Reg 123 ofCIL could preclude the use of s106 to secure mitigation when a sports facility or playingfield is affected by a planning application and under para 74 of the NPPF the mitigationis needed to make the development acceptable.

A number of authorities have looked at a work around including:

Westminster City Council lists “sports and leisure facilities” but says that “ThisRegulation 123 list explicitly excludes the provision of infrastructure that is required tomake a development acceptable in planning terms and which meets the legal tests ofRegulation 122 of the CIL Regulations. Through the publication of this list the counciltherefore retains its discretion to negotiate necessary planning conditions and S106obligations to secure such infrastructure”, and have produced a SPD about this.

LB Croydon tables a comparison of the “infrastructure projects or types that Croydonintend will, or maybe, wholly or partly funded by CIL and those projects or types that willbe funded by S106”. “Provision, improvement, replacement operation or maintenanceof public sports and leisure” is on CIL, whereas on the S106 list it includes “S106 forstandard site/design mitigation”. I hope that this response is helpful to the Council in determining how to take theCommunity Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule in Cornwall forward. Ifyou would like to discuss any of the above comments or if we can be of any furtherassistance in the development of future local plan documents, please do not hesitate tocontact me via planning.south@sportengland.org . Gary Parsons MSc MRTPI Planning ManagerT: E: Sport England

This girl can

 The information contained in this e-mail may be subject to public disclosure under theFreedom of Information Act 2000. Additionally, this email and any attachment areconfidential and intended solely for the use of the individual to whom they are addressed.If you are not the intended recipient, be advised that you have received this email and anyattachment in error, and that any use, dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying, isstrictly prohibited.

This email has been scanned for email related threats and delivered safely by Mimecast.For more information please visit http://www.mimecast.com

From:To:Subject:Date:

Julie LarterCIL EnquiriesCIL Consultation27 January 2017 09:57:30

Dear Colleague

The Parish Council considers that the consultation is flawed. It is impossible forcouncillors to assess whether the suggested percentages are appropriate withoutknowing what they are intended to include or replace in terms of types of infrastructure -yet that information is not included, and 'will not be published' until after theconsultation process is concluded.

This council believes that the sum of S106 and CIL should be equal to or exceed theamount currently generated by S106 alone and should provide the same degree or agreater degree of local accountability, especially with regard to projects such as openspace funding, affordable housing etc.

Yours sincerely

Julie LarterClerkSt Austell Bay Parish Council

6227

Text Box

007

St Mellion Parish Council Cornwall Council Community Infrastructure Levy

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Survey Questionnaire Responses

Approved: 14.2.17

Question 1 Do you agree with the key assumptions that underlie the Residential Viability Assessment? Yes.

Question 2 Do you agree with developments that are not required to provide affordable housing being charged a higher rate of Community Infrastructure Levy? Yes.

Question 3 Do you agree with the proposed CIL rates for residential development in the different areas across Cornwall? No, because St Mellion’s placement in CIL zone 1 (which has the highest charge per square metre) is considered inappropriate, anti-development and anti-community. See further detail below.

Question 4 Do you agree with the key assumptions that underlie the Non-Residential Viability Assessment? Yes.

Question 5 Do you agree with the proposed CIL rates for non-residential development in Cornwall? Yes.

Question 6 Overall, do you agree that the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy rates represent an appropriate balance between the need to fund infrastructure through the Community Infrastructure Levy and ensuring that development remains viable? No, given the answer to Question 3.

St Mellion PC CC CIL consultation response 140217 ! of !1 5

Question 3: Detailed Response 1. St Mellion has the highest CIL rate for residential development (zone 1), whereas surrounding parishes are in zone 3 (Pillaton and St Dominick) or zone 4 (Callington, Calstock, Quethiock and St Ive). 2. St Mellion is closest in profile to Pillaton and St Dominick, with all having a village centre and outlying rural area. Pillaton village has a church, play/recreation area and pub. St Dominick village has a church, school, play/recreation area, post office/general store and pub. St Mellion village has a church, school and pub. 3. In the 2011 census, the number of dwellings were recorded as: Pillaton 220; St Dominick 385; St Mellion 189. 4. Over 50% of St Dominick, and roughly 20% of Pillaton, is in the Tamar AONB. Approximately 10% of St Mellion (the Crocadon farm estate) is in the same AONB. 5. St Mellion differs to most local parishes in that the village is bisected by the A388, a main trunk road connecting Callington and Saltash, and carrying ~12.5k vehicles per day. Parts of the road in the village have no pavement, and some of it runs within inches of house fronts. 6. As with all surrounding parishes, St Mellion is in the top 20% of most deprived areas in England both for housing and services, and for the living environment.

7. Despite a similar profile to surrounding parishes, and the disbenefit of the A388 running through the village centre, St Mellion’s CIL rate is four times that of its neighbours for sites where affordable housing is not required (£400 vs £100 per square metre), and 3.3 or 5.7 times higher for sites where affordable housing is required (£200 vs £60 per square metre in zone 3,

St Mellion PC CC CIL consultation response 140217 ! of !2 5

St Mellion and surrounding parishes Proposed CIL rates: January 2017

Zone 1

Zone 2

Zone 4

Zone 4

Zone 4

Zone 4

Zone 3

Zone 3

Zone 4

Zone 4

Type of Development Planning Use Class Zone Rate £sqm

sites not required to provide affordable housingRate £sqm

sites required to provide affordable housing

Housing*1 C3 and C4 1 £400 £200

2 £200 £100

3 £100 £60

4 £100 £35

5 £0 £0

Strategic sites* C3 and C4 All £0 £0

Zone 3

In top 20% of most deprived areas in England for housing & services.In top 40% of most deprived areas in England for housing & services.In top 20% of most deprived areas in England for living environment.Some areas in Callington less deprived for living environment.

IOD 2015 Data

Zone 3

or £35 per square metre in zone 4, respectively). 8. This means that a 200 square metre house in St Mellion would incur a maximum CIL of £80k, vs £20k in neighbouring parishes. The significant differential will be a disincentive to build homes in St Mellion and makes the zone 1 allocation ‘anti-development’ for the parish. 9. If a developer does decide to build in St Mellion, the CIL payment is likely to be translated into market prices which would make the properties unaffordable for locals and/or young purchasers. This is contrary to Cornwall Council’s commitment to ensure ‘the housing market offers enough decent homes at a price which people can afford.’ 10. It is also worth noting that St Mellion does not have a public recreational or open space as per surrounding parishes (e.g. Pillaton and St Dominick) and the only means of gaining such an amenity is via development obligations. This is most likely to come through future CIL payments although, if the high rate precludes development, such funds will not be forthcoming. In effect, St Mellion parishioners will be penalised by the CIL policy, not helped by it, which results in the zone 1 allocation being ‘anti-community’ as well as ‘anti-development’. 11. It is understood that CIL zones/rates have been allocated to parishes based upon their average property value. The property website, Rightmove, records an average sold house price during the last year for St Mellion of £360k . Pillaton is recorded at £295k, and St Dominick at 1

£289k. Neighbouring parish Quethiock has the highest average sold house price in the area, £380k , and is in CIL zone 4. 2

12. Further analysis of Rightmove data for St Mellion confirms that (a) 24 of the 122 houses recorded for St Mellion are in a different parish and (b) average sold house prices are skewed

Based on 12 property sales, four of which are not in St Mellion. Average house price based on the eight 1

‘true’ St Mellion properties is £425k, driven by five sales in St Mellion Park (see point 11).

Based on two property sales of £585k and £175k, respectively. 2

St Mellion PC CC CIL consultation response 140217 ! of !3 5

Parish No. of houses in 2011 census

*

Rightmove Data ** CIL zone

No. of houses

with sold prices

% of housing

stock with sold prices

Average price

(during last year)

Variance vs

previous year

Historic compar

-ison year

Variance vs historic

compar -ison year

House sales in

last year

Rank of avg. house price

Quethiock 200 44 22% £380,000 18% 2006 -49% 2 1 4

St Mellion 189 98 52% £359,792 -19% 2013 -31% 12 2 1

Pillaton 220 65 30% £294,817 6% 2009 -36% 3 3 3

Linkinhorne 707 13 2% £291,000 62% 2008 -39% 1 4 3

St Dominick 385 120 31% £289,223 4% 2012 -5% 9 5 3

St Ive 1,013 62 6% £235,659 -32% 2005 -35% 6 6 4

Callington 2,649 1,000 + £211,862 9% 2007 neg. No data 7 4

Calstock 2,954 276 9% £209,646 14% 2011 -23% No data 8 4

Landrake 487 214 44% £199,822 -24% 2011 -20% 14 9 4

Botusfleming 322 26 8% No data 4

Landulph 247 24 10% No data 2

South Hill 214 19 9% No data 3

* Taken from dwellings data reference QS418EW.

** www.rightmove.co.uk 25.1.17

Shaded parishes are in the Caradon Community Network Area.

artificially by properties in a 30 year old development known as St Mellion Park (‘the Park’). 13. The Park is an estate of 76 detached, high-value, executive homes located in Dunstan Lane (between the village and the rural area) that was built at the same time as St Mellion International Resort (a private golf and leisure complex). There were no affordable or social housing conditions attached to the associated planning permission for the estate and so it stands as a ‘one-off’ development of non-mixed housing, which is untypical of the local area.

14. The more typical local parish make-up (village and rural area) represents 59% of St Mellion’s housing stock and includes a greater diversity of property types, values and residents. It is also worth noting that 26 (46%) of village houses are owned by Cornwall Housing (including 16 sheltered homes) and will not have an open market value to include in a parish average. 15. Many of the Park’s residents are retired and their older age profile means that houses have a higher than average sales frequency. Conversely, sales frequency is much lower in the village and rural area, with some properties being owned by the same family for several generations. 16. To this point, Rightmove records sold prices for almost all (95%) of houses in the Park but for only 23% and 25% of properties in the village and rural area, respectively.

St Mellion PC CC CIL consultation response 140217 ! of !4 5

Area Total houses #

% total houses

House prices recorded on

Rightmove * *

% of housing stock on

Rightmove * *St Mellion Park 76 41% 72 95%

Village 57 31% 13 23%Rural 53 28% 13 25%

Total 186 98 53%# Source: local knowledge.

Total in 2011 census 189N.B. Rightmove records prices for 24 houses that are not in St Mellion parish (giving a total number of houses in St Mellion on Rightmove of 122, not 98).

St Mellion Parish - showing the Park, the Resort and the village

St Mellion Park

St Mellion village

St Mellion International

Resort

17. This results in average sold house prices for St Mellion being skewed heavily towards higher Park values (~£500k) vs significantly lower values in the village and rural area. Four properties have sold in the village in the last five years, all with three bedrooms and two bathrooms (or bathroom and cloakroom), and with a price range of £111k to £245k.

18. Given any future development in St Mellion would be best located in, or close to, the village (for access to amenities), it is suggested that these property prices be used as a guide for CIL zoning, rather than the ‘parish average’ which is more a ‘Park average’. 19. The fact that there are so few house sales in the village demonstrates the longevity of occupancy by local inhabitants and suggests that further development in this area is required (and of family homes, not ‘executive’ ones). If St Mellion is left in CIL zone 1, however, this is unlikely to happen. 20. In conclusion, the Parish Council requests that St Mellion’s placement in CIL zone 1 be reviewed and brought into line with surrounding parishes. It is hoped this will prevent an ‘anti-development’ island being created in the local area, and an ‘anti-community’ lack of CIL investment occurring in the parish itself. In addition, it may limit perpetuation of an atypical parish make-up (viz the Park) that (a) arose artificially from an historic planning permission with no mixed housing conditions, and (b) does not meet local buyers’ current or future needs for standard family homes.

St Mellion PC CC CIL consultation response 140217 ! of !5 5

Property Description Price Date2 Village Cottage Mid-terrace, character cottage, 3 beds, 2 bathrooms, well

presented, off-road parking, set back from A388£245k 2016

Wellington Cottage Semi character cottage, 3/4 beds, 2 bathrooms, well presented, off-road parking, on A388

£165k 2016

3 Church Park, Church Lane

Ex-LA, end terrace, 3 beds, 2 bathrooms, well presented, large garden, off-road parking

£210k 2014

4 The Glebe Ex-LA, semi, 3 beds, 1 bathroom, 1 cloakroom, some updating needed, garden, allocated parking

£111k 2011

From:To:Subject:Date:Importance:

Donna JamesCIL EnquiriesCIL Consultation06 February 2017 17:07:07 High

Dear Sirs

The Town Council discussed, at length, the CIL consultation document at their meeting lastweek and have made the following resolution:

Resolved:  The Town Council believe this to be too complicated and incomplete a document toformulate a worthwhile response.

The Town Council would like this to be their response to the consultation, however havinglooked at the online and word document options for completing the questionnaire, there doesnot seem a place to add other comments, hence I am emailing the response to yourselves.

Could you please confirm receipt of this email?

Kind regards

Miss Donna James MILCM, Cert.Ed, Cert NatSciTown ClerkBude-Stratton Town Council

Tel: Email: If you have received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender and delete the e-mail and all attachmentsimmediately. This e-mail (including any attachments) may contain confidential and/or privileged information.If you are not the intended recipient any reliance on, use, disclosure, dissemination, distribution or copying ofthis e-mail or attachments is strictly prohibited. It has been checked for viruses but the contents of anattachment may still contain software viruses, which could damage your computer system. Bude-StrattonTown Council does not accept liability for any damage you sustain as a result of a virus introduced by this e-mail or any attachment and you are advised to use up-to-date virus checking software. E-mail transmissioncannot be guaranteed to be secure or error free.This e-mail is not intended nor should it be taken to create any legal relations, contractual or otherwise.

Page 1 of 1

Date: 09 February 2017 Our ref: 204564 Your ref:

BY EMAIL ONLY Terry Grove-White Planning Strategy Manager Strategy Economy Enterprise and Environment Cornwall Council

Customer Services Hornbeam House Crewe Business Park Electra Way Crewe Cheshire CW1 6GJ T 0300 060 3900

Dear Terry Planning consultation: Cornwall Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Thank you for your consultation on the above dated 21 December 2016. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. We welcome the progression of the CIL and we would like to make the following comments: The consultation documentation does not include the draft Regulation 123 list. In accordance with Cornwall Local Plan policy 22, residential development, student and tourist accommodation within a number of ‘zones of influence’ are required to contribute to mitigation of recreational impacts on European sites. CIL appears to be a good tool to achieve this. If CIL is used to collect these mitigation monies, it is key to include the relevant mitigation measures in the Reg 123 list as a priority, as development in these zones will be unable to proceed without timely mitigation . It would also be useful and aid transparency if the Infrastructure Needs Assessment schedules were updated to include the recreational impacts mitigation measures, identified as critical projects. We would be happy to comment further should the need arise but if in the meantime you have any queries please do not hesitate to contact us. For any queries relating to the specific advice in this letter only please contact Corine Dyke on

or . For any new consultations, or to provide further information on this consultation please send your correspondences to

. We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service. Yours sincerely Corine Dyke Lead Adviser Sustainable Development Team – Devon, Cornwall & Isles of Scilly

1

Telephone: 01736 Email: Website: Cornwall Chairman: Councillor E.T. Taylor Vice-Chairman: Councillor M.J. Hanley Clerk: Peter Rylett 8 February 2017

Dear Sir or Madam,

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY PRELIMINARY DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE

St Erth Parish Council’s comments on the current consultation are as follows:

1. Our joint comments with Gwinear Gwithian Parish Council on the 2013 CIL consultation are attached. Our main objections were that CIL should be charged on affordable houses and a meaningful proportion of CIL income from every new dwelling should go directly to its Parish. It is disappointing that the latest proposals have not addressed them.

2. Our view remains that all residential developments impact local infrastructure and therefore, all should contribute towards providing or up-grading it. No parts of Cornwall should be exempt. We accordingly object under Question 3, because we believe St Erth Parish should not be placed in a “zero-rated” zone where there is no guaranteed CIL income. 3. This objection is reinforced by the fact that we will soon complete a Neighbourhood Plan, encouraged by National legislation through giving a higher percentage of CIL income to the Parish Council where one is in place. The current CIL proposals mean, however, that St Erth will get no such benefits.

4. We also object under Question 3 about the level of the proposed charges where they are levied. Under the current consultation, they are mostly £100 per sq. m or above, up to £400 per sq. m. This is high in comparison with most other Councils in the South West and even in London. The proposals, therefore, have the potential to affect the prices of new houses in Cornwall.

5. Taking together our two objections (i.e. “zero-rated” zones and the level of CIL residential charges), there would be a financial incentive for developers to locate new housing in parishes like St Erth where, despite the resulting impacts on community services, no infrastructure contributions are guaranteed.

6. We understand it might be possible to make financial contributions to “zero-rated” parishes like us from CIL funds raised elsewhere in Cornwall but in the absence of a clear mechanism in the current consultation, we must maintain our objections.

2

7. Finally, we are concerned at the “piecemeal” nature of this consultation. Not only is there uncertainty about future funding and the associated mechanisms but there is also no Regulation 123 list. As a result, it is unclear what, if any, funds would come to us, when, and for what infrastructure projects. Yours faithfully,

Peter Rylett Clerk to the Council

500

CORNWALL COUNCIL CONSULTATION

Cornwall Local Plan – Strategic Policies (pre-submission version) Gypsy and Travelling Communities Strategy and Delivery Plan

Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

COMMENTS FROM GWINEAR-GWITHIAN AND ST ERTH

PARISH COUNCILS

Overall comments

1. Many of the proposals and policies in the Cornwall Local Plan and the Gypsy and Travelling Communities Strategy disappointingly appear to add little or nothing to their equivalents in the National Planning Policy Framework. It is important to expand these documents to take account of and reflect Cornish conditions and aims.

2. We appreciate that these are initial documents which may be amended at later stages on the way to their final adoption but the nature of this bureaucratic process raises concerns about its transparency and about the local awareness and will to take part in further rounds of consultation. It is important to take every possible step to ensure that policies and proposals are clearly explained and justified and that local communities continue to be involved.

3. On this subject of influencing emerging Plans and Strategies, Gwinear-Gwithian and St Erth Parish Councils have shown themselves to be interested and experienced in community planning matters and they have sought expert advice in compiling these comments. They therefore ask Cornwall Council to invite them to take part in future expert groups set up to prepare and refine planning documents like these.

Gypsy and Travelling Communities Strategy and Delivery Plan

1. The document is based on out-of-date research. It is not clear why it has been published ahead of a survey to up-date the 2006 GTAA.

2. The document is considered to be light-weight and of little practical benefit. It contains factual background information but it is not site-specific nor (importantly) does it achieve the aims at the bottom of page 4.

3. It does not include a clear delivery strategy. It appears to rely on previous District Local Plan policies (but the Kerrier District Local Plan was never adopted, its polices including H26 have not been saved and so it no longer deserves any weight). The inclusion of a “call for sites” suggests that the availability of land may on its own be a decisive factor in determining the distribution, size and nature of future sites rather than environmental criteria in land-use policies.

4. The emerging Cornwall Local Plan is not part of the development plan. The third bullet-point of paragraph (ii) on page 23 should accordingly be changed to make this clear.

Cornwall Local Plan

1. Despite its title, this document is evidently very different from previous District Local Plans. It does not occupy a “halfway house” between the NPPF and Neighbourhood Plans, is generally lacking in detail and while there may be little to disagree with it overall, does not appear to add much clarity or certainty to the present planning process in Cornwall.

2. The wording of many policies is unclear and open to subjective interpretation (e.g. “appropriate” in policies 7, 11, 12, 14, 23 and 28; “inappropriate” in policy 23; and “suitable” in policy7). There is concern about consistency in interpreting such vague requirements, encouraging uncertainty and argument, and this approach seems to rely heavily on Neighbourhood Plans (which may or may not be eventually forthcoming) to define important local characteristics which new developments should respect.

3. More detailed comments on individual policies and proposals are separately attached.

Community Infrastructure Levy

1. We firmly believe that developments should pay for the infrastructure demands they place on local services and facilities. These demands have increased over time because of levels of affluence and new consumer products. We are also concerned that necessary developments might be discouraged from coming forward because of the scale of financial and other requirements imposed on them. The question of viability is central to this debate but it is not clear how this will be assessed in detail in individual cases or how transparent the process would be to Parish/Town Councils and the general public.

2. In the light of this, we oppose the exemption from CIL for affordable housing (see paragraph 11.1). All new housing must impact on settlements, bearing in mind the experience in our Parishes and elsewhere that most affordable dwellings are occupied by people who were not resident there immediately beforehand.

3. We are also opposed to the proposed pattern and levels of residential price zones. To the observer, there is no obvious distinction to make between our two Parishes or other adjoining ones and so we cannot support the proposal that Gwinear-Gwithian and St Erth are each in a different price zone from the others.

4. Putting St Erth Parish in the zero-rated zone means that it will receive no contributions from either the CIL or from Section 106 Obligations, despite being expected to accommodate more

development which inevitably strains its infrastructure. We strongly oppose this arrangement.

5. More detailed comments are separately attached.

CORNWALL COUNCIL CONSULTATION

Cornwall Local Plan – Strategic Policies (pre-submission version) Policy Messages for Places (Hayle and St Ives)

DETAILED COMMENTS FROM GWINEAR-GWITHIAN AND ST ERTH

PARISH COUNCILS

Cornwall Local Plan Policy 8 It refers to rented affordable houses being managed by bona fide affordable housing providers but there appears to be nothing under “Intermediate housing” to deal with management arrangements put forward by private developers (e.g. THF in Connor Downs). Policy 9 As far as its last paragraph is concerned, we agree that there must be one answerable body (e.g. Cornwall Council) responsible for ensuring the first and future occupation of affordable homes in line with this policy. We are however concerned at the lack of evidence to show how this will be achieved. We ask for assurances that we will be fully consulted on the detail of this policy and the consultation process. Policy 11 The exemption from CIL for affordable houses raises concerns that developers will propose them as an avoidance mechanism and later apply to vary their planning permissions in favour of more open-market properties. A similar trend is already apparent in seeking to vary the requirements of Section 106 Obligations. In this event, it is essential that CIL should be recouped if this variation is accepted. Policy 13 Without clarity over standards of open space, parking provision etc., this generally-worded policy is unlikely to achieve consistent, good quality developments. Policy 15 The policy does not refer to community benefit contributions, which have already proved useful sources of local income to the communities involved in renewable energy developments. This should be a requirement of the policy. Policy 26

We support this policy because of the growing incidents of flooding in our Parishes. This makes it more important that infrastructure contributions are specifically directed to flood improvement works. Hayle and St Ives CNA Page 61 The map on this page specifically identifies the villages of St Erth and Connor Downs. There is nothing in the map key to explain what this identification means, i.e. does it represent villages that have already experienced high levels of growth (however that term is defined), or those where most of the future development under Policy PP2(2)(a) should go? In either event, we consider that particular villages should not be identified on the map. Gwinear-Gwithian and St Erth Parish Councils are producing Neighbourhood Plans which will recognise where development should best go within the Parishes and their allocations should not be prejudiced in any way by the current general document. Page 64 Policy PP2(2)(a) refers to around 350 houses being provided in our two Parishes (and Towednack) outside Hayle and St Ives by 2030 but the housing commitments mentioned on page 60 reduce this figure to 158. We do not believe that this considerable reduction in the scale of future residential development compared with recent schemes in our villages is realistic. We are prepared to consider further growth in all our villages, provided that there are compensating infrastructure improvements and ask that this figure is reconsidered to reflect our view of housing need for people with links to the area. We consider that the last part of Policy PP2(2)(a) should include criteria relating to the visual impact of development and on the cumulative effects of previous growth in the settlement concerned. Overall In general, without more detail this document appears to add little to the Strategic Policies document and so is unlikely to be very useful.

CORNWALL COUNCIL CONSULTATION

Community Infrastructure Levy

DETAILED COMMENTS FROM GWINEAR-GWITHIAN AND ST ERTH

PARISH COUNCILS

Page 4(2) We repeat our view that CIL should be charged on affordable houses. All residential development by its intrinsic nature places additional pressure on existing infrastructure. This is especially true in rural Parishes like ours

where there is a relatively high proportion of affordable properties coming forward. Page 7 (2.1) For the avoidance of doubt, it should be made clear that creating one or more dwellings attracts CIL even if they are less than 100 sq. m floor space. Page 7 (2.2) We have no objections in principle to sub-dividing existing houses but consider that the additional units, however they are created, should not be exempt from CIL for the reason explained above. Page 7 (4.4) We maintain that a meaningful proportion of the CIL income from every new dwelling in each Parish should go directly to its Parish Council. In the case of Gwinear-Gwithian and St Erth, we see no reason why both should not receive the same proportion of CIL income which should be the amount proposed for Gwinear-Gwithian. Page 8 (5.2) We would like to express our concern  that necessary infrastructure schemes won't come forward under CIL and we remain to be convinced that it's a better system than the current one of Section 106 Obligations. We ask that Cornwall Council keep the matter under close review and take immediate action to alter whatever approach they take as soon as any evidence emerges that it's not producing required infrastructure works. Page 8 (5.3) We are concerned that the Regulation 123 list of infrastructure projects is not being published now, because people need this information in order to respond properly to the current consultation. Page 9 (7.6) In the absence of the Regulation 123 list, it is not clear what funding is likely to come from CIL to projects deemed desirable in our Parishes or whether CIL will be enough to make up the identified financial shortfall. Page 11 (9.4) We are generally content with the affordable housing targets for our Parishes but are concerned about the distribution of CIL/ Section 106 Obligation payments to other infrastructure needs. It appears that Cornwall Council leans heavily towards affordable housing in negotiating them, to the detriment of other deserving infrastructure improvements. We consider that negotiations (whether before or during an application) should be conducted transparently and in accordance with a protocol giving clear priorities for particular infrastructure requirements within the area concerned. Page 13 (11.3)

It is unclear whether Parishes will lose out financially in such cases. Page 13 (12.1) If CIL is paid by instalments, it is essential to include mechanisms ensuring that the meaningful proportion continues to be paid to the Parish Council. We have concerns that essential infrastructure improvements may not be implemented if CIL payments are not promptly made.

6227

Text Box

014

Chairman Directors R S J Tetlow MSc Dip Surv FRTPI FRICS FCIH FRSA S Hinsley BA (Hons) MRTPI J M Adams BA (Hons) BTP MRTPI Tetlow King Planning Limited J Sneddon BSc (Hons) MRTPI Registered Office Unit 2 Eclipse Office Park High Street Staple Hill Bristol BS16 5EL Registered in England No. 2165802 J Stacey BA (Hons) Dip TP MRTPI Government Approved Constructionline Registered No. 8559

CIL / Local Plans Team Date: 10 February 2017 Cornwall Council Room 3B, Pydar House Our Ref: SL M9/0108-15 Pydar Street Truro Cornwall TR1 1XU

By email only: cil@cornwall.gov.uk

Dear Sir or Madam RE: CORNWALL COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY: PRELIMINARY DRAFT CHARGING

SCHEDULE We represent the South West HARP Planning Consortium which includes all the leading Housing Association Registered Providers (HARPs) across the South West. Our clients’ principal concern is to optimise the provision of affordable housing through the preparation of consistent policies that help deliver the wider economic and social outcomes needed throughout the South West region. Overarching Comments We welcome the opportunity to comment on the CIL Charging Schedule and the background viability evidence. As set out in our previous comments dated 22 April 2013 (reference M9/0108-04), It is extremely important that the Council properly consider the overall impact of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) on the delivery of affordable housing, ensuring that this is not squeezed by setting inappropriate rates. This was emphasised by Greg Clark MP, the former Minister for Decentralisation and Cities:

“A key point of the viability test for CIL [rate setting] is that it doesn’t make socially important development unviable, including social housing. I would expect that to be at the forefront of examiners’ minds”. (Inside Housing, 20 April 2012)

The CIL Section of the PPG reinforces this view. Paragraph 21 establishes that “differences in rates need to be justified by reference to the economic viability of development” and adds that “a charging authority that plans to set differential rates should not have a disproportionate impact on particular sectors or specialist forms of development” (Reference ID: 25-021-20140612). Discretionary Social Housing and Exceptional Circumstances Relief The Council has indicated it will develop a discretionary relief policy and Instalments policy. We urge the Council implements such a relief into its Charging Schedule, as this would give the Council the ability to enable financially challenging schemes to come forward, while instalments policies give developers flexibility to develop without the additional significant burden of upfront CIL payment. However, it is important to highlight that the delivery of affordable housing through S106 should take precedence before CIL monies are collected. The SW HARP’s members have experienced numerous examples where developers are granted permission with a reduction in affordable housing, primarily due to viability issues. In addition, CIL payments may be more preferable than providing on-site affordable housing due to the general perceptions of how affordable housing can affect property values. In summary, it is critical that the affordable housing targets of Local Plan Policy 8 take precedence; and it is imperative that these targets are met when the exceptional circumstances relief is being applied to reduced CIL payments under exceptional circumstances.

T: E: F: W:

2

Consultation Question 3 Residential Rates Our research shows that the proposed CIL rates for development are some of the highest in the South West of England. As identified by Figure 1 and in the case of Zone 1, the proposed charge is significantly higher than in the previous Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. Whilst we acknowledge that the updated Viability Assessment (December 2016) makes these recommendations, it is surprising that the figures have risen so significantly. Figure 1: Highest CIL Rates across the South West of England In order to comply with charging rates of this magnitude, planning obligations towards affordable housing and other critical infrastructure are likely to be impacted. The SW HARP is very concerned over how robustly the Council will be able to defend its position when it is faced with developers who argue that policy compliant development is unviable. The HARP’s members are fully aware of recent planning consents in Cornwall where provision of affordable housing has been reduced, even without the proposed CIL payments. The SW HARP and other developers presently operate within a fragile market, and the implementation of CIL rates of this magnitude will inevitably impact affordable housing delivery. It is also a concern that the very high charge may discourage, in particular, smaller developers and developers of small sites from bringing forward those schemes; in our experience developers are likely to avoid areas with a very high CIL charge due to the significant upfront impact on scheme costs. The adopted Local Plan identifies an anticipated uplift in affordable housing delivery of 5,170 homes between 2015 and 2030, within a target requirement of nearly 18,000 affordable homes. If Cornwall Council wishes to encourage these schemes to come forward, and meet its uplifted affordable housing target up to 2030, then it needs to be pragmatic in setting a CIL rate that encourages development. Consultation Question 5 We support the nil rate for C2 use development, which greatly differ to general market housing in terms of their structure and funding, which comes with an element of risk for the developer.

3

Review of CIL In order to comply with the proposed residential charging rates of this magnitude, planning obligations towards other critical infrastructure, including affordable housing, are likely to be impacted. We therefore recommend the Council specifies when a review of the CIL will be undertaken. We are of the view that a review of CIL ensures Local Planning Authorities (LPAs) are reactive to an industry that is constantly changing, and represents good practice. Recent examples of other LPAs in the South West that have committed to a review of CIL include Stroud District and Plymouth City Councils. This should be over consistent intervals of time; we suggest either (a) every three years or (b) if there has been a 10% change in house prices or (c) in light of any significant change to national planning policy or guidance. This should include a caveat stating that the review will be done ‘whichever is sooner’. This would provide clarity for local developers, landowners and others who have an interest in the District’s construction and property industries. We would like to be consulted on further stages of the Community Infrastructure Levy, by email only to Please ensure that the South West HARP Planning Consortium is retained on the planning policy database, with Tetlow King Planning listed as their agents. Yours faithfully

SEAN LEWIS MPlan PLANNER For and On Behalf Of TETLOW KING PLANNING

Cc: Aster Group Coastline Housing Ltd DCH Group

Guinness Partnership Westward Housing Group Sam Irving – Housing

1

Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010

Cornwall Council Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Consultation Response to Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

on behalf of various developers, architects and planning agents/consultants

Stephens Scown LLP

2

Consultation Response to Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

(References to Regulations are to the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, unless

otherwise stated).

Differential Rates

Lawfulness of the proposed differential rates

We consider that the approach of differential rates within the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Consultation Document (Table 1) is not in accordance with Reg 13. Reg 13 provides that:-

13 Differential rates

(1) A charging authority may set differential rates—

(a) for different zones in which development would be situated;

(b) by reference to different intended uses of development;

(c) by reference to the intended gross internal area of development;

(d) by reference to the intended number of dwellings or units to be constructed or

provided under a planning permission.

Here the Consultation Document seeks to apply differential rates according to whether or not the

site is required to provide Affordable Housing. We do not consider that such an approach is

consistent with any of the sub-paragraphs of Reg 13(1).

We anticipate that the Council are suggesting that the differential rate is permitted by Reg 13(1)(b)

and we appreciate that, in that regard, the NPPG1 advises that:-

Charging authorities may also set differential rates by reference to different intended uses of

development. The definition of “use” for this purpose is not tied to the classes of

development in the Town and Country Planning Act (Use Classes) Order 1987, although that

Order does provide a useful reference point. Charging authorities taking this approach will

need to ensure that the differential rates are supported by robust evidence on economic

viability.

For example, to reflect viability and encourage greater provision and innovation in delivery of

social housing, authorities may wish to consider applying a zero or reduced rate of levy

charge to alternative models for provision of social housing, as defined locally, which will not

otherwise be eligible for social housing or charitable relief from the levy.

1 At Paragraph: 022 Reference ID: 25-022-20140612 Revision date: 12 06 2014

3

However, such guidance does not address the point in hand. The guidance is indicating that units

which are being developed as a form of social housing may, themselves, be subject to a differential

rate to encourage their provision. The guidance is not suggesting that authorities may consider a

development to be a different ‘use’ depending on whether or not other development (e.g. social

housing) is to be provided as part of that wider development.

We accept (per the NPPG) that a differential rate can be applied to uses with the same use class e.g.

open market housing v social housing; and stores selling convenience v comparison goods. But we

do not consider that there is such a distinction in the definitions applied in the columns of Table 1.

In both circumstances, the development to which CIL is to be applied is, C3 & C4, dwellinghouse and

HMO. The intended use of development for a site which is providing Affordable Housing is no

different to one which is not providing Affordable Housing.

Furthermore, the approach to Reg 13(1)(b) must be considered holistically with the remainder of the

Regs. It is clear that, when calculating the chargeable amount, the charging authority must apply the

CIL rate applicable to that development, not one rate which defines the whole of the development

within the planning application. In all of these cases, the chargeable development to which the CIL

charge originates from is a C3 or C4, dwellinghouse and HMO, use, the ‘use’.

In summary, we do not consider that the authority can consider the ‘use’ of a dwellinghouse of HMO

to be different depending on whether or not there is provision of Affordable Housing.

Status of sites which make a contribution in lieu

Furthermore, in any event we consider that the proposed approach does not account for sites which

make a contribution in lieu towards Affordable Housing (e.g. sites of between 5 and 10 units in

designated rural areas). The text is not clear that those sites are sites which are “required to provide

for Affordable Housing”.

In this context we reiterate that developments which do provide a contribution in lieu towards

Affordable Housing are no different in terms of ‘use’ to those sites that do not. We consider that

such a distinction is entirely artificial and does not fall within the terms of Reg 13.

Zero rate for Affordable Housing

We do however support a differential (zero) rate for bona fide Affordable Housing. The adoption of

a differential rate for Affordable Housing reduces the bureaucracy associated with CIL in practice,

negating the requirement to apply for, and receive, social housing relief prior to the commencement

of development.

4

Application of differential rate to small sites

We also consider that this approach fails to have regard to the purpose of the small sites exemption

introduced by the written ministerial statement2 (the ‘WMS’) and contained within the NPPG. The

approach in the purpose of the WMS was stated as “By lowering the construction cost of small-scale

new build housing and home improvements, these reforms will help increase housing supply”. We

also consider that the proposal is contrary to the government’s strategy set out in the White Paper

“Fixing our broken housing market” e.g. at para 1.29 etc.

The introduction of a higher rate of CIL for these developments undermines the purpose of the WMS

and the strategy in the White Paper and is likely to reduce the delivery of new homes.

For this reason we therefore consider that this higher rate of CIL is not compatible with Reg 14(1)(a)

(see below).

Strategic Sites

We generally approve of the application of a zero rate for strategic sites. We consider that such an

approach is compatible with Reg 13(1) (per subpara (a)). We are unclear as to whether it is being

suggested that all residential development sites within the Allocations DPD are to be categorised as

‘strategic sites’, this should be clarified. We reiterate our concern over the absence of a draft s123

list. The approach of setting a zero rate for residential development in strategic sites, but not for

commercial development within those same sites seems to be counter-productive.

Effect on exception sites

Reg 14 requires that:-

(1) In setting rates (including differential rates) in a charging schedule, a charging authority

must . . . strike . . . an appropriate balance between—

(a) the desirability of funding from CIL (in whole or in part) the actual and

expected estimated total cost of infrastructure required to support the development

of its area, taking into account other actual and expected sources of funding; and

(b) the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the

economic viability of development across its area.

We consider that, combined with a Local Plan Policy3 for a minimum of 50% open market dwellings

on exception sites, the provision of Affordable Housing through exception sites will be significantly

curtailed. In accordance with the rates within the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation

2

https://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201415/cmhansrd/cm141128/wmstext/141128m0001.htm#14112842000008 3 Policy 9

5

Document (Table 1), those open market dwellings which are cross-subsidising the Affordable

Housing will be subject to CIL. We consider that this level of CIL is likely to make many of these

developments unable to provide 50% Affordable Housing and consequently that such developments

will be refused planning permission pursuant to the Local Plan Policy.

Using a recent 50% AH exception site permission as an example, that development would be

required to pay more than an additional £500,000 in CIL over and above the s106 obligations costs,

rendering the scheme unviable with policy compliant provision of Affordable Housing4.

Zone 1 locations generally have the greatest disparity between open market and affordable values

and therefore, arguably, the affordable housing need is most acute in these locations. It would

therefore be catastrophic, if the introduction of CIL prevented the delivery of affordable housing and

constrained the delivery of exceptions sites in such locations.

The application of CIL to these open market dwellings undermines the very purpose for which they

are being built in these locations – with CIL payable more open market dwellings will be required on

exception sites in order to provide the same level of subsidy to the Affordable Dwellings.

For this reason we therefore consider that intention to seek CIL from those open market dwellings

which cross-subsidise exception sites is not compatible with Reg 14(1)(a).

Whilst we disagree that the Council’s approach to differential rates is outwith Reg 13, if the Council

intends to pursue such arrangements, we consider that open market housing on exception sites (in

accordance with the Local Plan Policy) should be charged CIL at a zero rate.

Effect on Enabling Development

The adoption of CIL at these rates is likely to make it more difficult for developments to make

meaningful and immediate contributions to the community by removing those local planning gains

that can be negotiated within a s106 agreement and replacing them with CIL contributions which

may not even be spent on infrastructure within the local area5.

Effect on Brownfield Development

The adoption of CIL at these rates is likely to stall the redevelopment of many brownfield sites,

contrary to the intentions of the government, the NPPF and the NPPG6.

Consideration should be given to applying a zero rate to such sites, e.g. by reference to those areas

contained within the Council’s Register of Brownfield land.

4 See Annex A - Westcountry Land Example 1.

5 See Annex B - Business Location Services Example

6 See Annex B - Business Location Services Example

6

Effect on Replacement Dwellings

Cornwall suffers from a significant amount of substandard housing. Historically efforts have been

made to improve the housing stock by demolishing the substandard properties and replacing them

with new housing.

Notwithstanding the effect of Regs 42A, 54A and the ‘credit’ for ‘E’7 in Reg 40, the adoption of CIL at

these rates is likely to have a significant adverse effect on the operation of this element of the

housing market.

Effect on Infill at Development Boundaries

Sites which contain an existing lawful dwelling but with potential for infill development command a

purchase price which reflects the existing residential use. If the land held with those properties is to

be developed as infill then the CIL rate needs to ensure that such development remains viable.

Often such development will (currently) benefit from the small sites exemption and therefore the

introduction of CIL will represent a significant reduction in viability, which would risk delivery of

these schemes. Such developments in Zone 1 would be unable to support CIL at the £200/m2 rate

let alone the £400/m2 rate.8

Effect on New Accommodation for Holiday Use Only

The proposed CIL rates risk making holiday home development unviable. We note that no modelling

of the effect on holiday homes has been carried out.

The decision to seek to charge CIL on these types of properties without due regard to the effect on

the provision of this type of development risks the appearance of an attempt at using CIL to deliver

Policy, contrary to the NPPG9 (“Differential rates should not be used as a means to deliver policy

objectives”).

Effect of Neighbourhood Plan Policies

It would appear that no account has been taken of the effect of Neighbourhood Plan Policies on the

market value of properties. For example the H2 policy within the adopted St Ives Neighbourhood

Plan is (according to expert valuation commentary) likely to result in a reduction in the market value

of those properties.

We understand that there are a number of other Parishes which intend to introduce similar policies

within their own Neighbourhood Plans.

7 i.e. the gross internal areas of parts of in-use buildings that are to be demolished before completion of the

chargeable development (etc) 8 See Annex A - Westcountry Land Example 2.

9 Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 25-021-20140612 Revision date: 12 06 2014

7

Absent any assessment of the effect of policies of this type, the viability assessments are deficient

and the Council will be unable to show compliance with Reg 14.

Commercial Out of Town CIL Rate

We consider that the adoption of the “out of town, non food retail >280sqm” rate of £100 per sqm

will act as a significant disincentive for existing retailers of that type to extend their premises so as to

improve the customer experience. These retailers will effectively be subject to a new tax on

expansion that hitherto would not have resulted in any s106 contributions. The approach risks

making such extensions unviable. As such, we do not consider that such an approach is likely to

strike the balance required by Reg 14 (see above).

The approach appears to be an attempt at using CIL to deliver Policy, contrary to the NPPG10

(“Differential rates should not be used as a means to deliver policy objectives”).

Other matters

Discretionary Social Housing Relief

We consider that (in the absence of a zero rate for Affordable Housing) the Council should adopt a

discretionary housing relief policy in accordance with Reg 49B in order to encourage delivery of

Intermediate for Sale and Starter Homes.

Draft s123 list

In the absence of a published draft s123 list it is impossible to properly consider viability of sites

under the proposed CIL rates. Any infrastructure on the s123 list will be statutorily prohibited from

being included within a s106 agreement for the development. As things stand consultees cannot

usefully calculate the financial cost of anticipated s106 obligations that will continue to be payable

post adoption of CIL. Whilst we note the assumptions made, without the draft s123 list those

assumptions cannot be tested.

Instalment Policy

We consider that the Council should adopt an instalment policy in accordance with Reg 69B in order

to ensure that developments can be funded and are deliverable.

10

Paragraph: 021 Reference ID: 25-021-20140612 Revision date: 12 06 2014

8

Payments in Kind and Infrastructure Payments

It would be useful for the Council to set out its position in respect of these types of payments (Regs

73 and 73A).

Review of CIL

Recommend that any CIL rates adopted are subject to an early review so as to ensure that delivery

is not adversely affected.

Stephens Scown LLP

09 February 2017

CONSULTATION COMMENTS FOR DRAFT CIL JANUARY 2017:

WHO ARE LIPSCOMB JONES:

Lipscomb Jones are both Architects and Engineers Practices based in St. Austell who predominantly work in Cornwall, and through their previously merged companies have been operating since 2003. We employ 3 Architects, 1 Engineer, 3 Technicians and 3 Support Staff making a total of 10 persons within the business, and we also use local businesses to facilitate our practice, which all contributes to the economy of Cornwall.

QUALIFICATION TO COMMENT:

Over the past 14 years, Lipscomb Jones has seen a complete change in the council structures within Cornwall and the release of new planning documents, as well as being involved with steering groups and agent’s forums for both Planning and Building Control, which has given an indepth knowledge of the council’s requirements. We have worked upon all types of residential developments from extensions to 71 dwellings, school extensions, retail developments, industrial building, agricultural buildings and a medical centre. From these projects we have been involved first hand with the economic viabilities and have seen the majority of small residential schemes struggle.

COMMENTS:

Page 3, Summary first bullet point states…’CIL is charged at different rates across the five housing value zones in Cornwall’, this is clearly an incorrect statement as zone 5 has no charge and zones 4 and 3 are proposed to have the same rate. Page 3, Summary second bullet point proposes different higher rate where no affordable housing is required, is this not contrary to the reason why no affordable is required? Government has made the exceptions due to lack of economic viability to provide affordable, now the council seeks higher rate from those who have already been established at not being able to afford contributions. Page 3, Summary third bullet point proposes that Strategic (housing) sites have a zero rate, which is preposterously unfair on all other development, and asks the question as to why the council is acting so unfairly? Page 3, 1.1 first paragraph states…’raise funds from developers’, however, it is also from householders who wish to build extensions of over 100sqm. Page 4, 1.2 last paragraph needs to explain more explicitly the ‘certain uses’ and ‘certain areas’ where zero rate can be applied? Page 6, 1.6 under the sub-heading Development Viability Assessment the third paragraph says that it was only intended from 1 dwelling upwards and not extensions of existing dwellings that has been included. So why has any development above 100sqm been included if not been assessed? Page 9, Table 1, cost per sqm for zones 3 and 4 being the same where no affordable is required cannot be correct, because this would mean that there is no difference in zones and would contradict the difference in contribution for these zones where affordable housing is provided.

Page 2 of 3

Page 9, Table 1, In zones 1 and 2 the no affordable to affordable rates is 50%, should this not be continued for zones 3 and 4? Page 9, table 1, encourages the smallest allowable sized houses for homes, which will have social impacts, such as, create a greater demand on recreational spaces, overcrowded homes, etc. It feels as if nothing has been learnt from the Bills to stop slums from the early twentieth century.

CONSULTATION QUESTION RESPONSES:

Consultation Question 1 • 5 year median build costs are not reflective of current or predictive costs,

as they only look at an average of past costs. We live in a ever developing economy where inflation continually rises, but what is being suggested is to use a guide price worked on an average cost which will be 2.5 years less inflation lower that the most recent, without allowing predictive inflation for when development is actually delivered. I would suggest using ‘Spon’s Architect’s and Builder’s Price Book’, as they try to predict the future years costs using the last years actual costs.

• External works are often lower for smaller site, so where there is no affordable on sites of less than 10, but the council propose a higher rate, this figure is not adequate. I would propose that a higher percentage be used for site of less than 10 dwellings, perhaps as much as 30%.

• S106/278 contributions of £2,000 per dwelling would only cover professional fees for both agreements from all parties involved. When you consider actual affordable housing and maintenance costs this would be closer to £30,000 per dwelling.

Consultation Question 2 • I do not agree that smaller developments that are not economically viable to

provide affordable housing should be hit with a larger CIL contribution. We have worked with many small developments of 10 or less houses and have found that any that have affordable housing have not been financially viable and have stalled on that basis. We have found that before the government won their appeal to stop contributions, the sites that have £26,000 contributions have also stalled due to the lack of viability. Based upon these average costs of £1,300/dwelling contributions meant that sites were no longer viable the proposed higher rate CIL would also make the small sites unviable.

Consultation Question 3 • I do not believe that the rates are different, which is clearly shown in zones

3 and 4 higher rate. • I do not agree with the rates, as I believe that they are far too high. The

minimum size of a 3 bedroom 5 person dwelling is now 93sqm, therefore, the proposed CILs will range from £3,255 to £37,200 per average dwelling. When you calculate the average of the range to be a staggering £20,227.50, and this does not exclude affordable housing, it is extremely worrying for developments being economically viable in the future. The range of rates means that it will become even more difficult for people to buy houses in the more affluent zones than ever before.

Consultation Question 4 • Why are sales and marketing, interest and purchase costs included on Non-

Residential, and not in Residential? Consultation Question 5

• Without understanding the full assessment, it does appear that CIL is being used to try to stop out of town retail, whereas, I thought that CIL was supposed to be gaining contributions for building that benefit from existing infrastructure or create higher demand. The biggest creator of demand on infrastructure has got to be commercial leisure, but according to rates, nothing is to be provided?

Consultation Question 6 • I do not feel that the CIL rates proposed represent an appropriate balance.

Council Tax and Business Rates after construction should fund the majority of the CIL requirements, and for this reason the CIL rates should be reduced to a

Page 3 of 3

rate that is viable. For Residential, I believe it should be a set amount for different unit types (1 bed flat would be less than 4 bed house) and these amounts should be different for different zones. For Non-Residential all types should have an amount of cost per sqm, even if only £1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

Generally, we believe that a CIL charge is great simple way forward to achieving contributions to be used to improve the infrastructure in Cornwall. Fixed amount for residential size, based upon unit sizes shown in Nationally Described Space Standards should be incorporated with different amounts or percentage increase for different value zones. This would stop developers from building lots of minimum size units to minimize their costs. Sqm for all Non-Residential should be applied, no matter how small. Householders should not have any CIL contributions, no matter how big their extensions. CIL will increase house prices and rents, which will further compound the housing crisis in Cornwall. With Brexit’s affect in Cornwall seeing the instant loss of European Funding, a slow-down in residential schemes coming forward, cost of materials increase due to low pound value and loss of commercial developments, is now the correct time to introduce CIL? With no commercial work due to no European Funding, and no residential work due to CIL affecting viability, will the small Cornwall based businesses such as ours be able to survive the CIL? At the moment this feels like the final nail in the coffin for a small local business. Perhaps if CIL costs were realistic and across the board, they would be more achievable, which would lead to less disputing amounts and see more growth in the county, which would see more overall CIL. The average CIL contribution is more than 10% of the average house price in Cornwall, is this realistic? SIMON JONES Business Director for and on behalf of LIPSCOMB JONES

ARCHITECTS

Community Infrastructure Levy

Cornwall Council Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule 2017

Consultation Response to Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

On behalf of members of Cornwall Private Developers Forum

13th February 2017

As Chair for the Developers Forum I have been asked to make a representation on behalf of members and to clarify a few points regarding some comments in the draft schedule. Consultation Question 1 Whilst the industry was consulted during the drafting process, it was in relation to build costs and assumptions used to calculate viability of developments and no agreement on costs was formally reached. Evidence was provided to Three Dragons by qualified quantity surveyors to demonstrate the actual high level of build cost in Cornwall compared to the figures proposed and derived form BCIS 5 year median. The members consulted do not consider this evidence has been properly considered and have serious concerns about the impact of the proposed CIL levels on the deliverability of new homes. Members ask that it should be noted that consultation with the industry must not be construed as support of the Residential Viability Assessment and it is proposed that further discussions needs to take place. Consultation Question 2 The government guidance excluding provision of affordable homes and tariff based contributions from small sites and now part of the Cornwall Local Plan, has been implemented to help deliver smaller previously unviable developments. The proposal to charge a differential rate is considered unlawful and contrary to the policy excluding contribution of affordable homes on small sites. Whilst it does not ask for physical homes the financial and bureaucratic impact will deter SMEs and therefore conflicts with the objective of encouraging the delivery of small developments. The proposal is contrary to the government’s strategy set out in the White Paper “Fixing our broken housing market” eg at para 1.29-1.30. Consultation Question 3 The principle of varying rate levels for different areas and the location of those areas was, in general, considered to be sensible with a few exceptions that members will respond to individually. There are three elements that relate to this question, the first is the CIL level and its impact on the viability of development balanced with the Local Plans policy requirements. The second is the revenue generated by CIL and the third is the balance of the first and second elements against the estimated cost of the infrastructure CIL is to provide. The response to this question has to relate to our comments in Question 1. It is generally felt that Zone 5,4 and 3 are acceptable but that Zone 2 is circa 15% to high and Zone 1, 20% to high. These estimates have been accessed based upon the evidence previously supplied and there is serious concern that, if the levels proposed are implemented, then already optioned land ready to come forward will become unviable and delivery of new homes halted. Sites becoming unviable will slow down housing delivery. On marginally viable sites the only element left to negotiate with is the level of affordable homes. Therefore if the proposed levels for Zones 4 and 1 are implemented, then the policy question about levels of affordable housing in those areas must be re-considered. There is concern that some locations bridge or abut areas with contravening values which can result in a CIL level being applied incorrectly. For example a higher CIL cost being applied to a development actually attracting or achieving sales values from the adjoining lower cost zone. Therefore whilst the areas themselves are considered sensible, greater information on

how a development will be assessed for CIL needs to be established. For example should CIL be calculated solely by zone or more appropriately by sales area used to establish viability and gross development value. Consultation Question 4 and 5 No comment as these relate to commercial properties. Consultation Question 6 It is impossible to comment on this question without a comprehensive understanding of what CIL is to be used for. In the absence of a Reg 123 list no assumptions on CIL levels needed, as opposed to desired, can sensibly be calculated and no certainty of possible further 106 requirements secured. Without a Reg 123 list the forum requests that further consultation will be carried out before a submission for inspection is made. General comments on matters needing further clarification: Affordable Homes The differential (zero) rate for bona fide Affordable Homes is supported Strategic sites Whilst the principle of a zero rate on strategic sites is supported, it is not clear what qualifies as strategic and therefore support is subject to a clearer definition. Neighbourhood plans With the emergence of more neighbourhood plans and many looking for higher developers contributions to the community than usual, evidence is needed to access the impact these may have on viability. Any worsening of viability would require a reduction in the proposed CIL rates and there does not appear to be any evidence demonstrating this has been taken into consideration. CIL Payment by installment The potential impact of an upfront payment of CIL would have a detrimental impact on bringing sites forward. It is therefore felt an installment policy is required if Cornwall Council is to support a proactive development delivery policy. Annual review With the changing world we live in and the yet unknown impact, negative or positive, of things like Brexit, regular reviews of CIL should be committed to and time period agreed with the development industry. Prepared and submitted by M A Griffin Associates Ltd on behalf members of Cornwall Private Developers Forum Signed

Michael A Griffin Chair Cornwall Private Developers Forum

CORNWALL COUNCIL

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY PRELIMINARY DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE

CONSULTATION

PREPARED FOR CLIENT GROUP

FEBRUARY 2017

PCL Planning Ltd

t: f:

w:

Cornwall CIL – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document – January 2017

David Seaton Page No 2 14/02/2017 PCL Planning Ltd

CORNWALL COUNCIL

COMMUNITY ILFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

PRELIMINARY DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE CONSULTATION

1. Introduction

1.1 Please find set out below the comments of our clients on the consultation

upon the updated preliminary draft charging schedule (PDCS) of Cornwall’s

proposed community infrastructure levy (CIL) (dated January 2017).

1.2 We have reviewed the viability analysis work undertaken on the Council’s

behalf and also the comments that we provided in response to a previously

published PDCS (dated April 2013 – please find a copy enclosed with this

submission).

1.3 We note that most (if not all) of what we said in April 2013 has been

eschewed by the Council. We repeat those messages, particularly section

2 (in whole), section 3 (despite the publication of newer reports the

concerns raised have not been addressed) and section 5 (in whole).

Cornwall CIL – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document – January 2017

David Seaton Page No 3 14/02/2017 PCL Planning Ltd

2. Comments

Lack of publication of relevant supporting information

2.1 It is distinctly unhelpful that the Council has not published the actual

appraisals. This ‘masks’ the way that the modelling work has applied the

variables in practice and obscured effective examination. Again, we

conclude that the Council has failed to provide appropriate evidence to

demonstrate that delivery of the plan would not be threatened by the

proposed CIL.

2.2 As a general comment we find the information provided by the Council

opaque. It is, in many cases, unclear what assumptions have been made

and what evidence these assumptions have been based on. We are

concerned that there are considerable inaccuracies with many of the

assumptions used by the Council’s consultants in their financial modelling

to the extent that if more accurate/reasonable assumptions had been used

then different conclusions would have been reached.

Lack of Regulation 123 list

2.3 We commented on the lack of a regulation 123 list in our previous

representation (section 2). This continued lack of clarity means that there

can be no confidence in the S106 assumptions utilised in the development

appraisals undertaken by the Council’s consultants since the 123 regulates

what can, and what cannot be included within a S106 agreement.

Inaccurate supporting information

2.4 CIL is a tax that is based upon levying a rate upon each square metre of

new floorspace provided. It appears to us that any value analysis work

undertaken for the council has not been based upon any size assessment,

instead it has focussed upon accommodation type. This presents a

misleading picture of value and a false confidence in achievable values (for

example a small 2 bed flat will be worth less than a larger 2 bed flat).

Cornwall CIL – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document – January 2017

David Seaton Page No 4 14/02/2017 PCL Planning Ltd

Unless the sizes of units provided across each price band identified are

understood then false conclusions about value in each area will be drawn

(i.e. floorspace provision may account for value differences, not relative

viability of different areas). Analysis by dwelling type is therefore likely to

be misleading (particularly if, in relation to detached housing, it ignores the

plot size/value of outbuildings to achieved sale price).

2.5 There are further matters of ‘adjustment’ that are similarly opaque (for

example, quite how is a non-newbuild property ‘adjusted to a newbuild

price?). We doubt this adjustment pays any regard to £/sqm rate which is

the relevant matter.

2.6 We cannot trace any evidence that demonstrates how each parish has been

placed into the 5 value zones that have been identified. We question

whether, in some parishes, there is sufficient evidence of new build

transactions in order to draw robust conclusions (for example does the data

that the council rely relate wholly/predominately to ‘adjusted’ no-newbuild

transactions assessed without regard to the achieved £/sqm ratio achieved

on each sale).

2.7 Thus we conclude that there is no clear evidence that demonstrates the

giving rise to such differential rates. We note that the PPG states that:

“A charging authority which chooses to differentiate between classes of

development, or by reference to different area, should do so only where there is consistent economic viability evidence to justify this approach.” (ID 25-021020140612).

2.8 We conclude that appropriate evidence to reach such conclusions has not

been published.

2.9 We also note that it is the responsibility of each charging authority to ensure

that their charging schedules are state aid compliant and the “it is likely to

be harder to ensure that more complex patterns of differential rates are

state aid compliant” (PPG ID 25-024-20140612).

Cornwall CIL – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document – January 2017

David Seaton Page No 5 14/02/2017 PCL Planning Ltd

2.10 Bearing our conclusion on the information base above we are not convinced

that the proposed CIL is state aid compliant.

Other flaws in assumptions and evidence used in the viability studies

Sales Rates

2.11 This variable is not considered. If this variable is to be excluded then an

upwards adjustment needs to be made in finance costs to reflect the likely

increase in holding cost in unproven/poor areas for sales (which includes

parts of the plan area).

Build Costs

2.12 This item is particularly opaque. Bearing in mind the significant inflation in

build costs over recent years we conclude that the build costs used in the

appraisal may be an underestimate of likely build costs that will be incurred.

Abnormal Costs

2.13 We note that the appraisal information that has been published excludes

abnormal costs from their analysis (these need to be taken account of in

addition to ‘opening up’ costs). In practice, there is not normally a

development site that does not require some level of abnormal cost to be

met if development is to proceed. Quite what that abnormal cost is always

a site specific matter but, from experience, an allowance of circa 10%

should be made to ensure that overall viability is not affected.

Cornwall CIL – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document – January 2017

David Seaton Page No 6 14/02/2017 PCL Planning Ltd

Developers’ Margin

2.14 It is incorrect to split the margin 20% and 6%. Housebuilders require a

25% overall (blended) margin.

S106 costs

2.15 Lack of appropriate evidence. We note the guidance that:

“the charging authority should also provide information about the amount

of funding collected in recent years through section 106 agreements. This

should include information on the extent to which their affordable housing

and other targets have been met.” (ID 25-018-20140612).

2.16 We cannot trace this information.

What has been modelled?

2.17 Again this is opaque. It is likely that the modelling work has been carried

out using incorrect assumptions about both S106 and CIL payments. We

conclude that appropriate available evidence to support the proposed

charging schedule has not been put forward by the Council on this matter.

Increased rate for small sites exempt from affordable housing

2.18 The proposal to charge a higher CIL rate on small sites exempt from

affordable housing contributions is inappropriate and should not be done.

2.19 The purpose behind the Government policy to remove the requirement for

small sites to provide affordable housing was to reduce the burden of

developer contributions on small-scale developers/builders, as is clearly

stated in the ministerial statement:

“Due to the disproportionate burden of developer contributions on

small-scale developers, for sites of 10-units or less, and which have

Cornwall CIL – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document – January 2017

David Seaton Page No 7 14/02/2017 PCL Planning Ltd

a maximum combined gross floor space of 1,000 square metres,

affordable housing and tariff style contributions should not be

sought.”

2.20 It would therefore be completely at odds with the Government’s policy

intention and counterproductive to make developers of these sites pay a

higher CIL rate.

Cornwall CIL – Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Document – January 2017

David Seaton Page No 8 14/02/2017 PCL Planning Ltd

3. Conclusion

3.1 The viability information:

omits to assess a number of important costs to development;

omissions in the information and it appears that the data, such as it is, has

been modelled in such a way as to seek to justify pre-determined

conclusions about how the Council wish to proceed.

3.2 The charging bands proposed do not relate to any clearly distinguishable

areas that can be defined on the basis of robust viability evidence.

3.3 The guidance issued by the Government advises against undue complexity.

Adding complexity by having proposing a complicated geography based on

unpublished data means that we consider that it is not appropriately

justified, and probably not state aid compliant.

3.4 Further the proposed approach to charging CIL on small sites runs contrary

to Government policy.

3.5 Accordingly we consider that the proposed CIL PDCS is not sound.

1

From: MUMFORD Martin 55289 Sent: 14 February 2017 15:09To: CIL EnquiriesSubject: Draft Charging Schedule

Dear Sirs,  I have no comments to make regarding the above but would be grateful to be consulted on any further developments regarding CIL in the future.  Kind regards  Martin Mumford    Martin Mumford Designing Out Crime Officer Devon and Cornwall Constablulary 

 

  

  

Internal   Mobile    

Alliance Prevention Department Devon & Cornwall Police and Dorset Police Working together to serve the public   

6227

Text Box

031

3

Hello Gillian

I am sorry information from the consultants was not received in time for your meeting.  There will be another stage of consultation in the spring, so we can record the objection at this stage, but continue to look into the concern your Members have around the zoning of Crowan Parish.

Other than the above issue, did Members have any other comments relating to the consultation questions that they would like recorded?

Best regards

Gemma

Gemma Arthur

Senior Development Officer

Planning & Sustainable Development

Economic Growth & Development

Internal tel:

External tel:

From: Sent: 10 February 2017 09:32 To: Arthur Gemma Cc: Jenkin Loveday CC; Subject: Re: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

Hello Gemma 

 

We had our meeting last night and without the information from the consultants, it was not possible to reach any conclusion about this. Members are conscious of the deadline to make a response and request that a ‘holding objection’ is recorded, until the information is received and Members have had the opportunity to consider it at a meeting. 

5

From: Arthur Gemma Sent: 02 February 2017 14:16 To: Subject: RE: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

Hello Gillian

I will contact the consultants who undertook the study and see what they can provide.  We had a similar query recently – although that Parish was querying why they weren’t in a lower value zone –  so they should be able to pull something together for you.

I am mindful that the deadline for comments on the consultation is less than two weeks away, so will ask them to respond as soon as possible.  I will let you know as soon as I hear back from them, but if you have any other queries in the meantime, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Best regards

Gemma

Gemma Arthur

Senior Development Officer

Planning & Sustainable Development

Economic Growth & Development

Internal tel:

External tel:

From: Sent: 02 February 2017 14:11 To: Arthur Gemma Subject: Re: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

8

Best regards

Gemma 

Gemma Arthur

Senior Development Officer

Economic Growth & Development

Cornwall Council

 

Tel:

Level 3, Zone B, Pydar House, Pydar Street, Truro, Cornwall TR1 1XU

www.cornwall.gov.uk

 

Please note, I do not work on Fridays.

 

Please let us know if you need any particular assistance from us, such as facilities to help mobility, vision or hearing, or information in a different format.

 

Please consider the environment. Do you really need to print this email?

From: Hayhurst Neil On Behalf Of EP&E Local Plan Sent: 01 February 2017 15:48 To: Arthur Gemma Subject: FW: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

9

Hi Gemma,

I’ve received this email in the Local Plan mailbox regarding the CIL. Apologies, the orignal email dated 14th January from Crowan Parish Council went into the spam filter (pmmportal) so I didn’t spot it until now.

Neil

From: Jenkin Loveday CC Sent: 01 February 2017 13:24 To: ; EP&E Local Plan Subject: RE: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY

Hi Gillian

I agree with the Parish concerns.

Have you also fed the Parish concerns into the consultation? https://www.cornwall.gov.uk/environment-and-planning/planning/planning-policy/cornwall-local-plan/community-infrastructure-levy/

Where we are now 

In consideration of comments from the Local Plan examination and previous CIL consultation undertaken in 2013, development viability evidence is currently being updated. The results of this work are expected in December 2016. Once these results have been received, a revised Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule will be produced and consulted on. 

The following gives the key milestones in the process for the adoption of CIL in Cornwall: 

Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule consultation - completed in March/April 2013   Review evidence base - Spring/Summer 2016   Consultation on the updated Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule will run from Tuesday 3 January to

Tuesday 14 February 2017.   Produce Draft Charging Schedule - Winter 2016   Consultation on Draft Charging Schedule - Spring 2017   Examination - Autumn 2017   Adoption - Winter 2017/18 

From: Sent: 01 February 2017 07:56

11

Please note that this e-mail may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with the relevant legislation and may need to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004. 

Security Warning: It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. The Authority will not accept liability for any damage caused by a virus. 

6227

Text Box

033

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Representations by Savills

savills.co.uk

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 1

Contents Introduction 2

Policy Background 4

Local Plan Delivery 7

Viability Evidence Objections 9

CIL Implementation 12

Conclusions and Recommendations 14

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 2

Introduction These representations have been prepared by Savills on behalf of Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes in response to the consultation on the Cornwall Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS). Our clients’ objective and the intention of these representations is not to dismiss CIL but to ensure that the residential rates set in the Charging Schedule are fair and equitable, supported by robust viability appraisals, and will not put at harm the overall delivery of housing and the wider aspirations of the recently adopted Local Plan, and the emerging Site Allocations Development Plan Document (DPD). To that end, the Charging Schedule must be founded upon sound and credible evidence and the methodology used to establish the proposed charges should be reasonable and fit for purpose. The Consortium have a variety of land interests across Cornwall with sites of various different sizes and typologies, including draft allocations, and will also continue to secure new residential sites moving forward. It is recognised that the Council undertook a CIL consultation in 2013; however, as per the Council’s consultation document, the time elapsed since that document was produced, the local planning context and the expectations in respect to CIL evidence bases, have changed substantially. We therefore agree with the Council’s decision to effectively recommence the CIL process. The recent publication of the ‘Housing White Paper: Fixing our broken housing market’ (February 2017) and the accompanying publication of documents associated with the CIL Review, will be material. The Housing White Paper indicates the Government’s intention to consider the options to reform the developer contributions system, including CIL, and to announce their intentions in the Autumn Budget 2017. The Council will therefore be required to respond to these changes as appropriate during the formulation of their CIL Charging Schedule. Given the uncertainty in respect to the Government’s proposed reforms, we continue to comment on the Council’s evidence base and PDCS on the basis of current legislation, policy and guidance. Should the Council choose to proceed with CIL prior to the Government’s decision in relation to the future of CIL, we would recommend that the evidence base is adjusted to consider potential policy changes which would have a bearing on viability. For example, the Housing White Paper indicates the intention to change the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) to require the delivery of 10% affordable home ownership on development sites; which will have an impact on the Council’s affordable housing policy and potentially on the viability of development schemes. It is recognised that the Council have recently adopted the Local Plan, and this was accompanied by a Viability Appraisal (September 2012) and Viability Study Refresh (March 2015); but it is noted that the level of detail that a Viability Assessment is considered under within the CIL process is greater than the local plan process as a result of the CIL rate being fixed, and that the cost of CIL, in addition to local plan requirements, results in the viability buffer decreasing further. Whilst we provide more general comment in respect to the policy basis, guidance and appropriate process, this representation focuses on a number of significant concerns which we raise in respect to assumptions and viability evidence underpinning the PDCS.

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 3

These comments are intended to inform the future Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) and its evidence base, in order to ensure that the Council and the Examiner have the confidence that the Charging Schedule meets the requirements of Regulation 14 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). We have also used these representations to raise a number of policy and procedural matters which need to be addressed. These matters do not necessarily have a bearing on the rates set out within the Charging Schedule but are nevertheless important to the operation of CIL post-implementation.

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 4

Policy Background In reviewing the Council’s PDCS we have had regard to national policy, guidance and legislation; including, Part 11 of the Planning Act 2008, Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended), National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) and the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG). Planning Act 2008 (as amended)

Section 205 (2) of Part 11 of the 2008 Act (as amended by the Localism Act 2011) states that: “In making the regulations the Secretary of State shall aim to ensure that the overall purpose of CIL is to ensure that costs incurred in supporting the development of an area can be funded wholly or partly by owners or developers of land in a way that does not make development of the area economically unviable.” Section 212 of the Planning Act requires the examiner to consider whether the "drafting requirements" have been complied with and, if not, whether the non-compliance can be remedied by the making of modifications to the DCS. The "drafting requirements" mean the legal requirements in Part 11 of the Planning Act and the CIL Regulations so far as relevant to the drafting of the charging schedule. In considering the "drafting requirements", examiners are required in particular to have regard to the matters listed in Section 211(2) and 211(4). This requires examiners to consider whether the relevant charging authority has had regard to the following matters:

- Actual and expected costs of infrastructure; - Matters specific by the CIL Regulations relating to the economic viability of development; - Other actual and expected sources of funding for infrastructure; and - Actual or expected administrative expenses in connection with CIL.

Regulation 14 of the CIL Regulations (as amended) expands on these requirements, explaining that charging authorities must, when striking an appropriate balance, have regard to:

- The desirability of funding from CIL (in whole or in part), the actual and expected estimated total cost of infrastructure required to support the development of its area, taking into account other actual and expected sources of funding; and

- The potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development

across its area. National Planning Policy Framework

It is important that the preparation of CIL is in the spirit of the NPPF, notably that it is delivery-focused and “positively prepared”1.

1 Paragraph 182, National Planning Policy Framework, March 2012

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 5

The NPPF outlines 12 principles for both plan making and decision taking, notably that planning should “proactively drive and support sustainable economic growth”2. Plan making should “take account of market signals such as land prices and housing affordability” and that “the Government is committed to ensuring that the planning system does everything it can to support sustainable economic growth”3. Furthermore, the NPPF refers to the “cumulative impacts”4 of standards and policies relating to the economic impact of these policies (such as affordable housing) and that these should not put the implementation of the Plan at serious risk. Existing policy requirements should therefore be considered when assessing the impact of CIL on development viability. The NPPF calls for local authorities to boost significantly the supply of housing5. It requires local authorities to: Meet the full, objectively assessed needs for housing, including identifying key sites;

- Identify deliverable sites to provide five years worth of supply and developable sites further ahead; - Provide a housing trajectory for the plan period describing how the five year supply is to be maintained.

To be deliverable, sites should be “available now, offer a suitable location for development now, and be achievable with a realistic prospect that housing will be delivered on site within five years and in particular that development of the site is viable” (my emphasis) (#footnote 11, NPPF). The NPPF expressly states that CIL “should be worked up and tested alongside the Local Plan” and “should support and incentivise new development”6. To comply with this policy, CIL Charging Schedules must be demonstrated to have positive effects on development and have regard to an up-to-date Local Plan. The absence of adverse effects on the economic viability of development, whether serious or otherwise is not enough to justify CIL proposals. Charging Authorities have a positive duty when it comes to setting CIL rates and formulating their approach on the application of CIL. Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) In 2014 the Government published the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) which provides technical guidance on a series of planning related topics; including CIL. This sets out that Charging Schedules should be consistent with, and support the implementation of, up-to-date relevant Plans7; and focuses on the need to ensure an appropriate balance is struck as per Regulation 148. The need for “appropriate available evidence to inform the Draft Charging Schedule” (as per Schedule 211(7) (a) of the 2008 Act9.

2 Ibid, Criterion 3, March 2012 3 Ibid, Paragraph 19, March 2012 4 Ibid, Paragraph 174, March 2012 5 Ibid, Paragraph 47, March 2012 6 Ibid, Paragraph 175, March 2012 7 Paragraph 10, Reference ID: 25-010-20140612, Planning Practice Guidance, revision date 12 June 2014 8 CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) 9 Paragraph 19, Reference ID: 25-019-20140612, Planning Practice Guidance, revision date 12 June 2014

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 6

The policy direction from central government is very much towards facilitating development. This policy imperative should have a major material bearing on the CIL rates. This applies to the evidence to support the balance reached between the desirability of funding infrastructure through CIL and the potential effects on economic viability of development across that area. The Guidance states that it is up to charging authorities to decide how much potential development they are willing to put at risk through CIL (the “appropriate balance”). Clearly this judgement needs to consider the wider planning priorities including the development plan targets and NPPF objective of ‘boosting’ housing supply. Furthermore, the CIL Guidance outlines that CIL receipts are not expected to pay for all infrastructure but a “significant contribution”10. The overall approach and rate of CIL will have to pay attention to the development plan and intended delivery. The Guidance also states that charging authorities may adopt differential rates in relation to:

- Geographical zones within the charging authority’s boundary - Types of development; and/or - Scales of development11

It explains that where a particular type or scale of development has low, very low or zero viability, the charging authority should consider setting low or zero rates for that type of development. The opportunity to define a CIL rate by development scale is important in this instance. Non-Statutory Guidance

In addition to the regulations and statutory guidance, two specific non-statutory guidance documents have been published which are directly relevant to the CIL rate setting process. These two guidance documents have been recognised by Inspectors elsewhere as valuable sources of advice regarding the approach to, and assumptions to be used in, the setting of CIL levy rates for residential development. The two documents are:

- Financial Viability in Planning, RICS (August 2012) and - Viability Testing Local Plans, Local Housing Delivery Group (June 2012) (‘Harman Report’)

Reference is made to these guidance documents where relevant throughout this representation.

10 Paragraph 95, Reference ID 25-095-20140612, Planning Practice Guidance, revision date 12 June 2014

11 Paragraph 21, Reference ID 25-021-20140612, Planning Practice Guidance, revision date 12 June 2014

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 7

Local Plan Delivery The Local Plan

Cornwall’s Local Plan, adopted November 2016, sets out the strategic policies governing development in Cornwall over the plan period 2010 to 2030. Policy 2a seeks delivery of a minimum 52,500 units and 2,550 bed spaces for older persons. The 52,500 unit requirement is subsequently disaggregated to Community Network Areas (CNA) and individual settlements. Policy 8 sets out the affordable housing requirements across Cornwall; which for sites of a net increase of more than 10 dwellings, or combined gross floorspace of more than 1,000 square metres, requires delivery of between 25-50% affordable housing provision depending on which of five zones the development falls within. Table 1 of the Local Plan sets out that up to March 2016, 13,991 units have been delivered, and in addition 21,752 units have planning permission but have not yet been completed. The Council are assuming windfall delivery over the period of 2021-2030 of 7,200 units. This leaves a residual requirement for circa 9,550 additional units to be identified. The Council are progressing a Site Allocations DPD which was recently subject to a consultation under Regulation 18 (Reg 18). The consultation draft is dated September 2016, and it is this document which is considered within this representation. The Reg 18 document seeks to allocate development sites in a number of key settlements across Cornwall; however locations where a Neighbourhood Development Plan (NDP) is coming forward will not be allocating sites through the DPD. The Reg 18 consultation identified a range of housing sites, from 13 units (H11) to 1,000 units (SLT-UE1). The allocations combined with the delivery of existing commitments12, and the windfall allowance identified in the adopted Local Plan are envisaged to meet the entire 52,500 housing requirement. Housing Delivery

The Council’s most recent assessment of five year housing land supply indicates their position that there is a 5.25 year supply across Cornwall; with a surplus of 779 units (Cornwall Monitoring Report, September 2016). The recently adopted Local Plan did not seek to allocate development sites, and as such the Inspector did not look in detail at the five year housing land supply position; considering that it was “neither necessary nor appropriate to review further the current status of the 5 year land supply position” (#149, IR 23 September 2016). It is recognised that the ability to demonstrate a five year supply within Cornwall is disputed by the development industry, and that alternate evidence indicates that the housing land supply is significantly lower than currently published.

12 Including NDP allocations against CNA and settlement residual requirements

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 8

In any event, the shortfall in delivery to date renders the need to increase delivery per annum to circa 3,125 units from recently observed delivery rates which have averaged just 2,331 per annum over the initial six years of the plan period. The substantial increase in delivery per annum, alongside the delays in bringing forward the DPD and the reliance on NDPs in some locations to deliver strategic sites, raises a significant concern in relation to short and medium term housing delivery. This will necessitate the delivery of sites as part of the Council’s ‘windfall’ allowance, but also through the five year housing land supply mechanism. This is pertinent within the rate setting exercise, with it necessary to consider the viability of sites likely to come forward in the short to medium term beyond infill and draft allocations. Differential Rates for Large Residential Sites We welcome the PDCS’s position that strategic sites will be charged at a nil rate; with larger development sites subject to specific viability considerations and s106 agreements offering the opportunity to secure bespoke infrastructure delivery. We request clarification in respect to what constitutes a ‘strategic site’ for the purposes of the CIL Charging Schedule. The consultation document references the emerging Site Allocations DPD. We therefore assume that strategic sites for the purposes of the nil-CIL rate constitute all the emerging allocations within the DPD. This is supported. However, there is no distinction between larger development sites identified within the emerging DPD, and those delivered through NDP allocations or through windfall and five year housing land supply applications. Infrastructure associated with larger sites through these routes is also more appropriately secured via bespoke s106/s278 agreements. This issue would be overcome through the setting of a site size differential CIL rate as opposed to differential rates based upon geographically defined locations (e.g. allocated areas) and we strongly recommend that the Charging Authority review the residential rates for larger sites and include a single category for all large / strategic sites, irrespective of whether they are allocated. The 2014 Amendment Regulations allows this approach, and it is also reflected in the PPG13. This approach would ensure that the Charging Schedule reflects the Council’s intentions in respect to using bespoke infrastructure agreements to support the delivery of strategic sites across Cornwall.

13 Paragraph 21, Reference ID 25-021-20140612, Planning Practice Guidance, revision date 12 June 2014

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 9

Viability Evidence Objections In establishing the assumptions to be used in the Viability Study (December 2016), very careful attention is required to validate / sense check each component of the appraisals to ensure that they are reasonable and logical. It is important that the key assumptions are also set out and justified in the Viability Study in order that these can be reviewed and tested by all interested parties. We have a number of concerns in respect to the assumptions used and the evidence supporting the Viability Study. Build Costs We support the recognition that base build costs are likely to be higher than BCIS across some part of Cornwall, and the decision to therefore increase the CIL viability buffer to provide for flexibility in this regard is an appropriate response to this risk. Abnormal Development Costs We raise a significant concern in respect to the Viability Study’s exclusion of an allowance for abnormal development costs. The RICS Professional Guidance entitled ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ (2012). This states at paragraph E.3.2.4.1 that:

“A typical viability assessment includes provisions for exceptional costs. This might include an unusual sewerage connection facility, high levels of site contamination and the need for extensive remedial works, flooding, site boundary and stabilisation works, particularly if there are substructure obstacles to overcome. These exceptional site costs, or ‘abnormals’, inflate costs as well as adding to the timeframe for the delivery of a scheme. Historic costs may also be reasonable and appropriate.”

Whilst the theoretical proposition may be that the additional abnormal costs will be deducted from the land value, the actual proposition is that there will be a balancing act between developer profit and land value. In practice, resulting in the development sites subject to abnormal costs proving less desirable development opportunities for promoters or developers, who will instead focus on alternate opportunities. The Viability Study already recognises this within its consideration of increased build costs, indicating that whilst this could result in a decrease in land value, the potential result is that the site is disincentivised from coming forward (#4.15). The Viability Study should include an appropriate allowance for abnormal costs, so as not to disadvantage the delivery of those sites where significant abnormal costs exist. Market Values

We request further evidence is provided to support the open market values set out in Figure 3.3. The Viability Study, at p66, indicates that these are based on property transactions over a 10 year period (both re-sale and new

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 10

build), the removal of outliers and subsequent adjustment to respond to new build premiums (an upwards adjustment to market values in low value zones, and a downwards adjustment in high value zones). This approach is supported in principle, however we would expect the more detailed analysis to be published as part of the DCS to ensure that representators are able to ascertain the source of the market values utilised in the Viability Study. It is recommended that a sense check against recent new build transactions is produced to demonstrate that the open market values used are reflective of current market conditions given the figures appeared to be based upon a 10 year analysis period. Benchmark Land Values

We request that the evidence supporting the Benchmark Land Values, Figure 3.4, is published as part of the CIL evidence base, and that consideration is given to the updating of this evidence. The Viability Study references the local plan evidence base, but the most recent assessment, Viability Study Refresh (March 2015), is based upon 2014 data. It is not clear what constitutes a ‘large scale greenfield’ site for the purposes of the viability appraisals and the Benchmark Land Value assumptions. We are concerned in relation to the references made within the Viability Study, at paragraphs 5.3 and Executive Summary #3, that the benchmark land value has been adjusted to discount undevelopable land area. The Benchmark Land Values utilised in the viability appraisals must be based upon gross area; not net developable area. This would result in a lower Benchmark Land Value being used within the viability and as a result, they would show an unrealistic surplus for a CIL charge. Section s106 and 278 Costs The allowance made for section 106 and 278 agreements post implementation of CIL at £2,000 per unit is not evidenced. The future relationship between CIL and Section 106 agreements is extremely important to maintain viability. Both serve legitimate purposes in supporting infrastructure delivery and both have a financial burden on residential developments. It is imperative that there is a clear and transparent relationship between the two infrastructure funding mechanisms and that both developers and the Charging Authority have a shared understanding of the role of each. The PPG sets out that: “As background evidence, the charging authority should also provide information about the amount of funding collected in recent years through s106 agreements. This should include information on the extent to which their affordable housing and other targets have been met”14. We would encourage the Council to provide this information as part of the evidence base to the DCS consultation.

14 Paragraph 18, Reference ID: 25-018-20140612, Planning Practice Guidance, revision date 12 June 2014

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 11

It is also noted that the consultation does not include a draft Regulation 123 List alongside the PDCS and as such, it is not possible for representators to comment on the future relationship between planning obligations and CIL. We would expect the DCS consultation to include a draft Regulation 123 List for consultation. Infrastructure/Opening Up Costs We support the inclusion of infrastructure/opening up costs within the Viability Study. At the outset, we request clarification in respect to the rates used within the appraisals; as there appears to be a degree of discrepancy between p15, #5.3 and #6.4. It is also necessary to demonstrate that the values used within the viability appraisals are reasonable. The case studies identified within Figure 5.1 indicate the following opening up costs have been assumed; which equate to the following per unit allowance: Table 1: Infrastructure Costs

Type Dwellings Opening up / net ha

Opening up for site

Opening up / unit

7 70 £50,000 £100,000 £1,428

8 120 £100,000 £343,000 £2,858

These costs fall below the values given within the Harman Report (2012) which indicated infrastructure costs of £17,000 – £23,000 per dwelling; these figures updated in line with BCIS 2016 Index would equate to £20,643 - £27,929 per dwelling. These infrastructure costs are significantly greater than the assumptions within the Viability Study. We would recommend that the allowance is increased in line with the recommendations made in the Harman Report.

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 12

CIL Implementation Instalment Policy

It is recognised that the Council intend to publish their proposed instalment policy with the DCS consultation. The implementation of an instalment policy is critical in ensuring that the implementation of CIL can respond to developer cashflow; notably in respect of upfront infrastructure costs typically associated with larger developments.

As set out in the PPG: “An instalment policy can assist the viability and delivery of development by taking account of financial restrictions, for example the viability and delivery of development by taking account of financial restrictions, for example in areas such as development of homes within the buy to let sector. Few if any developments generate value until

they are complete either in whole or in phases. Willingness to allow an instalments policy can be material

consideration in assessing the viability of proposed levy rates”15 (my emphasis). An instalment policy should be included which reflects the timing of delivery of any development, to ensure that CIL does not put unnecessary pressure on cashflow and viability. It is recommended that a different approach is taken in relation to larger development sites; reflecting the particular delivery issues associated with these. Savills recommends the following thresholds: Table 2: Recommended Instalments Policy CIL Liability Number of Instalments Payments

Up to £25,000 1 Full payment within 120 days of commencement

£25,001 - £100,000 2 120 days after commencement 50% 8 months after commencement 50%

£100,001 - £250,000 3 120 days after commencement 20% 8 months after commencement 40% 12 months after commencement 40%

£250,001 - £500,000 4 60 days after commencement 25% On completion of 25% dwellings 25% On completion of 50% dwellings 25% On completion of 75% dwellings 25%

Greater than £500,001 4 60 days after commencement 25% On completion of 25% dwellings 25% On completion of 50% dwellings 25% On completion of 75% dwellings 25% With opportunity to be discussed with the LPA on a site by site basis.

15 Paragraph 55; Reference ID: 25-055-20140612, Planning Practice Guidance, revision date 12 June 2014.

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 13

Regulation 123

It is imperative that there is a transparent and easily understood approach when it comes to CIL and s106. Once adopted, a Charging Authority should only make changes to the Regulation 123 List when it is confident that this would not have a negative bearing on the output of the viability evidence underpinning the Charging Schedule. We would expect that a draft Regulation 123 List is published as part of the future DCS consultation, alongside the additional evidence detailed above in respect to recently secured planning obligations. Payment In Kind

We support the use of the In Kind Payment mechanism. This allows Councils to use flexibility when delivering infrastructure across the plan area, and to respond positively to opportunities for on site delivery of infrastructure to meet wider needs than site specific mitigation.

We recommend the inclusion of details with the DCS in respect to the process which the Council would expect developers to take should they be seeking to deliver infrastructure In Kind. Exceptional Circumstances Relief

We encourage the Council to identify at the outset that the relief is enacted, thus ensuring the ability to respond to site specific conditions. We do not consider that there is any detriment arising from making this relief available as part of the Charging Schedule, with sufficient controls in place to manage its implementation. We would therefore encourage the Council to confirm at the outset that the relief is available. Discretionary Social Housing Relief

We encourage the Council to enact this discretionary relief, given the opportunities it affords in delivering a wider range of affordable housing tenures. Review

We encourage the Council to publish a review mechanism within the Charging Schedule. Whilst agreeing that this is not pertinent to the examination of CIL, it is important to provide clarity to developers in respect to future reviews of the proposed charging rates, particularly given the timelines associated with land and housing transactions.

Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Representations by Savills

Bovis Homes and Redrow Homes February 2017 14

Conclusions and Recommendations These representations have been produced to assist the Council in setting a CIL charge for residential development which strikes the appropriate balance required by the CIL Regulations, and which will not put the overall delivery of development at serious risk. At the outset, we request clarity in the approach to the nil-rated strategic sites, and how this rate would function in practice. It is important to recognise that the aspirations and objectives of the Council in setting a nil-rate for strategic sites, in response to the opportunity to deliver infrastructure through bespoke obligations, is equally applicable to strategic sites coming forward within a NDP, as windfall or under the five year housing land supply mechanism. On this basis, we encourage the Council to consider a site size threshold as opposed to a geographically based nil-rate. We have raised a number of concerns and queries in respect to the assumptions used within the Viability Study, and identified where there is a lack of detailed evidence to justify appraisal inputs. Our intention in this respect is to ensure that the evidence base and charging schedule coming forward as part of the DCS is robust. Finally, we have made a number of recommendations on the successful implementation of CIL, and would encourage the Council to take these into account when progressing to the DCS stage.

Appeal Decision Hearing held on 13 April 2016 Site visit made on 13 April 2016

by Siobhan Watson BA(Hons) MCD MRTPI

an Inspector appointed by the Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government

Decision date: 19 May 2016

Appeal Ref: APP/V3120/W/15/3141368

The appeal is made under section 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 against a refusal to grant planning permission.

The appeal is made by Mr R Williams (Blue Cedar Homes) against the decision of Vale of White Horse District Council.

The application Ref P15/V0712/FUL, dated 25 March 2015, was refused by notice dated 16 September 2015.

The development proposed is the demolition of existing building (previously used as a care home) and the construction of 10 “age restricted” dwellings (including 1 bungalow)

with access, car parking and other facilities.

Decision

1. The appeal is allowed and planning permission is granted for the demolition of existing building (previously used as a care home) and the construction of 10 “age restricted” dwellings (including 1 bungalow) with access, car parking and

other facilities at in accordance with the terms of the application, Ref, P15/V0712/FUL

dated, 25 March 2015 subject to the conditions in the attached schedule.

Main Issue

2. The main issue is whether the provision of affordable housing would be appropriate in the context of the viability of the development, the National Planning Policy Framework, development plan policy and all other material planning considerations.

Reasons

3. The appeal site is a large detached building which is currently vacant and was last used as a care home. The building stands in large grounds which contain a number of mature trees subject to a Tree Preservation Order. There is no dispute that the site is suitable for housing development. The parties also agree that there is an identified need for both affordable housing and housing for older people. Policy H17 of the Adopted Vale of White Horse District Council Local Plan 2011 (the LP) indicates that 40% of dwellings should be affordable. The Council does not have a 5 year housing land supply (HLS), and it was agreed at the hearing that its current HLS is 4.2 years.

4. The Council’s Supplementary Planning Guidance Affordable Housing advises that if a developer considers that the criteria in Policy H17 cannot be fulfilled,

Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3141368

2

evidence will need to demonstrate why the level of provision sought by the Council would make the development unviable. It also says that in some cases it may be accepted that the provision of other housing objectives may reduce the amount of affordable housing that can be reasonably provided.

5. Paragraph 173 of the National Planning Policy Framework advises that to ensure viability, the costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for affordable housing, should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable. The Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) says that decisions must be underpinned by an understanding of viability, ensuring realistic decisions are made to support development.

6. The PPG does not provide a single approach for assessing viability but points in the direction of sector led guidance on viability methodologies and says that one of the principles for understanding viability is “evidence based judgement” which is informed by relevant available facts. It requires a realistic understanding of the costs and the value of the development in the local area and an understanding of the operation of the market. It says that for older people’s housing, the specific scheme format may be a factor in assessing viability.

7. In assessing the viability of the appeal scheme, the principal areas of disagreement between the 2 main parties are the benchmark site value and development costs.

Benchmark Site Value

8. The Council and the appellant fundamentally disagree over the market value of the land. The Council has arrived at a land value of £1m whereas the appellant is of the view that it is worth £1.35m. Central to this disagreement is whether or not the site is valued for a realistic alternative use that complies with planning policy as required by the PPG1.

9. The appellant has worked out a site value based on evidence of land transactions on other housing sites in the area. This is in accordance with the advice in the PPG which indicates that in assessing a return to the developer comparable schemes or data sources should be reflected wherever possible. Whilst I acknowledge that the site does not have a specific housing allocation, the Council accept that the use of the site for housing would be policy compliant.

10. The Council accepted at the hearing that the appellant’s comparable schemes were policy compliant although pointed out that 2 of them did not have to provide affordable housing and therefore were not directly comparable to the appeal site. That said, the Council did accept that the other 4 sites were relevant comparators in terms of complying with Policy H17 as they had each provided 40% affordable housing. Therefore, in using these 4 sites as comparators, the calculation of land value by the appellant has taken into account the need to provide affordable housing.

11. However, the Council disputed the appellant’s methodology of working out a

value based on the size of the developable area of the site because it was of 1 Paragraph: 024 Reference ID: 10-024-20140306

Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3141368

3

the view that it should be worked out on a plot value basis. According to the Council, therefore, based on the plot values of the comparators, the value of the site would be lower than if worked out on a per acre value. The Council has never formally assessed if more houses could be built on the site and therefore, in its view, the appellant is attaching a “hope value” to the land in assuming that there was more than one scheme which the Council would allow.

12. I acknowledge that there has not been permission for a higher density scheme on the site but at the hearing the Council accepted that up to 15 units would be acceptable depending upon the exact details of the scheme. The Council did not provide any real evidence to substantiate the claim that 15 houses might not be acceptable, and therefore, based on the size of the plot and its context amongst estate housing, I disagree that the valuation of the land should be limited to 10 plots.

13. Furthermore, as the comparators were higher density developments with smaller dwellings than the appeal scheme, their plot values would be clearly lower than those of the larger appeal plots. Therefore, I consider that the appellant’s methodology in using price per acre is more realistic than using price per plot.

14. The site has a developable area of 1.65 acres. The 4 comparators which provided 40% affordable housing achieved between £803,000 and £1.43m per net developable acre. If their values are applied to the net developable area of the appeal site, the land value would be between some £1.3m and £2.2m. In the absence of any conflicting comparable evidence from the Council, the appellant’s view that the market value of the site would be £1.5m, with planning permission in place, does not seem unreasonable.

15. Another area of dispute is the amount of deduction from the £1.5m for planning risk. The appellants have deducted 10% from that figure to arrive at their benchmark site value of £1.35m. The Council say that a 20% risk would be more appropriate citing that this was the figure accepted by the Inspector in the Shinfield Appeal2. However, I do not know the full circumstances of that case and the two proposals are vastly different: the Shinfield appeal was for up to 128 dwellings on a much larger site with very different characteristics in terms of policy and use; in a different geographical area and had other planning considerations in addition to affordable housing. Therefore, the Shinfield case is not directly comparable to the appeal scheme. Given the acceptance by the Council that housing development on the site would be policy compliant, I consider that the planning risk is minimal and therefore a 10% risk is appropriate in this particular case.

16. I therefore consider the appellant’s benchmark site value to be more convincing than the Council’s which is significantly below the values of any of the comparator sites.

Development Costs

17. Many of the development costs are agreed as set out in the Statement of Common Ground. There is, however, major disagreement about core build costs (foundations up). The Council’s position is that the core build costs would

be £1,739,270 and the appellant’s position is that the core build costs would be

2 APP/X0360/A12/2179141

Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3141368

4

£2,099,350. The Council is of the view that the appellants should have submitted a detailed elemental cost plan of the construction. However, the PPG says that build costs should be based on appropriate data, for example, that of the Building Cost Information Service (BCIS) and therefore I am satisfied that the appellant has taken the correct approach in basing its costings on BCIS data.

18. Another area of dispute is whether or not the appellant has used the appropriate level of BCIS data. The appellant has used the upper quartile figures whereas the Council are of the opinion that the sales price can be achieved by using the mean average “estate housing” figures.

19. The Council says that the core build cost should be based on the BCIS mean average estate housing figures and query whether the Blue Cedar Homes (BCH) dwellings would actually cost more to build than general estate housing. However, the BCH marketing brochure explains that the housing would have features such as disabled access paths through each scheme, level thresholds, disabled access throughout the ground floor of each property, wider staircases, hidden fixings for easy installation of a stair lift, strengthened ceiling joists for the installation of a hoist above a bedroom and bathroom, larger shower enclosures and low level shower trays and stronger bathroom and shower room walls to allow for later adaptations. It seems to me therefore, that there are additional costs in providing these enhanced specifications.

20. The BCH dwellings would have a sales price significantly greater than the mid range estate housing. I heard that the BCH scheme would cost some £19 per SqFt more to build than the estate houses which would give an enhanced value over the estate housing of some £64 per SqFt. Therefore, as the BCH dwellings are projected to sell for substantially more per SqFt than the estate housing, I consider it appropriate to use the BCIS upper quartile costs.

21. It is not disputed that in addition to the core build costs, there would be an additional amount for “abnormal costs” and “external costs”. There is broad agreement on the abnormal costs. However, the Council admitted at the hearing that it has not accounted for external costs, (such as estate roads, drives, patios, sewers, and the turfing of gardens) which, according to the appellant, would be in the region of £400,000 for the whole of the development.

Summary of Benchmark Site Value and Development Costs

22. The parties are £350,000 apart in terms of benchmark site value and £360,080 in terms of core build costs. The appellant’s calculations leave a negative residual land value which means that there is no room for providing affordable housing in any form. These matters are not a precise science and involve an element of judgement. Notwithstanding the fact that I find the appellant’s

evidence convincing; even if I had accepted the Council’s benchmark site value and core build costs, a big hole has been left by the Council not accounting for external works. Therefore, the external works would, in any event, wipe out the surplus indicated in the Council’s evidence.

Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3141368

5

Other Matters

23. At the hearing the Council suggested that the appellant should have explored different forms of housing development on the site to see if it could find an alternative viable scheme. However, this approach is not supported by national planning policy and I am mindful of the advice in the PPG which says that where the viability of a development is in question, local planning authorities should look to be flexible in applying policy requirements.

24. I note the Council’s reference to an appeal decision in Islington3. However, I explain above why I consider that the appellant’s land value reflects policy requirements. Therefore, I consider that the Government Legal Department’s response to the Council’s legal challenge to the reasoning in that decision is consistent with my reasoning in this appeal. Furthermore, Islington Council was not granted leave to appeal.

25. I note third party comments in respect of access and parking. However, I have no material evidence that the parking arrangements or access would harm highway safety and I note that the Council’s highway engineer raised no

objections to the proposal. I consider that the distances between proposed and existing properties are satisfactory and there would be no unacceptable impact upon the living conditions of nearby occupiers. I also note neighbours’ comments in respect of the loss of the existing building but I have no reason to believe that it is of any special historic or architectural interest and therefore, there is no compelling reason to retain it.

Conclusion

26. For the above reasons, I am satisfied that the scheme would not be viable if affordable housing were provided in any form. The failure to provide affordable housing would be in conflict with LP Policy H17. However, I need to take into account other material considerations: The proposal would accord with the Council’s SPG; the Framework, and the PPG; and would provide significant benefits in terms of adding to the supply and mix of housing in the area.

27. I therefore conclude that the provision of affordable housing would not be appropriate in the context of the viability of the development, the National Planning Policy Framework, and all other material planning considerations. Therefore, taking into account all material considerations I allow the appeal subject to conditions.

Conditions

28. I have considered the conditions set out in the Statement of Common Ground in accordance with the Planning Practice Guidance. In addition to the standard implementation condition it is necessary, in the interests of precision, to define the plans with which the scheme should accord. Conditions concerning external materials, the bin store, landscaping and tree protection are required in the interests of the character and appearance of the area. A condition is required for the satisfactory drainage of the site; conditions are required in respect of visibility splays, site access, the surfacing of parking spaces/drives/road in the interest of highway safety; conditions in respect of birds and bats are necessary in the interest of biodiversity. A condition limiting

3 APP/V5570/A/14/2227656

Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3141368

6

the age of the occupiers of the dwellings is necessary in the interest of the provision of accommodation for older people in the area. Conditions 4, 3, 7, and 10 are pre-commencement conditions as these matters cannot be satisfactorily dealt with at any other time.

Siobhan Watson

INSPECTOR

Schedule

1) The development hereby permitted shall begin not later than three years from the date of this decision.

2) The development hereby permitted shall be carried out in accordance with the approved plans listed in the schedule contained within the signed Statement of Common Ground.

4) No development shall take place until samples of the materials to be used in the construction of the external surfaces of the building hereby permitted have been submitted to and approved in writing by the local planning authority. Development shall be carried out in accordance with the approved details.

3) Prior to the commencement of the development, a fully detailed sustainable foul and surface water drainage scheme for the development, including a management and maintenance plan, shall be submitted to, and approved in writing by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented in accordance with the approved details before the occupation of any dwelling and shall be maintained thereafter.

4) The development shall be carried out in accordance with the Tree Quality Survey, Arboricultural Impact Assessment & Arboricultural Method Statement by Tyler Grange dated 20 March 2015. All the trees shown as being retained shall be protected by strong fencing as shown in this statement. The fencing shall be erected in accordance with the approved details before any equipment, machinery or materials are brought onto the site for the purposes of the development, and shall be retained until all equipment, machinery and surplus materials have been removed from the site. Nothing shall be stored or placed within any fenced area, and the ground levels within those areas shall not be altered.

5) No dwelling shall be occupied until the vehicular access is widened and visibility splays at the site access are provided in accordance with the details set out in the Transport Statement , March 2015. The widened access and visibility splays shall be retained thereafter and remain free of structures or vegetation above 0.9m high.

6) No dwelling shall be occupied until the approved car parking spaces, drives and access road have been surfaced. The parking spaces shall be constructed to prevent surface water discharging onto the highway. The parking spaces, drives and access road shall be retained thereafter.

7) Before any dwelling is occupied, a scheme for the provision of bat and bird boxes shall be submitted to and approved by the local planning authority. The approved scheme shall be implemented before the occupation of any dwelling and shall be retained thereafter.

Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3141368

7

8) Any tree or hedge removal connected with the implementation of this planning permission shall be carried out outside of the bird nesting season (March to August inclusive).

9) The bin store shown on the approved plans shall be provided before the occupation of any dwelling and shall be retained thereafter.

10) All hard and soft landscaping shall be carried out in accordance with approved plan 677-01B. The works shall be carried out in accordance with a programme to be agreed in writing with the local planning authority. The written programme shall be submitted to the local planning authority before the commencement of development. Any trees or shrubs which die or become seriously damaged or diseased within 5 years of planting shall be replaced by trees and shrubs of a similar size and species to those originally planted.

11) The dwellings hereby permitted shall be occupied only by:

i) persons aged 60 or over;

ii) persons living as part of a single household with such a person or persons;

iii) persons who were living as part of a single household with such a person or persons who have since died.

APPEARANCES FOR THE APPELLANT:

Sarah Reid

Counsel

Andrew Cullen Anthony Allen Mr Simon Toft Richard Williams David Millar

Alder King LLP Allen Planning Ltd Blue Cedar Homes Blue Cedar Homes Blue Cedar Homes

FOR THE LOCAL PLANNING AUTHORITY:

Andrew Jones Elise Parish Helen Novelle Jacqui Evans Sarah Green

BPS Chartered Surveyors BPS Chartered Surveyors Vale of White Horse District Council Vale of White Horse District Council Vale of White Horse District Council

Appeal Decision APP/V3120/W/15/3141368

8

Brett Leahy Vale of White Horse District Council

INTERESTED PERSON: Peter Evans Local Resident DOCUMENTS SUBMITTED AT THE HEARING: Appeal Decision Ref: APP/V5570/A/14/2227656

Letter to the London Borough of Islington from Government Legal Department, dated 23 October 2015

6227

Text Box

037

From: Arthur GemmaTo: CIL EnquiriesSubject: FW: Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule ConsultationDate: 10 January 2017 08:35:24Attachments: image001.png

 From: Stakeholder (MMO) [mailto Sent: 06 January 2017 10:06To: Arthur GemmaSubject: RE: Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Thank you for including the MMO in your recent consulta ion submission. Please remove from yourdatabase and address further communications to . The MMO will review your document and respond to you directly should a bespoke response be required. If you do not receive a bespokeresponse from us within your deadline, please consider the following information as the MMO’s formal response. Response to your consultation The Marine Management Organisation (MMO) is a non-departmental public body responsible for the management of England’s marine areaon behalf of the UK government. The MMO’s delivery functions are; marine planning, marine licensing, wildlife licensing and enforcement,marine protected area management, marine emergencies, fisheries management and issuing European grants.

Marine Licensing

Activities taking place below the mean high water mark may require a marine licence in accordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act(MCAA) 2009. Such activities include the construction, alteration or improvement of any works, dredging, or a deposit or removal of asubstance or object below the mean high water springs mark or in any tidal river to the extent of the tidal influence. You can also apply to theMMO for consent under the Electricity Act 1989 (as amended) for offshore generating stations between 1 and 100 megawatts in England andparts of Wales. The MMO is also the authority responsible for processing and determining harbour orders in England, and for some ports inWales, and for granting consent under various local Acts and orders regarding harbours. A wildlife licence is also required for activities thathat would affect a UK or European protected marine species.

Marine Planning As the marine planning authority for England the MMO is responsible for preparing marine plans for English inshore and offshore waters. At itslandward extent, a marine plan will apply up to the mean high water springs mark, which includes the tidal extent of any rivers. As marine planboundaries extend up to the level of the mean high water spring tides mark, there will be an overlap with terrestrial plans which generallyextend to the mean low water springs mark. Marine plans will inform and guide decision makers on development in marine and coastal areas.On 2 April 2014 the East Inshore and Offshore marine plans were published, becoming a material consideration for public authorities withdecision making functions. The East Inshore and East Offshore Marine Plans cover the coast and seas from Flamborough Head toFelixstowe. For further information on how to apply the East Inshore and Offshore Plans please visit our Marine Information System. The MMOis currently in the process of developing marine plans for the South Inshore and Offshore Plan Areas and has a requirement to develop plansfor the remaining 7 marine plan areas by 2021.Planning documents for areas with a coastal influence may wish to make reference to the MMO’s licensing requirements and any relevantmarine plans to ensure that necessary regulations are adhered to. For marine and coastal areas where a marine plan is not currently in place,we advise local authori ies to refer to the Marine Policy Statement for guidance on any planning activity that includes a section of coastline oridal river. All public authorities taking authorisation or enforcement decisions hat affect or might affect the UK marine area must do so inaccordance with the Marine and Coastal Access Act and the UK Marine Policy Statement unless relevant considerations indicate otherwise.Local authorities may also wish to refer to our online guidance and the Planning Advisory Service soundness self-assessment checklist. Minerals and waste plans and local aggregate assessments If you are consulting on a mineral/waste plan or local aggregate assessment, the MMO recommend reference to marine aggregates is includedand reference to be made to the documents below:

The Marine Policy Statement (MPS), sec ion 3.5 which highlights the importance of marine aggregates and its supply to England’s (andthe UK) construction industry.

The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) which sets out policies for national (England) construction minerals supply.

The Managed Aggregate Supply System (MASS) which includes specific references to the role of marine aggregates in the widerportfolio of supply.

The National and regional guidelines for aggregates provision in England 2005-2020 predict likely aggregate demand over this periodincluding marine supply.

The NPPF informed MASS guidance requires local mineral planning authorities to prepare Local Aggregate Assessments, these assessmentshave to consider the opportunities and constraints of all mineral supplies into their planning regions – including marine. This means that evenland-locked counties, may have to consider the role that marine sourced supplies (delivered by rail or river) play – particularly where landbased resources are becoming increasingly constrained. If you wish to contact the MMO regarding our response please email us at c or telephone us on

. Kind regards, Her Majesty’s Government – Marine Management OrganisationLancaster House, Hampshire Court, Newcastle upon Tyne, NE4 7YHTel:

Web: www.gov.uk/mmoTwitter: @the MMOFacebook: /MarineManagementOrganisation Enabling sustainable growth in our marine area From: Arthur Gemma ] Sent: 21 December 2016 13:48To: CIL EnquiriesSubject: Cornwall CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation 

Dear Consultee, Cornwall Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Cornwall Council is publishing the above document for a six week consultation period. Your representations are invited betweenTuesday 3 January and 5pm on Tuesday 14 February 2017. The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is a planning charge that local authorities can apply to new development to help fundinfrastructure. The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule sets out the proposed CIL rates for development across Cornwall. The Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule is prepared in accordance with the 2008 Planning Act and the Community InfrastructureLevy Regulations 2010 (as amended), and sets out proposed CIL rates to charge on residential and non-residential developmentacross Cornwall. The following documents will be available to access at www.cornwall.gov.uk/CIL from Tuesday 3 January 2017: · Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule· Supporting evidence· Online survey response form (a downloadable representation form will also be available)· Guide to CIL and Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule leaflet· Frequently Asked Questions Hard copies of the Cornwall Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Consultation Charging Schedule consultationdocument, supporting evidence and Representation Form will also be made available for inspection upon request at the followinglocations:

Cornwall Council One Stop Shops – for locations and opening times please see http://www.cornwall.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/contacting-the-council/one-stop-shops/Cornwall Libraries (not including micro libraries) – for locations and opening times please seehttp://www.cornwall.gov.uk/default.aspx?page=24073 New County Hall reception in Truro between 8am and 5pm Monday to Friday – for location please seehttps://www.cornwall.gov.uk/council-and-democracy/contacting-the-council/county-hall-truro/

Printed copies of the Cornwall Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Consultation Charging Schedule can be purchased bycontacting the Local Plans Team at the postal/email address or contact number below. Supporting documents and other formatssuch as large print are also available. Representations should be made using the online survey accessed at www cornwall gov uk/CIL from 3 January. Alternatively, aRepresentation Form is available to download from the website and returned by post, email or hand as follows: By post: CIL/Local Plans Team

Cornwall CouncilRoom 3BPydar HousePydar StreetTruroCornwallTR1 1XU

By email: cil@cornwall.gov.uk The responses received will inform preparation of the Draft Charging Schedule which will also be consulted on, prior to submission tothe Secretary of State and subsequent examination in public. If you have any other queries regarding the consultation please contact a member of the Local Plans Team by phoning 01872224665 or by emailing cil@cornwall.gov.uk. Yours faithfully,tgw sig

Terry Grove-WhitePlanning Strategy ManagerStrategy Economy Enterprise and Environment  

This e-mail and attachments are intended for above named only and may be confidential. If they have come to you in error you musttake no action based on them, nor must you copy or show them to anyone; please e-mail us immediately atenquiries@cornwall.gov.uk.

Please note that this e-mail may be subject to recording and/or monitoring in accordance with the relevant legislation and mayneed to be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 or the Environmental Information Regulations 2004.

Security Warning: It is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that this e-mail and any attachments are virus free. TheAuthority will not accept liability for any damage caused by a virus.

The Marine Management Organisation (MMO)

The information contained in this communication is intended for the named recipient(s) only If you have received this message in error, you are hereby notified that any disclosure, copying, distribution ortaking action in reliance of the content is strictly prohibited and maybe unlawfulWhilst this email and associated attachments will have been checked for known viruses whilst within MMO systems, we can accept no responsibility once ithas left our systemsCommunications on the MMO's computer systems may be monitored and/or recorded to secure the effective operation of the system and for other lawfulpurposes MG10