Community Infrastructure Levy And Whole Plan Viability 4 July 2013

Peter Brett Associates LLP

Community Infrastructure Levy And Whole Plan Viability

4 July 2013

Steve Woolley


CIL & WPV

• Context• Infrastructure delivery implications• CIL• Making it add up – a deliverable plan• Consultation & Examination


CONTEXT


Framework• Local Plan Requirements• NPPF• CIL Legislation• CIL Guidance• ‘Harman’ Guidance


Local Plans - NPPF“…should be aspirational but realistic.”

(NPPF Para. 154)

“….should be deliverable.”(NPPF Paras. 173 & 182)

• Key elements of deliverability:• Availability of sites (NPPF Para. 47)

• Policy burdens and viability (NPPF Para. 173)

• Infrastructure delivery (NPPF Para.177)


Local Plans – Harman on viability• Guidance on assessing plan viability• Highlights the balance members need to strike


Local Plans – Infrastructure delivery

“It is ... important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion.”

(NPPF Para. 177)


Local Plans – Infrastructure delivery

• Key factors of infrastructure deliverability:• Cost and affordability• Delivery body agreement• Availability of land• Timing – for all of the above

• Increased focus on this• Plan for real-world delivery


Whole Plan Viability in a nutshell

• Using evidence to inform….• Striking the balance between

Policy / AH / Infrastructure / Viability

• Ensuring the plan is….• Sustainable• Deliverable

• ……In the real world.


Not a one-off task

“The assessment process should be iterative. Draft policies can be tested based on the assumptions agreed with local partners, and in turn those assumptions may need to be revised if the assessment suggests too much development is unviable. This dynamic process is in contrast to the consideration of viability during development management, when policy is already set. “

(Harman Page 11)


COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY


Purpose of CIL - Pro-growth

• Contributions from development• Respect viability

In order to

• Bring forward infrastructure (etc.)• Deliver the Local Plan

(Planning Act 2008 S205(2))


Why CIL? – CIL Vs S106CIL• Deals with cumulative impact• Flexible strategic fund• Most development pays• Fixed rate(s), Predictable• Major work to establish• Easy(ish) once established

‘Fairer, faster and more certain and transparent’ (DCLG)

S106• No tarriffs after 2014(5?)

• Requires development link• Many had no S106• Subject to negotiation• ‘Known Quantity’• Case by case negotiation

NB: S106 remains. R123 lets you ‘draw the CIL/S106 line’ locally.


The CIL framework

The Planning Act 2008 (as amended by Localism Act 2011)Part 11 (sections 205-225)

Purposes of CIL – broad framework of CIL – plus some detail on charging schedule examination, charities, charging authorities...

The CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended: 2011, 2012, 2013)Scope of CIL – liable parties – collection – enforcement – definitions – monitoring – procedures – exemptions and

exceptions – alterations to section 106…

Guidance and informationCIL Statutory Guidance

and CIL overview, CIL Relief, and CIL Collection documents


Key Features of CIL

• Optional for LPA to set• A Tax - Mandatory once set• Set with regard to evidence• Proceeds Pooled – no link to contributor• Spend on infrastructure to support development• S106 ‘scaled back’


Recent changes

• December 2012 CIL guidance• Focus on strategic sites• “Show and explain” how CIL will deliver plan• Clarity at Examination on s123 list and CIL v s106• More emphasis on engagement

• CIL (Amendment) Regs 2013• LPAs must pass 15-25% of CIL revenue to local

areas• No infrastructure spending tie for that %


SPENDING CIL


Spending CIL• Authorities can only spend on infrastructure to

support the development of their areas• Includes provision, improvement, replacement

operation or maintenance• “Infrastructure” includes (list in Act not exhaustive):

• flood defence• open space• recreation and sport• roads and transport facilities• education and health facilities• [not affordable housing – removed by CIL regulations]

(Planning Act 2008 S216)


• Flexible strategic fund • No connection to contributor• Proportion to neighbourhoods

• No infrastructure spending tie • S106 ‘scaled back’ – But not for AH

• Site focus & no pooling • CIL/106 mix must be transparent• Consult on CIL spending list

Spending CIL


Planning Obligations and CILCIL Regs. change use of S106 (but not S278):

• Site Focus. From April 2010 law says obligations re. buildings must be:

• Necessary to make acceptable in planning terms• Directly related• Fair and reasonably related in scale and kind(Reg. 122)

• No more s106 infrastructure tariffs, from April 2014 (15?).

• Max 5 S106s can be pooled• Does not apply to affordable housing(Reg. 123(3)

• No double charging via s106 for things to be funded from CIL, from the point CIL introduced

• Via a list of CIL spending intentions - aka. “Reg. 123 list”(Reg. 123(2))


Regulation 123 ListPossible approaches to Regulation 123(2):

• No list – this would mean you intend to fund all infrastructure via CIL - you could not use s106 for any infrastructure

• Broad list – eg. state you would use CIL to fund health infrastructure - you then could not use s106 for any health infrastructure. BUT - you could use S106 to fund other infrastructure types not on the list

• Specific/Mixed list – you state you would use to CIL to fund primary schools, but not one specific school – you then could use S106 to fund that primary school. BUT could not use it to fund other primary schools. You could use S106 to fund other infrastructure not on the list.


Regulation 123 list – Key points

• Transparency is vital – be clear• Mixed approaches must be justified• At examination, must set out:

• What will be on the list• How S106 will be used• How any S106 policies will be varied

• Good practice to include in consultation• Must consult on later changes to the list


Neighbourhood FundingIn neighbourhoods where development occurs:• If parish/local council, CA Passes over:

• If no N/hood plan - 15% to parish (£100/dwelling/yr cap)• If N/hood plan – 25% to parish (no cap)• Local council to engage with CA over infra. priorities

• If no local council, CA consults neighbourhood and spends:• If no N/hood plan – 15% (£100/dwelling/yr cap)• If N/hood plan – 25% (no cap)• CA expected to set out its neighbourhoods and

consultation methods


Neighbourhood Funding• Parish or CA may spend the 15/25% on:

• Infrastructure, or

• “anything else….concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area”

• Intention is to incentivise acceptance of development


LIABILITY


What is liable?• Development of buildings

• Where people normally go• Over 100m2 – but any size new dwelling• For which permission granted post CIL (includes PD rights)

• Net new-build GIA – charged £/m2

• Refurbishment & change of use not liable (NB dwellings)• Demolished GIA netted off, but• Only if in use for 6 mths in 12 before permission

• What doesn’t pay• Non Buildings – not liable• Permission pre-CIL (inc. outline) – not liable• Below 100m2 (except new dwelling) – not liable• Charities (exempt) & Social housing (100% relief)


Exemptions & Reliefs

• Mandatory exemption for development for charitable purposes (+ discretionary charitable investment relief)

• Mandatory 100% relief for social housing


Who pays?

• Liability runs with the land (land charge)

• Anyone can accept liability

• Incentives to do so

• Defaults to landowner(s)


Paying CIL• Liability notified with planning permission• Fixed & non-negotiable

• Virtually no scope for individual exceptions

• Due 60 days after commencement, but• LA can set instalment policy• Can agree to transfer land (but not construct infrastructure)

• Penalties for non payment• Surcharges & interest• Stop notices• Distress / sale of goods• Charging order / prison


Exceptions and Instalments • Optional Policies the CA may choose to set• Can be done at any time• Are not part of the charging schedule

• Exceptional Circumstances Policy• For rare exceptions only - severely limited by Regulations &

State Aid Law• Instalments Policy

• Must apply to all• Vary payment deadlines by (only)

• Time from commencement• Total liability• Amount and number of instalments


SETTING CIL


CIL - setting

• Optional for LPA• A Tax – must be paid• Based on evidence:

• Development in Local Plan Strategic Sites Affordable Housing

• Need for infrastructure• Viability of development


Setting a rate• CIL is designed to have a positive economic

effect – it must support the development of the authority’s area (not threaten Local Plan delivery)

(CIL Guidance Para 8)

• A CA must look at the potential effects of charges “taken as a whole” on the viability of development “across its area”

(CIL Reg 14(1)(b) )

• The law effectively recognises that the rate set may put some development at risk – this is a judgement for the CA


Pro-Growth Balance

• Must “aim to strike what appears to the LPA to be an appropriate balance between”:

Meeting all or part of the infrastructure funding gap; and

The potential impact of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area.

• Must explain this judgement at examination


Differential rates 1• Differential rates are a useful tool, but be

careful…

• Only lawful criteria are “intended use” and/or “zone”

Plus

• Differential rates must (only) be based on economic viability evidence

(CIL Reg. 13)

NB – “use” not tied to Use Classes Order


Differential rates 2• Differential rates can be used to:

• Avoid threat to viability of particular uses vital for Local Plan delivery

• Ensure development envisaged by the Local Plan can remain viable across the area, where viability differs by zone

• Maintain viability of strategic sites with particular costs eg. S106 infrastructure needs (eg primary school).

But• Avoid complex rate structures. More

differential rates mean more evidence is needed.


SETTING CIL: EVIDENCE


Charge setting evidence

The Charging Authority

“must use appropriate available evidence to inform…preparation of a charging schedule”(Planning Act 2008 S 211(7A) - with my underlining)


Charge setting evidence:1. Up to date Plan

• CIL Guidance: “Gov’t expects ……‘appropriate evidence’ includes an up-to-date Plan for the area….”

• NPPF: “where practical, CIL should be worked up alongside the Local Plan”


Charge setting evidence:2. Infrastructure

• Base evidence on IDP supporting the Plan • Supplement if necessary

• Demonstrate an infrastructure funding gap• Need to fund infrastructure vs. existing funding streams

• Consider CIL / S106 balance• Clear S106 policies in support• CIL spending priorities (R123 list)


Charge setting evidence:3. Viability

• Area-based approach • not threaten Plan as a whole

• Not an exhaustive evidence base• Appropriate range of site types• Particular focus on strategic sites

• Evidence “informs” the charge• No need to exactly mirror evidence - pragmatism

• Take policy costs into account e.g. affordable housing

• CIL must leave room to deliver them


Exceptions and instalments• Ignore these when testing viability:

• Exceptional Circumstances Policy• Instalments Policy

• Charging schedule must stand on its own• Proposed use of these policies is irrelevant

to the examination’s consideration of viability


How does it look?



Consultation• Engage developers and other LAs (neighbours,

upper & lower tier) early - and throughout the process:• On viability• On spending proposals and CIL / s106 balance

• CIL Guidance emphasises the need for this

• Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule – no legal minimum. Guidance suggests 6 weeks. Minimum statutory consultees listed.

• Draft Charging Schedule – minimum 4 week consultation period. Guidance suggests 6 weeks(CIL Regs 15 & 16)


Examination

• Secretary of State has no role• LA appoints “independent” person with “appropriate

qualifications and experience” to consider representations and establish:• The law has been complied with• Charging schedule supported by appropriate available

evidence• Rates consitent with and informed by evidence of viability

across the area• Evidence shows rates would not threated delivery of plan

as a whole


Points from CIL examinations

• Much discussion of infrastructure, but examiners not challenging IDPs

• Established that rates “informed” by evidence• Representations focus on viability assumptions• Examiners looking for a reasonable viability

‘buffer’• Potential threat to AH policy delivery has become

a key focus

NB: new requirement to “show & explain” the balance


Direction of travel? 2013 consultation

15 areas for possible change - including:• Extension to pooled s106 deadline - 2015?• Require evidence on “appropriate balance”?• Differential rates by size?• Allow payment ‘in kind’?• AH relief for Discounted Market Sale homes?• Easier to net off existing space?• Exemptions policies easier to apply?• Exempting self-build?


MAKING IT ADD UP:VIABILITY & DELIVERABILITY


NPPF on WPV“Plans should be deliverable”

“….the sites and the scale of development identified in the plan should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be developed viably is threatened.”

“…important to ensure that there is a reasonable prospect that planned infrastructure is deliverable in a timely fashion”

NPPF, Paras. 173 & 177.


CIL Guidance Deliver the Plan – Show how:

“…charging authorities should show and explain how their proposed levy rate (or rates) will contribute towards the implementation of their relevant Plan and support the development of their area. As set out in the NPPF in England, the ability to develop viably the sites and the scale of development identified in the Local Plan should not be threatened.”

April 2013 CIL Guidance, Para 8.


Harman

• ‘a Local Plan can be said to be deliverable if sufficient sites are viable to deliver the plan’s housing requirements over the plan period.’

• Sites are viable ‘if, after taking account of all costs, including central and local government policy and regulatory costs and the cost and availability of development finance, the scheme provides a competitive return to the developer to ensure that development takes place and generates a land value sufficient to persuade the land owner to sell the land for the development proposed.’


Viability 1 - Many impacts


Viability 2 – Key CIL / WPV variables


Viability 3 - £200k Semi


Viability 4 – Residual Valuation

Value of Completed

DevelopmentDevelopment

Costs

Residual Land Value (Site with Planning

Permission)

Development Costs include:• Construction Costs – Inc. national building standards etc.• [Site abnormals for specific sites (eg. Decontamination, burying

pylons, servicing remote greenfield)]• Finance costs• Developer Profit• Local Policy Costs – initially without CIL & affordable housing


Viability 5 - Major policy costs (excl AH & CIL)

• Carbon Policy or Design Policy• SANGS-type environmental charge• Building regulation changes• Public Open Space• Site Density• S106 (other than AH)


Viability 6 – Viable?

Residual Land Value

Benchmark Land Value

Theoretical Max £ for CIL & AH

• Benchmark land value (aka Threshold):• price a landowner in the area would sell for• For area-wide appraisals takes account of average

‘abnormal’ site preparation costs

• If the result is negative, development is not viable


Viability 7 - Assumptions• Values used are based on assumptions

• Some Plan policy related• Some market related

• These are critical to the outcome• Test the latter via Local engagement• Failure to do so could lead to:

• Hostile representations• Failure at examination


How much detail?• Harman says site typologies approach is sensible (P.11)

• ‘does not require a detailed viability appraisal of every site anticipated to come forward over the plan period… suggests a more proportionate and practical approach in which local authorities create and test a range of appropriate site typologies reflecting the mix of sites upon which the plan relies’.

• CIL Guidance April 2013 goes a bit further on site sampling (Para. 27)• ‘charging authority should sample directly an appropriate range of types of

sites …focus should be in particular on strategic sites on which the relevant Plan relies and those sites (such as brownfield sites) where the impact of the levy on economic viability is likely to be most significant.’

• Harman reminds us this is high level (P.15) • ‘The role of the test is not to give a precise answer as to the viability of every

development likely to take place during the plan period. No assessment could realistically provide this level of detail…rather, it is to provide high level assurance that the policies within the plan are set in a way that is compatible with the likely economic viability of development needed to deliver the plan.’


So, what development to test?Plan priorities:• Housing is the major element

• Specific strategic sites • ‘Typical’ sites

• Plus other plan priorities• Offices and industrial ?• Retail?• Hotels?• Student accommodation?


NPPF on Housing Deliverabilityviability and time• For housing - Plan must show

• Deliverable sites over Yrs 0-5 (viable, suitable location, available - now)

• Developable sites over Yrs 6-10 + onwards if possible (suitable location, ‘reasonable prospect for viable development at the point envisaged’)

NPPF Para. 47

• Time of development is critical


So, to test no threat to delivery• Examine the emerging plan• Test GEOGRAPHY + POLICY + TIME

• Geography: dev’t location and viability zones• Policy: cost effects on viability (inc. CIL, AH)• Time:

• Check Yr. 0-5 sites ‘deliverable’ (viable, available, suitable location), now

• Check Yr. 6-10+ sites ‘developable’ (reasonable prospect of viable development)

• Then tweak policy costs up/down• Iterative process




Price Contours


Location of development


Check the hypothesis: development appraisals • Development appraisals are necessary • Price heat map only a proxy for viability testing• Formal viability testing combines

• Costs of development and• Up-to-date local sales values from agents and

developers, against• Benchmark land values (what landowner will

sell for) also from local agents, developers• Pulling together these factors gives an indication

of the CIL/AH available


The important bits

Notional scheme testedCIL theoretically payable

Residual Value Policy Off Benchmark Cost of S.106 Cost of Affordable Potential CIL overage

Value areas

No of dwellings Density Per Ha £ per unit Per £psm Per Ha £ per unit Per £psm Per Ha per unit Per £psm Per Ha £ psm Per Ha £ per sq.m

Lower Value Houses – 1 30 £689,769 £22,992 £270 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £275,400 £108 -£85,631 -£39Houses – 5 30 £690,566 £23,019 £271 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £275,400 £108 -£84,834 -£39Houses – 15 30 £617,033 £20,568 £242 £400,000 £13,333 £157 £15,000 £500 £6 £275,400 £108 -£58,367 -£29Houses – 50 30 £537,152 £17,905 £211 £400,000 £13,333 £157 £15,000 £500 £6 £275,400 £108 -£138,248 -£60Houses – 100 30 £322,552 £10,752 £126 £400,000 £13,333 £157 £15,000 £500 £6 £275,400 £108 -£352,848 -£144

Flats - 20 65 -£520,865 -£8,013 -£114 £400,000 £6,154 £87 £32,500 £500 £7 £394,875 £86 -£1,315,740 -£294Higher Value

Houses – 1 30 £1,064,821 £35,494 £418 £600,000 £20,000 £235 £15,000 £500 £6 £309,825 £122 £154,996 £55Houses – 5 30 £1,062,508 £35,417 £417 £600,000 £20,000 £235 £15,000 £500 £6 £309,825 £122 £152,683 £54Houses – 15 30 £1,006,543 £33,551 £395 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £309,825 £122 £196,718 £71Houses – 50 30 £878,206 £29,274 £344 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £309,825 £122 £68,381 £21Houses – 100 30 £618,667 £20,622 £243 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £309,825 £122 -£191,158 -£81

Flats - 20 65 £42,057 £647 £9 £500,000 £7,692 £109 £32,500 £500 £7 £447,525 £98 -£905,468 -£204


Before we start• Avoid setting CIL and other policy costs at

the maximum theoretical charge. • Because we can’t do it so precisely • We don’t know where the maximum is,

because• Markets bump up and down • All sites are different• You can’t entirely build in risk perceptions, or

market sentiment

• So we leave a buffer


So how big is ‘the buffer’?• Knock off a set percentage from the

theoretical maximum?• Too mechanical. Use professional

judgement• We take into account

• The strength of the market in each zone • (The better the market the higher we can push)• Historical performance

• This will vary by sector and/or by use


‘AH Policy off’ – possible overage for CIL with no affordable housing

Value areas

No of dwellings

Density Per Ha £ per unit Per £psm Per Ha £ per unit Per £psm Per Ha per unit Per £psm Per Ha £ psm Per Ha £ per sq.mLower ValueHouses – 1 30 £689,769 £22,992 £270 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 £189,769 £69Houses – 5 30 £690,566 £23,019 £271 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 £190,566 £69Houses – 15 30 £617,033 £20,568 £242 £400,000 £13,333 £157 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 £217,033 £79Houses – 50 30 £537,152 £17,905 £211 £400,000 £13,333 £157 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 £137,152 £48Houses – 100 30 £322,552 £10,752 £126 £400,000 £13,333 £157 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 -£77,448 -£36Flats - 20 65 -£520,865 -£8,013 -£114 £400,000 £6,154 £87 £32,500 £500 £7 £0 £0 -£920,865 -£208Higher ValueHouses – 1 30 £1,064,821 £35,494 £418 £600,000 £20,000 £235 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 £464,821 £176Houses – 5 30 £1,062,508 £35,417 £417 £600,000 £20,000 £235 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 £462,508 £175Houses – 15 30 £1,006,543 £33,551 £395 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 £506,543 £193Houses – 50 30 £878,206 £29,274 £344 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 £378,206 £142Houses – 100 30 £618,667 £20,622 £243 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £0 £0 £118,667 £41Flats - 20 65 £42,057 £647 £9 £500,000 £7,692 £109 £32,500 £500 £7 £0 £0 -£457,943 -£107




AH Policy on

Value areas

No of dwellings Density Per Ha £ per unit Per £psm Per Ha £ per unit Per £psm Per Ha per unit Per £psm Per Ha £ psm Per Ha £ per sq.m

Lower ValueHouses – 1 30 £689,769 £22,992 £270 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £91,800 £36 £97,969 £33Houses – 5 30 £690,566 £23,019 £271 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £91,800 £36 £98,766 £33Houses – 15 30 £617,033 £20,568 £242 £400,000 £13,333 £157 £15,000 £500 £6 £91,800 £36 £125,233 £43Houses – 50 30 £537,152 £17,905 £211 £400,000 £13,333 £157 £15,000 £500 £6 £91,800 £36 £45,352 £12Houses – 100 30 £322,552 £10,752 £126 £400,000 £13,333 £157 £15,000 £500 £6 £91,800 £36 -£169,248 -£72Flats - 20 65 -£520,865 -£8,013 -£114 £400,000 £6,154 £87 £32,500 £500 £7 £131,625 £29 -£1,052,490 -£236Higher ValueHouses – 1 30 £1,064,821 £35,494 £418 £600,000 £20,000 £235 £15,000 £500 £6 £103,275 £41 £361,546 £136Houses – 5 30 £1,062,508 £35,417 £417 £600,000 £20,000 £235 £15,000 £500 £6 £103,275 £41 £359,233 £135Houses – 15 30 £1,006,543 £33,551 £395 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £103,275 £41 £403,268 £152Houses – 50 30 £878,206 £29,274 £344 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £103,275 £41 £274,931 £102Houses – 100 30 £618,667 £20,622 £243 £500,000 £16,667 £196 £15,000 £500 £6 £103,275 £41 £15,392 £0Flats - 20 65 £42,057 £647 £9 £500,000 £7,692 £109 £32,500 £500 £7 £149,175 £33 -£607,118 -£139


AH set at just 5% in this case


Other things being equal, potential developer contribution is fixed by local market conditions

CIL


The “Other Balance”

If revising Plan & setting CIL this leads to


CIL

Affordable housing (S106)

Collect more CIL for infrastructure, and the amount available for affordable housing falls…


CIL

Affordable housing (S106)

…alternatively, requiring more affordable housing through S106 means less CIL for infrastructure


For a new plan - ‘Pick and Mix?’

geographically variable AH policy with geographically variable CIL. • Perhaps:

• In lower area = £0 CIL & 0% AH• In mid area = £0 CIL & X% AH• In higher area = £Y CIL & X% AH


But if you already have a Plan….

• Policies are set• May be no appetite to revisit AH elements

• Plan is King• Must aim to deliver AH target• And explain how

• One side of the “other balance” is fixed



Time factor - Which sites are sampled in more detail?

• Remember CIL guidance wants ‘strategic’ sites tested; AND

• NPPF wants to have more detail on Y0-5 sites• To satisfy both: we need to look at strategic

(bigger), near-term sites • And review Y6 onward sites


Need something like this - NPPF requires one (para. 47)


So you broadly need to know…• For the Y0-5 sites…

• Are they deliverable (viable + suitable location + available) now?

• For the Y6-10, 11-20 sites…• Are they developable (reasonable prospect of

viable development) at point envisaged?• Viability sampling needs to confirm this• Sensitivity testing on recovering values to look at

long term potential you don’t want too short a sell-by date


Viability testing on other uses

• Focus on Plan priorities:• Offices and industrial ?• Retail?• Hotels?• Student accommodation?• Residential care homes?

• Consider ‘standard charging’• Consider what is unlikely to pay:

• Exemptions, redevelopment, change of use


Home and dry?


GET THE STORY STRAIGHT


Prepare for Examination• Viability evidence is only part of what’s needed• CA needs a clear story for examiner

1. Where growth is going2. When it’s going to get built (and that it will)3. What infrastructure is needed & when, 4. How you’re going to:

• pay for necessary infrastructure eg via CIL & S106• Deliver affordable housing targets over Plan life

• Inspector understands • you don’t have a crystal ball on the economy• you don’t know where all infrastructure funding is coming from

• But increased emphasis on economic reality.


QUESTIONS?


RECAP


Handout• Sets out:

• Aim• Key objectives• Task – in stages

• But don’t forget that WPV is an iterative process


EXERCISE


Workshop Questions1. Your client is a developer. They have valuers examining the

assumptions, but want at least two other evidence issues to include in their representation. Can you help them?

2. Takeaway and betting shop operators are concerned about the effect of the charge. Could they make a representation? On what grounds?

3. Imagine SPAR have made a representation: small convenience stores under 400m2 will be hit by a £150 CIL they can ill afford. How might the LA respond?

4. Other Representations:1. Cite cashflow problems for small builders and call for phased payments for

small developments2. Say developments of under 10 homes don’t provide on site AH and so should

pay higher CIL – the ‘flat rates’ in each zone are unfair

How might the LA respond?

Documents

Community Infrastructure Levy And Whole Plan Viability 4 July 2013