Havant Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

Response to Representations February 2012

Havant Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule Background The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into force in April 2010. It allows local authorities in England and Wales to raise funds from developers undertaking new building projects in their area. The money can be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure that is needed as a result of development. This includes new or safer road schemes, flood defences, schools, hospitals and other health and social care facilities, park improvements, green spaces and leisure centres. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is granted should share some of that gain with the community which granted it. This will help fund the infrastructure that is needed to make development acceptable and sustainable. The first stage in developing the CIL rates in the Borough was to produce a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS). Consultation and Taking the Document Forward The Council consulted on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule between the 5 December 2011 and the 20 January 2012. A total of 18 individuals/organisations responded. This document details the comments made and includes the council’s response to each representation. Where the representation made was upheld the appropriate change will be carried through to the next stage. A number of representations relate to the application of CIL and further details on this will be provided in the Havant Borough CIL Implementation Plan which will be available at the time of adoption of the Charging Schedule.

Full Representations Received and Officer Response

CIL Draft Charging Schedule REG 15

Hampshire County

Council

06/0015 Mr T Ayling

110 CIL Funds The County Council has real concerns that the amounts likely to be raised under the CIL

charging schedule will be insufficient to meet the gap in funding for essential infrastructure.

The County Council's concerns about insufficient funds are noted, but the PDCS makes it clear that total

CIL funds will not meet the identified infrastructure funding gap, nor is it realistic to assume they ever

would. Spending priorities are yet to be determined, but the Borough Council does recognise the need to

work with other bodies, such as the County Council to ensure strategic and cross boundary issues are

addressed.

111 Basic Rate It is noted that community uses are proposed at £0 per sq m; it follows that in circumstances

where enabling development is needed as an alternative income stream to support community

uses that such enabling development also has a nil or reduced CIL liability justified through an

'open book approach'.

The County Council strongly encourage the Borough Council to amend the Preliminary Draft

Charging Schedule to include enabling development for community uses as a £0 rate per sq m

where 100% of the sale proceeds from such developments are re-invested to deliver new or

existing community infrastructure.

Current CIL regulations do not make any allowance for 'enabling development' to be zero-rated or

exempt from the charge. While the role of the County Council in this respect is recognised, the aim of

raising CIL funds is the same as the County Council's i.e. to invest in community infrastructure, albeit by

a less direct route. Acceding to its request would introduce an unnecessary complication into the

preparation of the Charging Schedule. The Borough Council's clear aim, as the charging authority, is

make CIL as simple and transparent as possible.

112 Other Comments The County Council is keen to work with the Borough Council in considering the implications of

both the overall funding available through CIL and other sources of income, and the

management of CIL monies once received including the publication of the Regulation 123 list.

This could be recognised in the document by inserting a statement to paragraph 3.13 of the

document along the lines that the Borough Council will work with other bodies to address

strategic and cross-boundary infrastructure and that delivered by other public authorities such

as the County Council.

Although it is recognised in paragraph 2.7 that the charging authority may grant relief from CIL

liabilities through CIL regulation 55, regulation 55 does not appear to be sufficiently flexible to

acknowledge the enabling development role of the County Council to deliver community

infrastructure. Whilst CIL does acknowledge the role of charities as exempt from CIL liability,

public organisations such as the County Council are not exempt albeit that the role of a charity

and County Council are similar in such circumstances with regards to the provision of services

to the community on a 'not for profit' basis.

On this basis the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule would have a detrimental impact on the

County Council's ability to deliver school improvements as the Education Authority through S77

of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998. The policy would also affect other County

Council improvement strategies and service rationalisations, which are either currently ongoing,

or which will emerge in the future such as the County Council's Learning Disability Strategy for

Hampshire (2009-11) entitled 'Ordinary People Leading Ordinary Lives', Project Extra Care and

Hampshire Workstyle. In these special circumstances where a 100% of the sale proceeds from

development are re-invested to enhance new or existing community infrastructure, CIL and

other S106 liabilities can greatly prejudice the financial viability and deliverability of such

community infrastructure improvements.

An alternative approach, should there be insufficient flexibility to reduce the CIL liability for

enabling development, would be to reduce the parallel S106 contributions e.g. affordable

housing, in order to deliver a financially viable development in line with Havant Core Strategy

Policy CS9 criterion 2. However, it is acknowledged that this may prejudice the Borough

Council's ability to deliver affordable housing. Therefore it is recommended that greater

flexibility within the charging schedule to acknowledge the role of enabling development for

community infrastructure is considered within the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule.

Finally, Table 1 of the preliminary draft charging schedule contains details for a number of

indicative infrastructure requirements to demonstrate a funding gap. The document

acknowledges that the figures given are only a 'snapshot' of the current situation and that the

information it contains will evolve and change as further information becomes available. The

details for each infrastructure type can be updated and clarified – details supplied.

The Council notes Hampshire County Council's request to work together to consider the implications of

overall CIL funding and the spending of CIL and will insert additional wording in the Draft Charging

Schedule as suggested.

Current CIL regulations do not make any allowance for 'enabling development' to be zero-rated or

exempt from the charge. While the role of the County Council in this respect is recognised, the aim of

raising CIL funds is the same as the County Council's i.e. to invest in community infrastructure, albeit by

a less direct route. Acceding to its request would introduce an unnecessary complication into the

preparation of the Charging Schedule. The Borough Council's clear aim, as the charging authority, is

make CIL as simple and transparent as possible.

With regard to flexibility within the Charging Schedule, advice provided by the Planning Advisory Service

Front Runner 2 Programme has stated that CIL should be the fixed cost and that if there is to be any

flexibility, this should be provided through negotiation on S106 and affordable housing.

The details shown in Table 1 are intended to show that there is an infrastructure gap, in accordance with

the regulations and that the Council is justified in charging CIL. Details in the Council's Infrastructure

Delivery Plan are however, being updated as new information becomes available.

North East Hayling

Residents Association

06/0026 Dr C G Richards

62 Other Comments This new tariff (CIL) which replaces most of the role of 106 agreements is intended to

supplement other funding streams for new infrastructure in the Borough This Association

considers it important that funds raised by this levy on development be spent to improve or

provide infrastructure in the area of that development. We note that the pending Localism Bill

proposes to allocate a meaningful proportion of levy revenues raised in each neighbourhood to

that neighbourhood. This rather begs a question about the size of the terms 'meaningful and

neighbourhood'. The temptation for the Borough to use these funds in other ways is implicit in

the figures given in Table 1 which shows the gap between requirements and alternative funding

streams for new infrastructure. Rather than supplementing other funding streams, the CIL

appears to be the sole source at present for projects other than schools.

The regulations allow for CIL income to be spent either locally or strategically. The definition of

'meaningful proportion' is yet to be agreed, but the outcome of a recent government consultation should

provide clarification. However, the spending priorities for CIL will have to be determined having regard to

the need for strategic and borough-wide infrastructure, as well as more local objectives. As details of

spending priorities are not required as part of the Charging Schedule, they will be covered in greater

detail as part of the Havant Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

The figures shown in Table 1 are intended to show that a funding gap exists, as required by the CIL

regulations. This is required to justify charging CIL in the Borough. The figures do not represent the

Council's spending priorities for CIL income, which are yet to be determined. CIL is intended to be part of

the funding stream for new infrastructure projects and other sources will need to be considered

alongside this.

63 Zero Rate This Association does not feel qualified to comment in detail on the size of payment proposed

but is surprised by the figures given for edge or out of town retail development which needs to

be restricted in favour of town centre building, which is sensibly zero rated. Perhaps it is now

too late for Havant town centre.

The figures for edge and out of town centre retail development are based on the findings of the

Economic Viability Assessment, which shows that this rate can be charged for this type of development.

The CIL rate cannot be made higher or lower in order to drive other policy objectives such as guiding

development to a particular area. The rate can only be determined by viability issues.

64 Higher Rate The higher figure for residential developments on Hayling as an incentive to landowners to

release land for development will surely result in more expensive buildings as the developer will

naturally wish to offset the larger sums he will pay a landowner and the Council, so could be

counter productive. This will not aid the construction of affordable housing and perhaps

dissuade developers from building on Hayling, a result doubtless welcomed by the majority of

Hayling residents.

The Economic Viability Assessment shows that, even after allowing for an element of affordable housing,

land values and sales prices on Hayling Island allow a higher CIL rate to be charged without that

development becoming unviable. It is not anticipated that this will dissuade developers from building on

Hayling Island.

65 Zero Rate The levy is to be applied to new dwellings of any size but not for subdivisions. Extensions are

not mentioned so are these, too, to be zero rated?

CIL is applied only to new build developments that result in at least one new dwelling or a net gain in

floorspace of at least 100 sq m. Subdivisions are therefore excluded, as are residential extensions

unless they exceed 100 sq m.

Highways Agency06/0027 Ms C Mendoza

97 Basic Rate No comment. No comment.

98 Higher Rate No comment. No comment.

99 Zero Rate No comment. No comment.

100 Other Comments No comment. No comment.

Sport England06/0033 Mr S Millett

18 Other Comments To ensure that open space is incorporated into new development and the potential of the

planned new Community Infrastructure Levy is exploited, it is important that the Council's

evidence base (a Playing Pitch Strategy) is regularly up to date. This will ensure that developer

contributions are not challenged at the planning application stage.

Sport England therefore strongly urges Havant Borough Council to prepare a Playing Pitch

Strategy, if not already completed. Further information and guidance on how to produce a

Playing Pitch Strategy can be found on the Sport England website at:

http://www.sportengland.org/facilitiesplanning/playing_field/playing_pitch_strategy.aspx

The last playing pitch update was contained in the Open Spaces Plan published in 2006. This work has

not been formally updated but the Council does monitor pitch availability and use throughout the season

and meets regularly with teams from all sports. These are the essential elements that feed any strategy

and the Council has not identified any further deficiencies.

The key findings of the pitch strategy section of the Open Spaces Plan were:

~ We have sufficient natural turf pitches

~ Quality issues with some pitches (mostly drainage)

~ Lack of artificial pitches

Through the planning system, good progress has been made in addressing these issues:

~ Drainage projects for Purbrook Heath and Emsworth Recreation Ground coming out of S106

agreements (MDA & Hampshire Farm)

~ Artificial pitches delivered or being delivered at Cowplain School, College Road Open Space,

Warblington School and a school in Leigh park.

~ New cricket pitch coming in the MDA

The Council's Open Spaces Team is confident that the strategy is still valid for the present and

short-term future (3 to 5 years) but the issue of a formal review will be raised at the next business

planning session.

Langstone Residents

Association

06/0038 Mr H Thurstan

91 Basic Rate Whilst the HBC commissioned Economic Viability Assessment suggested a sustainable CIL

rate of £80/sqm for Havant, Waterlooville and Leigh Park this was caveated by potential limits

for some sites due to site-specific issues. Too high a CIL may affect the willingness of

developers to develop such sites, affecting the build of affordable housing in the borough.

£60-70/sqm may be a more attractive CIL level to developers.

The basic rate of £84 per sq m has been set on the basis of the outcome of the Economic Viability

Assessment. In most circumstances, it is not considered that this will affect the willingness of developers

to develop. In many cases, a development would remain viable with a higher rate than that proposed.

The CIL guidelines state that rates should be set having regard to the wider situation, rather than

focusing on individual sites. A rate of £60 - £70 could be too low and compromise the Borough's ability to

deliver infrastructure.

92 Higher Rate Whilst the EVA suggests that developments in these areas could justify a CIL of around

£100/sqm, any developments in Hayling Island (and to a lesser extent Emsworth) will probably

require substantial infrastructure costs, so too high a CIL in addition may deter developers.

CIL is intended to fund some of the infrastructure required to support new development, but it is

accepted that in some circumstances, additional contributions will be required through S106 obligations

to address site specific issues. The nature of these contributions will vary but some allowance has been

built into the viability testing. The proposed higher rates in Hayling Island and Emsworth are still well

below the margins of viability, so development should come forward even with some additional costs.

93 Zero Rate Whilst the EVA recommends a zero rate CIL for these categories, it may be worth considering

a modest CIL rate for office and industrial developments, leaving a zero rate to encourage high

street retail and any private community (D1) developments.

Current guidance on CIL suggests that where the Economic Viability Assessment recommends a zero

rate, it is appropriate to set a zero rate rather than a nominal rate. Setting a 'modest' rate for

industrial/office development where there is no justification for doing so is not recommended, particularly

as the costs involved in administering and collecting the levy could be higher than the income generated.

94 CIL Funds It is important that funds raised by the CIL for a development should be used initially for any

outstanding repair or improvement works in the immediate vicinity of the development, e.g.

better street lighting, footpath repairs, and scrub clearance. CIL funds not required for these

works can then be used for a central CIL pool.

The spending priorities for CIL have not yet been determined, but comments regarding the need for

infrastructure close to the development site to be prioritised, are noted. However, CIL can only be spent

on infrastructure to support new development, not on remedying existing deficiencies. Some of the

examples given, such as footpath repairs and scrub clearance, will not always be related to new

development.

95 Other Comments While house prices and sales have recovered some of the losses in recent years, they are

again falling and mortgage constraints apply further pressure to sales (see EVA section 2). In

short the housing market is very fragile and will remain so for some time. Whilst a CIL can be

seen as a further income source for HBC, CIL levels must be restrained or the much-needed

developments will not be implemented.

It is considered that the CIL rates have been set with sufficient margins and flexibility to allow for

changing market conditions.

Chichester District

Council

06/0050 Ms S Payne

33 Other Comments The Council do not wish to make any comments. No comment.

The Theatres Trust06/0102 Ms R Freeman

24 Other Comments The Theatres Trust is The National Advisory Public Body for Theatres. The Theatres Trust Act

1976 states that 'The Theatres Trust exists to promote the better protection of theatres. It

currently delivers statutory planning advice on theatre buildings and theatre use through the

Town & Country Planning (General Development Procedure) (England) Order 2010 (DMPO),

Articles 16 & 17, Schedule 5, para.(w) that requires the Trust to be consulted by local

authorities on planning applications which include 'development involving any land on which

there is a theatre.'

Due to the specific nature of the Trust's remit we are concerned with the protection and

promotion of theatres and have no comment to make on the CIL charging schedule but

assume that your two performance spaces will still require the levels of Section 106

contribution to be ring fenced and maintained.

We are concerned that theatre buildings do not benefit appropriately under the terms of S106

and other agreements, and that it will increasingly be necessary to unlock new sources of

funding to help pay for significant improvements to them. Theatres always need improvements

to keep pace with public expectations and the needs of performers and producers.

The comment on the need for funding for theatres is noted. Details of spending priorities will be provided

in the Havant Borough Council CIL Implementation Plan as this is not within the remit of the CIL

Charging Schedule.

Environment Agency06/0103 Ms Laura Bourke

155 Other Comments The Environment Agency is generally supportive of the Community Infrastructure Levy and are

satisfied it can go some way to supplement other funding streams in providing new

infrastructure to support local growth.

With regard funds to be used for flood defences, the figures for flood risk management and

coastal erosion infrastructure appear to be comparable to those contained within the North

Solent SMP, the draft Portchester Castle to Emsworth Flood & Coastal Erosion Risk

Management Strategy, and the Medium Term Plan submissions from both Havant Borough

Council and the Environment Agency.��The figures may vary according to factors such as

when the money is spent, and how money will need to be found in order to secure any Flood

Defence Grant in Aid that may be available. It should therefore be noted that the figures

presented in Table 1 will be subject to change as infrastructure plans progress, and as the

availability of funding/funding system for flood defence/coastal erosion infrastructure changes.

We are satisfied, however, that the figures presented will enable a degree of flexibility and

resilience to these changes.

We welcome the inclusion of the restoration of the Hermitage stream under table 1 The

restoration of the stream is subject to an ongoing partnership project to restore the stream for

the benefit of people and wildlife. Restoration of the stream will also help meet the

requirements set under the South East River Basin Management Plan fulfilling obligations set

by the Water Framework Directive.

Please note the estimated total cost currently stands at £1,000,000 in table 1, we would advise

this is updated to reflect a funding project cost of £1.5million. With regard the funding gap we

would advise this is also updated to reflect and acknowledge the funding which has been

secured for this project. We will continue to work in partnership together to fulfil the funding

gap.

We would wish to be continually involved as you develop your CIL further. In particular, on

adoption of the charging schedule we would wish to be involved in discussions to identify how

the funds should be divided between key infrastructure, in our case flood defences, coastal

erosion and green infrastructure (restoration of Hermitage Stream), and when they should be

spent. It is important we are confident that the provision of the necessary infrastructure through

CIL is in place at the appropriate time to support growth.

Table 1 is intended to show that there is a funding gap and that the Borough can justify charging CIL.

The figures used are from a particular point in time. The Infrastructure Delivery Plan will be monitored

and updated on a regular basis as part of the Annual Monitoring Report. Wording to this effect is shown

at paragraph 2.10 of the PDCS.

Details of spending priorities will be provided in the Havant Borough Council CIL Implementation Plan

and the Environment Agency's wish to be included in future discussions on spending priorities is noted.

Warblington & Denvilles

Residents Association

06/0535 Mr C Smith

113 Other Comments We are concerned that in the Introduction there is the assumption of a familiarity by the reader

with the current scheme. The section "Who will pay CIL?" needs expanding considerably to

show how the current "Permitted Development rules" fit or do not fit into the proposed scheme.

I am led to understand: - Currently a house owner can develop without planning approval (say a

conservatory) up to 100 Square Metres. Then if the owner wishes to develop another extension

on the same site (say the kitchen) the up to 100 Square Metres rule applies BUT if the sum

total of all of the Permitted Developments on the site exceeds a total of 100 Square Metre, a

Planning Application has to be made. How does this rule fit in with the number of let out

clauses listed in paragraph 1.7.?

Comments noted. Links to national CIL guidance will be included in the document.

CIL does apply to certain types of permitted development and details will be provided as part of the

Havant Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

Permitted development rights are set out in the Town and Country Planning (General Permitted

Development) Order 1995, as amended. The exemptions at paragraph 1.7 of the Preliminary Draft

Charging Schedule will apply whether or not a development is permitted development.

114 Basic Rate It was felt that we were not in a position to comment in detail on the Charging Schedule

described in Sections 2 and 3 of the document the document. Except that the seemingly

random setting of two rates (£105 and £84 per sq. m) in Table 2 "Proposed CIL rates" for

residential dwellings cannot be justified. This view becomes very clear when a comparison is

made between the expensive Wade Court area in Havant@ £84 per sq. m and the much less

expensive dwellings north of Southleigh Road to the east of Horndean Road in Emsworth @

£105 per sq. m!

A member of the Committee questioned the size of the charge. i.e. Should the charge be £84

per 100 sq. m (i.e. not the £84 per sq. m quoted in Table 2)? Perhaps you can confirm or

otherwise.

We see no justification for two differing rates of CIL for Residential development by area.

If there are to be differing rates of ClL, they must not be aimed at areas in Havant Borough

which happen to have different names~ it should be related to the "status" e.g. Rateable Value

for a similar size development in the same area.

The rates in the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule have been based on evidence produced in the

Economic Viability Assessment. CIL guidance recommends the setting of rates to have regard to the

overall impact on economic viability in an area, rather than site specific examples.

The rate (at pounds per sq metre) is correct (CIL Regulation12(b)).

The differing rates are justified by the evidence in the Economic Viability Assessment, which

recommends higher rates in Emsworth and Hayling Island because of the higher land values/sale prices

in those areas.

Grainger PLC06/0642 SavillsMr C Collins

91 Basic Rate With regard to the Havant Borough Council preliminary draft Charging Schedule and the

Economic Viability Assessment supporting this, it is noted that the Borough is split into three

areas (Emsworth and Hayling Island, Waterlooville, Havant and Leigh Park). It is considered

this approach is overly simplistic in that it fails to take account of the differing land values and

house prices that can be achieved within these areas. For example within Waterlooville the

area has diverse communities such as Purbrook and Wecock Farm where values in Purbrook

can reach £280/sqft and can fall to £180/sqft in Wecock farm. Wecock Farm has a closer

relationship to Leigh Park than the rest of Waterlooville. In addition the Economic Viability

Assessment in paragraph 1.5 of its Key Findings states 'Our appraisal results indicate that in a

limited number of development scenarios, the imposition of a CIL of £80 per sq metre would

affect viability. In light of this the Council may wish to consider adopting a lower rate for

developments in these areas, although clearly this decision would need to be weighed against

the potential loss in revenue.' The Council is proposing a CIL rate of £84 per square metre for

residential (£105 for Emsworth and Hayling Island). It is unclear why the Council, given the

findings of the Economic Viability Assessment and the CIL regulations which require a rate

which does not put development at serious risk, is proposing a CIL rate which has shown will

render some schemes unviable.

It is considered the Council needs to provide a more robust assessment of the individual areas

within Havant and if appropriate, and as advised by the Economic Viability Assessment,

propose differing levels for different areas of the Borough to ensure viability will not be

negatively impacted or development constrained from coming forward (either due to a lack of

return/profit or limited return/profit). This approach accords with guidance in the CLG CIL

Charge Setting and Charging Schedule Guidance and that within the NPPF which states CIL

should support and incentivise new development (paragraph 40).

With regard to developer profit, the Economic Viability Assessment in paragraphs 4.8 and 4.34

states 'While developer profit ranged from 15% to 17% of private housing gross development

value in 2007 (and 6% on the affordable housing), banks currently require a scheme to show

higher profits' and 'The minimum generally acceptable profit level is currently around 20% of

private housing GDV. We have also run a sensitivity analysis assuming 15% profit on the

request of the Council.' It is not considered that this lower level is justified or robust. It is now

the case that due to developer expectations, levels of risk and the requirements of financial

institutions/ lenders, that a profit level of at least 25% is the minimum that is expected of

developments. Without this level, developments are often too risky or funding cannot be

secured. It is therefore advised that the Council take a more robust and realistic view on profit

level and factor in a level of 25% to its economic development scenarios to reflect real

expectations.

As part of the methodology for the charging schedule, the Economic Viability Appraisal states

that 'We have tested Code for Sustainable Homes Level 3 (CSH 3) on all schemes. Level 3 is

reflected through a 5% adjustment to our base build costs' (paragraph 5.3). Whilst this accords

with policy CS14 of the adopted Core Strategy, it fails to take into account that many schemes,

due to building regulations, the desire to provide higher quality and more efficient homes and

the general aim to mitigate against the impacts of climate change and resource use, may either

wish to or be required to achieve a higher code rating. It is therefore advised that the Council

also undertake viability assessments of schemes based on Code Level 4 to ensure that

schemes are not restricted from achieving by overly onerous CIL charges.

With regard to affordable housing, the Economic Viability Assessment states that the

residential development scenarios have been tested on 40%, 30% and 25% affordable housing

provision within schemes. With regard to this, paragraph 1.5 states that most viable schemes

should be able to sustain a CIL rate of £80 per square metre but in some cases with a

substantially reduced buffer for specific site related issues and less scope to achieve additional

affordable housing above the 30% minimum. Policy CS9 Core Strategy requires schemes to

deliver on average 30 – 40% affordable housing (subject to viability). Based on this it is unclear

why the Council is not proposing a CIL rate which allows the delivery of 40% affordable housing

(policy compliant) as surely the aim of the policy is to deliver maximum levels of affordable

housing to meet the identified need. As such it is advised that the Council give greater

consideration to a CIL charging level that can sustain 40% affordable housing on sites, and as

mentioned earlier, consideration should also be given to proposing differing charging levels

dependant on specific areas within the Borough. Again this approach accords with guidance in

the CLG CIL Charge Setting and Charging Schedule Guidance.

It should be noted that the Economic Viability Assessment has based all the calculations on the

new Affordable Homes Programme Framework where Registered Providers can charge up to

80% of market rent. Furthermore that using this regime to value affordable homes generates

capital values of £136/sqft. If housing policy in Havant changes this policy then this capital

value will be reduced and this in turn will affect viability.

Paragraph 4.26 of the Economic Viability Assessment states that the methodology for

residential build costs is based on base construction costs taken from the RICS Building Cost

Information Service (BICS). However for larger schemes (assumed to be 300 units or greater)

it states it has reduced the base build costs by 10% to reflect the economies of scale that a

developer is typically able to achieve on such sites. From Grainger's extensive experience this

assumption is incorrect. All house builders have group wide agreements and as such build

costs do not necessarily reduce for larger schemes. This assumption is therefore too broad

brushed and simplistic. It is advised that the Council considers all base construction costs to

be the same level and carry out development scenarios on this basis to inform CIL levels.

With regard to the payment of CIL, the Regulations and CIL – An Overview (paragraphs 45 –

48) are clear that the charging authority has the flexibility to request the timing of the charge

and hence to outline the payment procedure and this flexibility extends to:

Levy payment deadlines

Instalments policy

The Charging Schedule has been developed following Government advice on CIL, afforded to us as part

of the Planning Advisory Service Front Runner 2 Programme. The result is a schedule which is

simple, appropriate and flexible, but without being overly simplified. The Council would be concerned

about breaking the rate down further as this would be more difficult to apply and manage in the long

term.

The Economic Viability Assessment indicates that most developments are capable of absorbing a basic

CIL rate of £80 per sqm. If there are micro-markets where development is unviable, affordable housing

and S106 contributions could be adjusted. The CIL regulations state that a charging authority must aim

to strike what appears to the charging authority to be an appropriate balance between the desirability of

funding infrastructure from CIL and the impact on economic viability of development sites across an

area. The Council considers that its approach is sufficiently broad to reflect the objectives of preparing a

charging schedule while avoiding an overly complex Charging Schedule.

The Council will consider offering exceptional circumstances relief where viability is an issue on

individual schemes in accordance with the CIL regulations.

With regard to developer profit, there is often confusion on the basis of the profit, which can be

measured on either cost or value: 20% profit on value is equivalent to 25% profit on cost. Assuming that

the reference is to profit on cost, there is no disagreement on appropriate profit level.

As Code for Sustainable Homes Level 4 is not yet a requirement, it would be unreasonable to burden the

appraisals with a cost which is not in place. Havant Borough Council encourages development which

reaches Code Level 4 and considers that there has been sufficient sensitivity testing in the viability

assessment to allow for Code Level 4 on some sites.

The adopted Core Strategy sets a range of 30 - 40% for affordable housing which is reflected in the

viability testing. The assessment also tests a lower level, so that there is flexibility if scheme specific

factors cause viability issues. A CIL rate which only allows for 40% affordable housing would be

inconsistent with the requirements of Policy CS9 of the Core Strategy. In addition affordable housing

schemes currently make contributions, through S106, towards transport and open space. Under CIL,

affordable housing will be exempt and therefore, many schemes with an affordable housing element

should become more viable, allowing for a greater percentage of affordable housing to be provided.

Viability has been tested to reflect the tenure that RSLs are now adopting in the Borough. To do

otherwise on the basis of possible future policy changes would be unreasonable.

In the experience of the viability consultant (BNP Paribas), economies of scale can result in significant

cost savings compared with smaller sites. The 10% reduction assumed is at the lower end of the scale

for potential cost savings.

Details of the CIL instalments policy will be provided in the Havant Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

92 CIL Funds With regard to the phasing of CIL payments paragraph 4.39 of the Economic Viability

Assessment states the Council is yet to formulate its instalment policy, however for testing

purposes it has assumed that any CIL due will be payable as 33% on commencement, 33% at

12 months after commencement and 34% at 18 months after commencement. Although it is

understood this instalment policy has been used only for testing, the Council will need to

propose a phasing strategy for CIL payment. It is not considered that the current approach is

suitable in that it is not related to how much of the actual development is built. Developers only

have access to certain levels of funding throughout the construction process and this is often

dependant on sale volumes and market conditions. Payments of 33% upfront and the

remainder so soon after (12 and 18 months) could cause a severe constraint in terms of the

ability to pay such levels and even render schemes unviable. For example S106 costs are

normally paid in relation to housing triggers rather that at set timescales exactly for this reason.

In addition it will be larger schemes which generate the greatest CIL payments and as such

phasing of payments should be tailored to recognise funding constraints and cash flow of such

schemes. The set timescale approach would only be suitable for very small developments in

which there was certainty that development would be built very quickly and the funding would

be available to pay the CIL charge. Large scale development normally requires significant

upfront infrastructure costs to unlock development and the additional early burden of CIL as per

the existing payment formula would therefore be very prohibitive.

It is therefore advised that any phasing of CIL payments should accord with build out rates and

not to set timescales. Larger applications are in any case required to submit phasing plans

with planning applications showing build rate and approximate timescales, and as such this will

give the Council a level of certainty on when CIL payments can be expected without tying

developers to set timescales.

With regard to the relationship with Section 106 the CIL Charging Schedule should be clear

that double counting of Section 106 contributions and CIL is not permitted by law. The key

tests of CIL Regulation 122 should be outlined within the supporting documentation. In

practical terms, owing to the need to public a Regulation 123 List, it is likely that only site

specific or immediately adjacent (for example schools, community facilities, strategic road

improvements) measures will continue to be funded by Section 106.

With regard to administration costs, the CIL Regulations and CIL – An Overview (paragraph

11) outlines that 'up to 5%' of CIL receipts can be used to administer the process. It is noted

that the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule is proposing this maximum level. This is

potentially a considerable element of funding and likely in excess of what is required. The

Council will also be in receipt of pre-application fees, planning application fees and where

relevant New Homes Bonus which also needs to be factored with resourcing of planning

administration. Grainger plc do however appreciate the guidance in the CLG CIL Charge

Setting and Charging Schedule Guidance that outlines the flexibility in the Regulations to

undertake higher administrative costs to set up CIL (paragraphs 41 – 44). A balance is

however required to ensure effective monitoring and implementation.

The Council will set out its instalments policy in the Havant Borough Implementation Plan, in accordance

with the CIL regulations.

The comments regarding S106 and double counting are noted. The Council is fully aware of the statutory

requirements in relation to S106 and CIL. The Havant Borough CIL Implementation Plan will include

details on the transition period from S106 to CIL and the use of each as a way of funding future

infrastructure requirements. The CLG document, CIL An Overview also provides information on ensuring

that the local use of the levy and planning obligations does not overlap.

With regard to the 5% administration charge, the Council intends to use this to pay for the administration

of CIL and to employ a Developer Contributions Officer to administer and monitor CIL, in accordance

with the CIL regulations.

93 Other Comments With regard to reviewing CIL, we strongly encourage the Council to proactively outline a review

mechanism for CIL as part of annual monitoring (required by both the CIL and Local

Development Regulations). The CLG CIL Charge Setting and Charging Schedule Guidance

outlines that the Government 'strongly encourages' reviews to ensure that CIL is fulfilling its aim

and respond to market conditions.

A review mechanism will be detailed as part of the Council's CIL Implementation Plan, in accordance

with the CIL regulations. CIL is likely to be reviewed on an annual basis through the Annual Monitoring

Report. Further details will follow in the Havant Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

Friends of Langstone

Harbour

06/0676 Mr J Goodspeed

2 Other Comments Hitherto NGO conservation organisation benefited significantly from S106 agreements. With

payments being made to the Local authority I trust the funds will still reach such bodies and not

be lost in the general Local Authority Kitty.

The way in which CIL income will be spent is yet to be determined. Priorities will need to be determined

having regard to local and strategic issues, including conservation interests. However, this is beyond the

remit of the Charging Schedule and this consultation. CIL spending will be outlined in the Havant

Borough CIL Implementation Plan and will consider issues such as spending on conservation.

3 Zero Rate No comment. No comment.

4 Higher Rate No comment. No comment.

Natural England06/0701

78 Other Comments Natural England welcomes the reference to core strategy Table 9.1 for the definition of

infrastructure for which the CIL will be used. Whilst we are unable to comment on the proposed

rates, we support the inclusion of green infrastructure within the indicative requirements.

We note the caveat to Table 1, which points out that not all green infrastructure proposals are

currently listed. However, Table 9.2 in the Core Strategy lists projects which have been costed

through the PUSH GI Implementation Plan for which there is yet no secured funding, as a

result we would strongly recommend that those projects relevant to the local authority are

costed into the infrastructure requirement for which the CIL will be used.

Comments noted.

Table 1 is intended to show that there is a funding gap and that we can justify charging CIL. It does not

set out what the Council will spend CIL on. Details of spending priorities will be provided in the Havant

Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

It is not in the remit of the Charging Schedule to list all the projects which could potentially benefit from

CIL. As part of the statutory regulations, we need to demonstrate a gap which is the purpose of this table.

A more detailed list of projects will be developed as part of the Havant Borough CIL Implementation

Plan.

McCarthy & Stone

Retirement Lifestyles

Ltd

07/0029 The Planning Bureau, Homelife

House

Mr D Williams

31 Other Comments Specialist Accommodation for the Older Population

National Guidance in the form of PPS3 sets out the national strategic housing policy objective

of achieving a wide choice of high quality homes for all, including meeting the accommodation

needs of older people. By 2026 older people will account for almost half (48 per cent) of the

increase in the total number of households, resulting in 2.4 million more older households than

there are today . The number of people aged 85 or over will increase by 2.3 million by 2036 –

184 per cent increase . The ageing of society poses one of our greatest housing challenges.

The Government has recognised this and has set out its aims and objectives of providing more

specialised housing for older people in 'A National Strategy for Housing in an Ageing Society –

Lifetime Homes, Lifetime Neighbourhoods'. The National Strategy identifies the important role

the planning system has in delivering housing choice for older people, stating;

'Spatial planning offers a new and real opportunity to provide more and better quality housing –

across the necessary range – for an ageing population in a way that we've not done before.'

In respect to future planning policy the Strategy is clear as to the level of importance to be

given to an ageing society, stating;

'Recent reforms to the planning system require regional and local plans to take proper account

of ageing and the needs of older people. Future planning policy reform will reflect the high

priority we are giving to the challenge of ageing.'

The draft National Planning Policy Framework reiterates the economic messages in the

Government's Planning for Growth, published with the Budget in March 2011, including the

need to free up planning to help drive the economy.

o Clause 29 states: 'To enable a plan to 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. To ensure viability, the

costs of any requirements likely to be applied to development, such as requirements for

affordable housing, local standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should,

when taking account of the normal cost of development and on-site mitigation, provide

acceptable returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to

be deliverable.'

o The NPPF also sets out how the Presumption in Favour of Sustainable Development will

work. The Presumption offers a real opportunity to set the broad parameters for encouraging

good, high quality and sustainable housing while delivering economic growth. Clauses 28 and

111 make reference to the need for local authorities to plan for new homes and prepare

Strategic Housing Needs Assessments. Clause 28 makes specific reference to the need for

councils to identify the housing needs of older people across the range of tenures. Clause 111

also states that they should identify the size, type, tenure and range of housing that is required,

including for the elderly.

It is considered that in light of the Government Strategy guidance that it is appropriate for the

Community Infrastructure Levy to have regard to this objective. My Client's response to the

draft charging schedule on the introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy are based on

meeting the Government's objective, set out in the National Strategy, to ensure that sufficient

specialised housing is delivered to meet the growing needs of an ageing population.

My Client is particularly concerned with some of the assumptions and the mechanics of the

Community Infrastructure Levy Schedule, how the figures have been achieved and how they

would apply to specialist forms of accommodation for older people such as retirement housing.

The scenarios set out in the viability testing have not considered this very important sector,

which will become even more significant over the period of the Core Strategy. Whilst a number

of non age restricted flatted and house schemes have been considered in different areas

consideration has not properly been given to specialist forms of housing such as that for the

older population.

Nearly all types of retirement developments are impacted on financially by communal space

and also a slower sales rate than other residential development. Given that viability of such

schemes may therefore be marginal, application of a CIL may prevent many forms of

retirement housing coming forward. Whilst there is an understandable desire to keep the

charging rates as simple as possible the broad inclusion of some retirement housing within a

'general residential heading' fails to acknowledge the very specific viability issues associated

with Owner Occupier Retirement Housing.

The only reference in the preliminary schedule at para 6.31 acknowledges this point but fails to

fully consider the actual implications. It acknowledges through the recommendation of a 'Buffer'

(para 6.31) to sweep up any discrepancies, that specialist housing such as the 'Retirement

Living' accommodation provided by McCarthy and Stone will be at a distinct disadvantage to

normal residential due to the unique slow selling rates and use of communal facilities which

would be penalise this form of accommodation if treated the same. No evidence has been

provided to demonstrate what this level is. Similarly over generalised statements reflecting

such specialist housing with regards to schemes expected primarily in the higher value areas of

Hayling Island and Emsworth do not fully consider the full implications.

Paragraph 6.31 of the Economic Viability Assessment recognises the differences between mainstream

residential and the retirement homes sector. It also notes that most retirement home activity is likely to

occur in the higher value parts of the Borough. Developments should therefore, in principle, be able to

accommodate the factors identified in paragraph 6.31. While the comments are noted, it is considered

that the viability testing has considered this sector to a reasonable extent and made realistic

assumptions with regard to viability. In setting rates (including differential rates), the Council, as charging

authority, must aim to strike an appropriate balance between the imposition of CIL and its potential

effects on the economic viability of development across the Borough. The nature of CIL is that some

assumptions have to be made and using the assumptions listed in the Economic Viability Assessment,

there is no indication that retirement housing should pay a different CIL rate.

Regarding the comments made about the Governments objectives of ensuring sufficient specialised

housing, it is not the intention that CIL should be used to drive policy objectives, but that it should be

based on economic viability.

The CIL regulations state that a charging authority must aim to strike what appears to the charging

authority to be an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure from CIL and the

impact on economic viability of development sites across an area. The Council consider that its

approach is sufficiently broad to reflect the objectives of preparing a charging schedule while avoiding an

overly complex charging schedule. Too much focus on individual sites or the testing of too many use

types would go against these objectives.

32 Basic Rate CIL Rate Setting

It is noted that the intention in finding an appropriate measure to use in calculating CIL rates is

to ensure 'uniformity', or put another way, fairness for all classes of development liable to CIL

payment. One of the principle intentions is to avoid producing a system that inadvertently

produces advantages or disadvantages upon certain developers. My Client would wholly

concur with the intention that CIL rates should be uniform, fair and avoid bias towards certain

developments. However, it is considered that the chosen 'metric' of 'pounds per square metre

of gross internal floor space' unfairly penalises my Client and other developers of similar

retirement housing and extra care accommodation when assessed against other forms of

residential accommodation. The oversimplification of the charging level by setting this at a

uniform £84 or £105 per sqm across the board is seen as unduly harmful to specialised

housing and care providers such as McCarthy and Stone, particularly when a similar

retirement/extra care developments (Class C2 uses) are exempted. Inadequate viability testing

would appear to have been undertaken to cover this point.

A retirement/sheltered housing development typically has 30% of its internal floor area devoted

to necessary communal areas and facilities, such as residents lounge, laundry, guest suites,

and communal space. It is these specific communal areas and facilities that differentiate

retirement / older peoples' housing developments from other forms of accommodation for the

wider population. These communal areas are a necessary part of a retirement housing

development that are non-saleable floor space which the developer has to build but does not

receive any direct revenue from. Therefore, to apply a CIL rate based on 'pounds per square

metre of gross internal floor space' would unreasonably penalise a retirement housing

developer who would have a building of typically 70% net saleable area to acquire revenue

from, compared to other forms of residential accommodation that would have 90-100% net

saleable floor area to acquire revenue from. This would place those providers of retirement

housing at a disadvantage in land acquisition as the ratio of CIL rate to net saleable area would

be disproportionately high when compared to other forms of residential accommodation. It is

considered that this would threaten the delivery of much needed specialist accommodation for

older people, contrary to the Government's aims and objectives to ensuring the provision of

appropriate specialist accommodation for older people as set out in 'A National Strategy for

Housing in an Ageing Society'.

It is respectfully suggested that retirement developments which have very similar

characteristics to that of Care / Retirement Developments which fall within Class C2 are

likewise treated the same.

Viability Appraisal Assumptions

As set out in the viability report which accompanied the proposed Schedule, the appraisal

makes a number of assumptions and generalisations when it comes to some of the inputs. It

also acknowledges that some of these can be quite influential in the final figures derived at. In

the case of retirement housing for example there is a much longer sales period which reflects

the niche market and sales pattern of a typical retirement housing development. This has a

significant knock on effect upon the final return on investment. This is particularly important

with empty property costs, finance costs and sales and marketing which extends typically for a

longer time period. Sales and marketing fees are typically 6% for example.

In the foreseeable economic climate 20 % developer profits may still not be enough incentive to

achieve the required finance backing for a retirement scheme to proceed and the developer

take on the risk of return. Similarly the incentives required to acquire land in the first place is

likely to be 30%+ of current existing use market value.

All these factors have the potential to impact upon what development will come forward. The

Minister for State for Decentralisation (Mr Greg Clark) in his Written Ministerial Statement:

Planning for Growth 23rd March 2011 states that LPAs should support enterprise and facilitate

housing and economic and other forms of sustainable growth. The Government is sending a

clear message that the answer to development should wherever possible be 'Yes', except

where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national

planning policy. LPAs are required to avoid unnecessary burdens on development and with this

in mind greater flexibility is required in the interpretation when CIL is payable for different types

of residential use. For example retirement housing does not have the same impact upon open

space, sports, recreation, education and strategic transport and yet is being lumped in with the

same CIL as family residential housing. This is unfair and unreasonable. Either the exceptions

and reductions on levy are set out to respect this; it is explicitly set out as a separate charging

cost or retirement housing is acknowledged to have very similar viability implications and those

falling within Class C3 are exempted in the same way as the Class C2 use are being proposed.

The CIL regulations state that rates should be calculated using gross internal floorspace and makes no

reference to allowances for communal areas. The Council cannot adopt a different method.

The proposed rates are considerably lower than the maximum rate identified in paragraph 6.31, leaving

considerable flexibility to accommodate other costs. The Council has not considered specialist elderly

development separately as it does not consider that CIL should become overly complicated and consider

every possible development type. The Council has considered those development types which are likely

to occur most frequently.

Although it is argued that retirement developments have similar characteristics to that of care

developments falling within use class C2, the Council does not consider it appropriate to treat them in the

same way with regards to CIL. The adopted Havant Borough Housing Supplementary Planning

Document makes the distinction at paragraph 2.05 in respect of affordable housing. Retirement homes

(sheltered accommodation) are liable to affordable housing provision, whereas care and nursing homes

(use class C2) are not. This distinction will also apply to CIL to ensure a consistent approach.

The Council will set out details of its instalments policy in the Havant Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

While the Council recognises the point regarding longer sales periods, there does need to be

consistency in the Council's instalments policy to ensure fairness and transparency. The instalments

policy will also need to comply with the CIL regulations.

Developer profits and market changes are considered in the Economic Viability Assessment.

It is stated that retirement housing does not have the same impact on some infrastructure as family

residential housing. However, CIL is not determined by need, it is determined by economic viability.

33 Other Comments Viability Appraisal Assumptions

As set out in the viability report which accompanied the proposed Schedule, the appraisal

makes a number of assumptions and generalisations when it comes to some of the inputs. It

also acknowledges that some of these can be quite influential in the final figures derived at. In

the case of retirement housing for example there is a much longer sales period which reflects

the niche market and sales pattern of a typical retirement housing development. This has a

significant knock on effect upon the final return on investment. This is particularly important

with empty property costs, finance costs and sales and marketing which extends typically for a

longer time period. Sales and marketing fees are typically 6% for example.

In the foreseeable economic climate 20 % developer profits may still not be enough incentive to

achieve the required finance backing for a retirement scheme to proceed and the developer

take on the risk of return. Similarly the incentives required to acquire land in the first place is

likely to be 30%+ of current existing use market value.

All these factors have the potential to impact upon what development will come forward. The

Minister for State for Decentralisation (Mr Greg Clark) in his Written Ministerial Statement:

Planning for Growth 23rd March 2011 states that LPAs should support enterprise and facilitate

housing and economic and other forms of sustainable growth. The Government is sending a

clear message that the answer to development should wherever possible be 'Yes', except

where this would compromise the key sustainable development principles set out in national

planning policy. LPAs are required to avoid unnecessary burdens on development and with this

in mind greater flexibility is required in the interpretation when CIL is payable for different types

of residential use. For example retirement housing does not have the same impact upon open

space, sports, recreation, education and strategic transport and yet is being lumped in with the

same CIL as family residential housing. This is unfair and unreasonable. Either the exceptions

and reductions on levy are set out to respect this; it is explicitly set out as a separate charging

cost or retirement housing is acknowledged to have very similar viability implications and those

falling within Class C3 are exempted in the same way as the Class C2 use are being proposed.

It is the nature of CIL that some assumptions and generalisations have to be made and CIL guidance

recommends that overly complicated methods and rates are avoided. While the Council notes the

comments made in respect of sales periods and developer profits, there is no evidence to suggest that

the CIL rate for retirement housing should be any different to other residential accommodation. The

Council does intend to offer exceptional circumstances relief, in accordance with the CIL regulations,

where it can be demonstrated that viability is an issue in exceptional circumstances.

Given that the rates have been set at a considerably lower level than the maximum viable level, it is

considered that there is sufficient flexibility to accommodate issues specific to retirement

accommodation.

34 Other Comments Payment by Instalments

Consideration should be given to the timing of CIL payments and an allowance for payment by

instalments. My Client would welcome flexibility in the timing of CIL as payments on

commencement will introduce an additional financial cost on the development prior to the

receipt of any revenue from the proposed development. This would place an additional burden

on the developer and would affect the viability of the development, and possibly in the case of

residential development impinge upon the developer's ability to provide for affordable housing.

This issue is compounded in my Client's case, and for other retirement housing providers, as

developments need to be completed in their entirety before a single unit of accommodation can

be sold. It is considered that at the earliest, part payment on first occupation would be fairer

and would reduce unnecessary financial costs to the developer. This could then be phased

depending upon occupation levels. In economic conditions such as currently being

experienced, there is some merit in staged payments throughout the development. Such an

approach would encourage the delivery of many worthwhile development proposals that might

otherwise not commence.

There will also be a need to identify priorities in many instances between CIL and affordable

housing for example where viability is marginal. The CIL becomes a very significant element of

development costs which can greatly influence the amount of contribution reasonably available

for affordable housing. How are the competing planning policy requirements to be weighted?

For example the benefits of providing accommodation for the increasingly ageing population

and affordable housing verses the CIL. The exception clause and relaxation options on CIL

need to be spelt out or at the very least the process by which it will be judged.

The Council is yet to set out details of its instalments policy. Details will be included in the Havant

Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

The comments regarding the relationship between CIL and affordable housing priorities are noted.

However, CIL will be a fixed rate and relief will only be granted in exceptional circumstances, in

accordance with the CIL regulations. Further details will be included in the Havant Borough CIL

Implementation Plan. The Core Strategy allows for a range of affordable housing (between 30 and 40%)

and at the moment, it is envisaged that this will provide the flexibility where viability is marginal.

The Council does intend to consider offering discretionary relief for exceptional circumstances, in

accordance with the CIL regulation requirements. Details will be provided in the Havant Borough CIL

Implementation Plan.

35 Other Comments Given the extent of projected housing need for older persons accommodation including

specialist forms of sheltered and extra care accommodation identified in 'A National Strategy

for Housing in an Ageing Society', and at the local level, it is paramount that CIL schedule

recognises the shortcomings of the proposed 'metric' and address this issue to ensure fairness

across the residential development industry.

CIL should not be used to drive policy objectives, such as the need for a particular type of housing.

36 Other Comments It is noted from the CIL regulations when considering exemptions to CIL payment lists a set of

criteria which includes that 'relief from CIL should be fair and not create undue distortions of

competition'. This criterion is equally valid when considering the application of CIL to differing

forms of development. It is my Client's belief that the current Schedule is neither fair, nor do

they prevent distortions of competition, when applied to specialist forms of older persons

accommodation such as retirement housing.

The Council believes the rates proposed in the Charging Schedule strike an appropriate balance

between the need to fund infrastructure and the impact on the economic viability of development in the

area. The Council is aware that not all development types are included in the Charging Schedule, but is

mindful of the need to avoid an overly complicated schedule.

08/0308 Mr J Graham

64 Basic Rate Borough wide infrastructure benefits all residents therefore common rate of £100/sqm should

apply.

The rates are based on the findings of the Economic Viability Assessment, which recommends higher

rates in Emsworth and Hayling Island because of higher land and sales values. This will help generate

increased CIL income which will support new infrastructure both locally and strategically.

There is no justification for a common rate of £100/sqm.

65 Higher Rate Borough wide infrastructure benefits all residents therefore common rate of £100/sqm should

apply.

The rates are based on the findings of the Economic Viability Assessment, which recommends higher

rates in Emsworth and Hayling Island because of higher land and sales values. This will help generate

increased CIL income which will support new infrastructure both locally and strategically.

66 Zero Rate Firms benefit from infrastructure improvements therefore should contribute. A zero rate has been set based on the findings of the Economic Viability Assessment, which shows that

if CIL is charged on office, industrial and high street retail development, in most cases it will become

unviable and development will not come forward. The CIL rate is set having regard to economic viability,

rather than the need generated by users of a development.

67 CIL Funds Consult residents each year. The regulation 123 list will set out which types of infrastructure will be funded or part funded by CIL.

Spending priorities will be regularly reviewed in consultation with local residents and communities.

However, as this is not within the remit of the Charging Schedule, further details will be provided in the

Havant Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

68 Other Comments Para 1.3. How does last sentence square with DfT's Circular 2/07 Para 28.

Para 1.7. Why no CIL payable on affordable housing when their occupants will benefit/use

projects funded by CIL.

Para 1.8. If developer doesn't pay CIL where will the money come from to fill Funding Gaps?

Para 28 of DfT's circular 2/07 states that, "there will be cases where new capacity and/or other

improvements are required, and these will be considered on an individual basis and, where appropriate,

incorporated into the Agency's forward programme of works (which is assessed on affordability and

priority). Improvements required to mitigate the impact of traffic generated by developments will also

need to address any existing issues at that location, unless the Agency already has a firm commitment to

do so".

While CIL will be used to address new infrastructure requirements, there will be other measures in place

which can be used to address site specific or existing issues. These include S106 and S278

agreements.

The CIL regulations state that CIL will not be charged on affordable housing. There has recently been a

Communities and Local Government consultation to determine whether CIL should be used to fund

affordable housing. The results are not yet published, but if affordable housing can be funded through

CIL in the future, it would be inappropriate to charge CIL on development which CIL income is paying for.

The CIL regulations set out enforcement procedures for non payment of CIL.

Bourne Leisure Ltd08/0422 Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners,

14 Regent's Wharf

Mrs M Baddeley

38 Other Comments Bourne leisure notes that Policy CS21 of the adopted Havant Core Strategy refers to the

introduction of CIL for developer contributions indirectly, in terms of contributions in accordance

with the relevant legislation for off-site provision, to supplement funding sources to provide

infrastructure needed for developments to go ahead.

In formulating the CIL charging schedule, Bourne leisure considers that it will be vitally

important to ensure that the proposed levy relates directly to the future needs identified in the

Havant Infrastructure Delivery Plan, and that only future needs are met by funds raised through

CIL (as opposed to using CIL for addressing any historic deficiencies in infrastructure

provision). It will also be important for the Charging Schedule to be regularly reviewed to ensure

that it reflects current market and economic conditions.

CIL should only be used to fund new infrastructure needs rather than existing deficiencies. In addition,

the CIL rate is set having regard to viability rather than future need. Therefore, the proposed levy does

not relate directly to future needs but in accordance with the CIL regulations, it is based on the work

carried out in the Economic Viability Assessment.

The Council is fully aware of the CIL statutory regulations and the Charging Schedule has been

produced in accordance with this.

39 Basic Rate The CIL Charging Strategy proposes a basic rate of £84/sq m and a higher rate of £105/sq m

for Emsworth and Hayling Island. Bourne leisure agrees that there should be some differential

between different types of development and geographical locations on the basis that certain

uses may be more economically viable and in addition have less impact on an area, and that

certain geographical areas have higher land and market values and can generate a higher

return/rent. The proposed CIL charging rates have been identified following a viability

assessment by BNP Paribas (November, 2011). Bourne leisure agrees with the need for robust

evidence to underpin the detailed consideration of CIL rates. To this end, the Company

considers that in addition to the identified evidence in the Viability Assessment, it will be

necessary to undertake more detailed research for specific sectors and particularly for tourism

uses (to include other types of tourism accommodation in addition to hotels), in order to

determine whether such development would remain economically viable, if having to pay the

levy at the rates proposed in different locations around the Borough.

The appraisal looked at budget hotels, which indicated that a maximum CIL rate of £160 per square

metre could be applied. The Council's proposed rate of £84 per square metre is at 50% of the maximum

rate, which provides extensive room for variability of different types of development. £84 per square

metre equates to only 3.3% of development costs, which should be readily absorbed by most

developments.

The Council is satisfied that the assessment is sufficiently detailed to meet the requirements required to

produce the CIL Charging Schedule, while allowing enough flexibility for market changes in the future.

40 Zero Rate Specifically in relation to hotel development, it is noted that the viability assessment has

assumed a capital value of £75,000 per room (based on the £6.5m sale of a typical example of

a budget hotel in Worthing with 90 rooms), whereas in fact a wide variety of hotels and other

tourism accommodation exists within the Borough and their ability to pay CIL will vary hugely

according to their type, quality, size and location. A standard levy for all hotel tourism

accommodation would not be sufficiently sensitive to take into account the wide variations in

viability of such development; any levy should take account of changing market conditions on a

regular basis.

Bourne Leisure considers that instead of the uniform rate proposed, a zero rate throughout the

Borough would be the most appropriate for smaller hotels and other forms of holiday

accommodation and that a zero rate should also be applied to the extension/improvement of

existing tourism accommodation/facilities. As the preliminary CIL draft charging schedule

proposes that specific commercial uses should be zero rated, the Company considers that

smaller hotels and other tourist accommodation being zero rated would be more consistent with

this approach.

Bourne Leisure in addition acknowledges that the CIL Regulations allow for exceptional

circumstances where a specific scheme cannot be brought into viability if it pays the full CIL

charge, in which case the charging authority is able to give discretionary exceptional

circumstances relief. It is our client's view that the Borough Council should activate exceptional

circumstances relief, preferably consulting on relief proposals as part of any further consultation

on the emerging charging schedule (although Bourne leisure notes that the relief can be

activated separately from the consultation on/ approval of the charging schedule).

Bourne Leisure state that there is a wide variety of tourism accommodation in the borough and that the

testing does not take this into account. The Council considers that its approach to rate setting is

sufficiently broad to reflect the objectives of preparing a Charging Schedule and avoids over complexity.

The rates have been set to reflect the general nature of development in an area, rather than focusing on

site specific examples. However, it is considered that there are sufficient margins within the rates to allow

for variations in viability and changing market conditions.

The Council does not consider that a zero rate can be justified as there is no evidence to support this.

The Council intends to consider offering exceptional circumstances relief where viability is an issue on

individual schemes, in accordance with the CIL regulations. Further details will be provided in the Havant

Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

41 CIL Funds Bourne leisure considers that whilst flood defences should be a priority for CIL funding, this

should not preclude existing tourism operators from funding and implementing works to protect

their interests, as site specific mitigation works in relation to development proposals, if the need

arises outside the CIL charging schedule and Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

CIL funds will be used, where justified and prioritised, to provide new flood defence in relation to new

development. If a private landowner wishes to carry out works to protect their property, this may be

subject to planning permission and/or permission from organisations such as the Environment Agency. It

is recommended that landowners consult with these bodies to ensure new works complement each other

and are subject to the correct permissions. It is not intended that the use of CIL funds to carry out flood

defence works should stop landowners carrying out their own works, where appropriate.

West Bedhampton

Residents' Association

08/0458 Mr D Webb

63 Other Comments From the notes provided we had difficulty to find justification for the change.

Basically it seems just a way of developers / owners not paying a levy for affordable housing.

The present 105 / 106's could accommodate any variations. But why should they. Unless more

justification for change is forthcoming we are dubious of it and recommend therefore leaving

well alone.

Changing it to overcome present difficulties in housing costs may give us problems in the

future,

When circumstances will undoubtedly change.

The CIL regulations do not allow for the charging of CIL on affordable housing.

The CIL regulations limit the use of S106 and if CIL is not adopted by 2014, the Council will lose out on

developer contributions as it will not be able to rely on S106 to the same extent as before. The Council

therefore intends to adopt CIL to raise funds for future infrastructure needs. CIL will allow the collection

of funds from almost all development, rather than the reliance on a few larger schemes as with S106.

S106 can still be used to address site specific issues.

08/0999 Mrs A Bird

11 Basic Rate I do not agree with making developments more costly, it's just another tax that the public end

up paying for in the long term, whether it is for housing or retail etc, higher costs equal higher

consumer costs.

CIL is intended to fund infrastructure which is essential to support new development. The CIL rates have

been set at a level which is not expected to stop development from coming forward.

12 Higher Rate No comment. No comment.

13 Zero Rate No comment. No comment.

14 CIL Funds ALL money collected for a district should be spent within that district...no preferential treatment

for Emsworth over Hayling for example!

While spending priorities are yet to be determined, it is expected that decisions will have to be made

between strategic and local issues. However, it is expected that a 'meaningful proportion' of CIL income

will be handed back to the community. It is yet to be determined how much a 'meaningful proportion' will

be.

As this is outside the remit of the Charging Schedule, further details will be provided in the Havant

Borough CIL Implementation Plan.

15 Other Comments Page 4 1.3 charges are 'meant' to help fund new etc, rather ambiguous word, it should be a

definite word/intent. Are the charges destined for diversion?

Page 6 Table of aggregate funding gap...the restoration of Hermitage Stream and Library

improvements are 'nice to haves'. Is this table showing the type of thing the levy will be used

for? It is 'council speak', if the public are invited to comment they should be able to understand

what

you are presenting, I suppose I'm just being dim?

'Charges are meant' will be replaced with 'income can be used' at paragraph 1.3. This reflects the

wording in the CLG CIL overview document, May 2011.

The table is used to demonstrate that there is a funding gap as required by the CIL regulations. The list

does not show what CIL income will be spent on, as this has not yet been determined and is outside the

remit of the Charging Schedule.

Linden Homes Southern12/0021 Turley Associates, Brunswick

HouseMr J O'Donovan

1 CIL Funds We respectively suggest that the present consultation document is lacking in not highlighting

the priority infrastructure schemes for CIL funding.

Paragraph 1.6 indicates that the levy is 'payable on the commencement of development or for

larger

developments over an agreed phased period'. LHS consider that the agreed phased payments

will

need to be negotiated on a site by site basis in the light of the Regulation 70 provisions, and we

would urge the Council to give more clarity to the issue what is meant by 'larger developments'.

Also we welcome the reference to payments in kind which could potentially deliver an equal or

even

more beneficial contribution to strategic infrastructure delivery.

The CIL Charging Schedule should make it clear that double counting of S106 and CIL is not

permitted by law. The CIL regulation 122 key test should be detailed within the CIL

documentation. In practice it is likely that only site specific or immediately adjacent measures

(eg junction improvements) will continue to be funded by S106. It is however still the case that

affordable housing (average 30% to 40%) will be provided via S106. This means a

development cost or at least a build element of lower profitability and hence an impact on

viability and potentially deliverability. The Council must therefore consider its deliverability

priorities, possible relief and instalments policy in requesting affordable housing.

Prioritising infrastructure schemes and the allocation of CIL funding is yet to be determined. Details will

be provided through the Council's CIL Implementation Plan, as infrastructure priorities are beyond the

remit of the Charging Schedule. The Charging Schedule is concerned with viability and applying the

appropriate CIL rate to each area and type of development.

The 2011 CIL amendments provide greater flexibility on phased payments. The Council is yet to develop

an instalments policy but details will be provided through the Havant Borough CIL Implementation Plan,

including a definition of 'larger developments'.

The CLG document, CIL An Overview provides guidance to ensure that the local use of the levy and

planning obligations do not overlap. A link to this document will be included in the Charging Schedule.

2 Basic Rate We consider it surprising that no CIL charge is being proposed in respect of large scale town

centre

and office developments

The viability of different types of retail in the borough were assessed, namely retail park development

and high street retail. Evidence on rents for high street retail indicates that retail developments of this

type are likely to be marginal at best. With demand for retail floorspace being relatively weak, it is unlikely

that major new developments will occur in the short to medium term. If it changes over the longer term,

the Council will have an opportunity to review its CIL rate for this type of development.

Office developments are unlikely to generate positive residual land values at this time. A zero rate is

therefore appropriate.

The Council is satisfied that the rates set are reasonable and viable.

3 Zero Rate We urge the Council to proved additional guidance on the factors which could constitute

exceptional circumstances. In particular, development viability must be the key consideration

and factors to be highlighted should include geography including land values in a particular

area, site characteristics and development costs, phasing of payments and the extent of other

S106 obligations including affordable housing.

It is intended that relief will only be applied in exceptional circumstances in accordance with the CIL

regulations and should not be routinely applied. Further details will be provided as part of the Council's

CIL Implementation Plan, as this level of detail is beyond the remit of the Charging Schedule.

4 Other Comments The CIL Regulations and CIL – An Overview (paragraph 11) indicates that up to 5% of CIL

receipts can be used to administer the process. Based on the potential CIL receipt over the

Havant Borough Plan period we believe a 5% levy is likely to generate sums far in excess of

what is required. LHS requests that the Borough Council outlines its intended administration

process and costs. The Council will also be in receipt of planning application fees and where

relevant New Homes Bonus which needs to be factored into the resourcing of planning

administration.

The CLG CIL Charged Setting and Charging Schedule Guidance 'strongly encourages' reviews

to ensure that CIL is fulfilling its aims and responds to market conditions. LHS urges the

Borough Council to proactively outline a CIL review mechanism as part of annual monitoring.

Finally I note that there is to be a second regulation 16 round of consultation and I request that I

am kept informed of progress in introducing the CIL.

The Council will produce further details on the administration charge as part of the Havant Borough CIL

Implementation Plan. However, at this stage, it is considered that this charge is justified for use in the

setting up of CIL and in the future, to employ a CIL officer. It is intended to provide further details as part

of the submission and examination.

The CIL charge will be reviewed on an annual basis through the Annual Monitoring Report , although

given the flexibility built into the charge, it is expected that even if market conditions do change it will not

always be necessary to review the charge.

Grand Total Consultees: 18

Grand Total Consultations: 54