Community Infrastructure Levy- Helen Martin, RTPI West Midlands CPD
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5

Community Infrastructure Levy- Helen Martin, RTPI West Midlands CPD



14th November 2012

14th November 2012



Total Views
Views on SlideShare
Embed Views



1 Embed 113 113



Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Viability Assessment: decided to use in-houseSurveyor – numerous advantages inc. use of local knowledge, day to day contact, reduced costs – possible disadvantage is that it may not be seen as independent – may need to pay for independent verification prior to examination. Justifying the Funding Gap – Important to get all the delivery services on board as early as possible as we have relied on them heavily to give us costings for infrastructure projects and sources of other funding. Need to make them aware that costings could be subject to public scrutiny so need to be relatively robust – and they need to be prepared to justify them at the examination. If they couldn’t/wouldn’t then we haven’t included them on the list. Sense of Realism – Important not to raise expectations unduly to both delivery services and Members that CIL is going to be the answer to all the infrastructure funding issues, rather will just be a contributor – and in the current economic climate a significantly smaller contributor. Pragmatism – Important to keep an eye on how Charging Rates & Zones would actually work in implementation by DC officers, ideal if Zones tie in with existing, easily defined boundaries – eg postcode areas, Brierley Hill AAP boundary – But where using a policy based boundary need to be able to justify it in viability terms.  Preparing for Implementation - To date priority has been on evidence gathering to inform the PDCS thus we have not done much work on preparing for the implementation of CIL (CIL Notices, Enforcement, Monitoring Systems etc) although looking at Swift Module to tie in with main planning system. Anticipate work on preparing for implementation to advance significantly during next 12 months. Political Sensitivities – Whilst viability work has been undertaken on individual postcode area and different town centres, have needed to tailor the wording of the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule to ‘Zones’ NOT SURE IF THIS MIGHT BE TOO SENSITIVE TO MENTION AT ALL BUT JUST THOUGHT ID ADD IT TO THE LIST 

Community Infrastructure Levy- Helen Martin, RTPI West Midlands CPD Community Infrastructure Levy- Helen Martin, RTPI West Midlands CPD Presentation Transcript

  • Community Infrastructure LevyBackground to Dudley’sPreliminary Draft Charging ScheduleHelen Martin – Head of PlanningDudley MBC14th November 2012
  • Format •An Introduction to Dudley Borough: Growth Predictions for Dudley Borough Existing Planning Obligations approach •Reasons for moving towards CIL •Work undertaken at Dudley to date: Identifying Infrastructure Requirements Assessing Viability •Timetable for progressing the Dudley CIL
  • Dudley Borough • 38 square miles, 24 wards •25% consists of open space, inc. approx. 1,700 ha Green Belt •Population 312,900 (2011 Census) & projected to be over 334,000 in 2026 •Diverse character of town centresDudley CommunityStrategy 2005-2020• Five Key Principles: • Promoting equality – tackling inequality • Safeguarding the future • Reflecting priorities through physical change • Delivery in partnership • Involving people
  • Predicted GrowthBlack Country Core Strategy•Sets out vision up to 2026•Development of comparisonshopping, office, employment, leisure, tourism and culturewithin 4 main centres•Network of vibrant and attractive town, district and localcentres•Employment led Regeneration Corridors to provide sufficienthigh quality and local employment land in the best locations•Housing led Regeneration Corridors to create sustainablecommunities on redundant employment land•High Quality Environment through Urban Park beacons andcorridors, and respecting, protecting and enhancingbiodiversity and geodiversity•First-class transport network providing rapid, convenient andsustainable links between centres, communities andemployment sites•Network of easily accessible community services, esp. lifelonglearning, health care and sport & recreation facilities .
  • Existing System of PlanningObligations at Dudley Pre 2007 – Affordable Housing, POS, Education…generally on larger schemes Dec. 2007 – Original Planning Obligations SPD  Required on smaller schemes  Raft of new formula-based obligations such as: Public Realm Libraries Transport Infrastructure Improvements Nature Conservation Enhancements
  • The Present – Common Issues Viability, Viability, Viability…• The sites and the scale of development identified in Plans should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and policy burdens that their ability to be delivered viably is threatened. (NPPF Para. 173)• Where obligations are being sought or revised, LPAs should take account of changes in market conditions over time and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent planned development being stalled. (NPPF Para. 205)
  • The Present – Common Issues Tests, Tests, Tests…• CIL Regulation 122• Planning Obligations should only be sought where they meet all of the following tests: • Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms • Directly related to the development; and • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
  • Appeal Decisions at DudleyOpen Space, Sport and Recreation•Residential application for 16 flats, contribution of £22,650sought based on formula in SPD relating to number ofbedspaces•Council recommended that monies be spent at improvingaccess (poor quality steps) to local park which was within 400mof site•Inspector concluded that there was another entrance point tothe park slightly further away which had better quality levelaccess that residents of the development could use. “No convincing link has been shown between the development and required funding for improvements to open space, sport and recreation and it would not be directly related to the development as the CIL Regulations require.”
  • Appeal Decisions at DudleyPublic Realm•Residential application for 7 flats within Brierley Hill TownCentre and Conservation Area, contribution of £3,350sought for public realm improvements•Council recommended that monies be spent at improvingthe public realm within the Town Centre/CA, a keyinfrastructure requirement identified in the adopted BrierleyHill AAP•Inspector concluded that there was “insufficient detailto demonstrate that the works that would be carriedout would be directly related to the proposeddevelopment.”
  • Additional limitations from April 2014Use of Planning Obligations to be significantly scaled backby CIL regulations • Affordable Housing and Specific mitigation of a development only • Pooling of contributions restricted to 5 contributions for any piece or type of infrastructure
  • Restricted to Specific MitigationPlanning Application for 150m retailextension•Transport Infrastructure Improvements contribution of£1,325 required using formula in SPD to offset impact ofadditional traffic-based trips to and from development•Council received monies and due to spend on TransportInfrastructure Improvements within the locality, no specificscheme identified within S106•Due to small scale nature of development would bedifficult to justify now under CIL Regs – how to prove it isdirectly related to development?
  • Pooled Contributions – StourbridgeLibraryFacilities were upgraded by the purchase of two newnewspaper stands, two graphic novel stands andsome new seating to enhance the new shelving£2,625 library contributions from 10 planningpermissions (approved between Feb. 2008 andNov. 2009)RESTRICTION TO 5 MEANS THAT THIS WOULDNOT BE POSSIBLE AFTER APRIL 2014
  • Pooled Contributions – LeasowesRestoration57 ha Grade 1 public park in Halesowen – restoredwalkways, new paths and additional planting to improveaccess and help return the park and woodland to its historic1740s layout£187,000 Open Space, Sport and Recreation capitalcontributions from 11 planning permissions (approvedbetween Aug. 2003 and Nov. 2007). Match funding of£1.3m Heritage Lottery FundingRESTRICTION TO 5 MEANS THAT THIS WOULD NOTBE POSSIBLE AFTER APRIL 2014
  • Problems, Problems, Problems… But Dudley Borough still needs infrastructure contributions to support the growth planned for in the Core StrategyThe only realistic way forward…? Only current way to secure generalised developer contributions is to move to away from Planning Obligations to CIL
  • Why should developments make contributions? Generally accepted principle that new development should pay a share of the cost of the infrastructure required to support it. “The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to the achievement of sustainable development” (NPPF. Para.6) Provision of infrastructure is key to sustainable development:  Economic – contributing to competitive economy, inc. provision of infrastructure  Social – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, providing housing to meet local needs supported by high quality built environment and accessible local services  Environmental – contributing to protecting and enhancing natural, built and historic environment
  • CIL - The Starting Point Is any level of CIL viable and justifiable in Dudley Borough in the current economic climate?  Scoping undertaken with Black Country neighbours to ascertain possible viability and infrastructure requirements  Suggested that there is an Infrastructure Funding Gap and that retail developments across the Borough and residential developments in parts of the Borough could afford to pay CIL  Enough justification to undertake detailed viability assessment for CIL and infrastructure requirements across the Borough
  • Preparing the PreliminaryDraft Charging Schedule Predicted Growth Infrastructure Viability Testing of Funding Gap CIL rates Core Strategy DPDs/AAPs Infrastructure Requirements Different rates for different sizes, locations Past Trends Other sources of funding and or uses “aim to strike an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding infrastructure from CIL and the potential effects of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area.”
  • Evidence 1:Predicted GrowthThe provision of appropriate infrastructure in a timelymanner underpins the whole transformational andregeneration strategyWithout appropriate investment future developmentwill be neither sustainable nor acceptablePolicy DEL1 ‘Infrastructure Provision’
  • Evidence 2: Infrastructure Requirements Infrastructure Cost Funding Funding Gap AvailableTransport £91,951,000 £39,056,000 £52,895,000Nature Conservation £4,310,000 £0 £4,310,000Libraries £5,149,000 £5,025,000 £124,000Air Quality £1,232,200 £120,000 £1,112,200Public Realm £47,661,000 £4,548,000 £43,113,000Flood Management & £8,216,000 £3,396,000 £4,820,000Sustainable DrainageTotal £158,519,200 £52,145,000 £106,374,200
  • Evidence 3: Viability Testing•Area Based and Strategic Residual Appraisals•Not Site SpecificResidential 4 scheme types 10 postcode areasNon Residential Offices, Industrial, Retail, and others 2 scheme types – new build and extension 3 localities – Dudley TC, Merry Hill and remaining areasAppraisals assess potential surplus available for CILcontribution after costs of development are deducted fromvalue
  • Evidence 3: Viability Testing Example Appraisal for Small Residential Scheme – 5 Homes in DY8  Development Value £925,000  Land £150,000  Construction £425,000  Fees £80,000  Finance £30,000  Profit £185,000 £870,000  Surplus Available for CIL £55,000 (£134 / m2)
  • Evidence 3: IssuesViability Assessment: in-house PragmatismSurveyorJustifying the Funding Gap Preparing for ImplementationSense of Realism Political Sensitivities
  • Striking a Balance betweenInfrastructure Requirements andAffordabilityInfrastructure Funding Gap equates to£106,374,200 over the Core Strategy Plan Period to2026Nil CIL rate proposed for locations and uses wherethere is considered to be only marginal or noviabilityPotential CIL receipts between 2014 - 2026 will onlycontribute to filling the funding gap
  • Is the projected CIL revenue enough tomake it worthwhile?•Projected CIL receipts based on analysis of a combinationof past trends and predicted future development as set out inBlack Country Core Strategy and DPDs suggests thatsufficient revenue could be generated to justifyimplementation•This revenue is not as significant as potential receipts underthe previous S106 system, which would suggest viabilityissues have been adequately taken into consideration• decision to implement at CIL taken yet
  • Date Stage in Process Timetable for6th December 2012 Cabinet approval of Preliminary Draft progressing Charging Schedule for formal consultation the Dudley CIL4th January to Preliminary Draft15th February 2013 Charging Schedule - 6 week public consultationSeptember to November Draft Charging Schedule2013 -6 week Public ConsultationNovember/December Draft Charging Schedule2013 submitted to Secretary of State for Public ExaminationJanuary/February 2014 Public ExaminationApril/May/June 2014 Adoption
  • Any Questions?