By email: [email protected] Our reference: 722 · If you have any questions or need any further...

Lancaster House Hampshire Court Newcastle upon Tyne NE4 7YH

T +44 (0)300 123 1032 F +44 (0)191 376 2689 www.gov.uk/mmo

By email: [email protected]

Our reference: 722

19 August 2014 Dear Sir/Madam, Re: Hammersmith and Fulham Council Community Infrastructure Levy: Consultation on the Draft Charging Schedule, supporting evidence and related matters Thank you for inviting the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) to comment on the above consultation. I can confirm that the MMO has no comments to submit in relation to this consultation. If you have any questions or need any further information please just let me know. More information on the role of the MMO can be found on our website www.gov.uk/mmo Yours sincerely

Angela Gemmill Relationship Manager E [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.gov.uk/mmo


1

Date: 19 August 2014 Our ref: 128787

FAO: Siddhartha Jha, Development Plans Team Planning Division Transport and Technical Services Hammersmith and Fulham Council, 5th Floor Town Hall Extension King St, Hammersmith London W6 9JU By Email

Consultation Service Hornbeam House Electra Way Crewe Business Park Crewe CW1 6GJ T: 0300 060 3900

Dear Siddhartha Jha, Re: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Consultation on the Draft Charging Schedule. Thank you for your consultation on the above, which was received by Natural England on the 07 August 2014. Natural England is a non-departmental public body. Our statutory purpose is to ensure that the natural environment is conserved, enhanced, and managed for the benefit of present and future generations, thereby contributing to sustainable development. Natural England has no specific comments to make on the draft CIL Charges, however would like to make the following general comments, which we hope are helpful. Natural England is not a service provider, nor do we have detailed knowledge of infrastructure requirements of the area concerned. However, we note that the National Planning Policy Framework Para 114 states “Local planning authorities should set out a strategic approach in their Local Plans, planning positively for the creation, protection, enhancement and management of networks of biodiversity and green infrastructure.” We view CIL as playing an important role in delivering such a strategic approach. As such we advise that the council gives careful consideration to how it intends to meet this aspect of the NPPF, and the role of the CIL in this. In the absence of a CIL approach to enhancing the natural environment, we would be concerned that the only enhancements to the natural environment would be ad hoc, and not deliver a strategic approach, and that as such the local plan may not be consistent with the NPPF. Potential infrastructure requirements may include:

Access to natural greenspace.

Allotment provision.

Infrastructure identified in the local Rights of Way Improvement Plan.

Infrastructure identified by any Local Nature Partnerships and or BAP projects.

Infrastructure identified by any AONB management plans.

Infrastructure identified by any Green infrastructure strategies.

Other community aspirations or other green infrastructure projects (e.g. street tree planting).

2

Infrastructure identified to deliver climate change mitigation and adaptation.

Any infrastructure requirements needed to ensure that the Local Plan is Habitats Regulation Assessment compliant

We hope that you find this information useful. For any correspondence or queries relating to this consultation only, please contact Piotr Behnke using the details given below. For all other correspondence, including in relation to forward planning consultations, please contact the address above or email [email protected]. We really value your feedback to help us improve the service we offer. We have attached a feedback form to this letter and welcome any comments you might have about our service.

Yours sincerely, Piotr Behnke Sustainable Development & Regulation Thames Valley Team Tel: 0300 060 1963 Email: [email protected]



Our Ref.: O/6069

Thank you for your letter of 15 August consulting The Theatres Trust on the Community

Infrastructure Draft Charging Schedule.

Remit: 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.’

Charge Rates Table – Page 2

The Theatres Trust strongly objects to the proposed rate for ‘All uses unless otherwise stated’

of £80/sm, as this includes your theatres (sui generis) and other cultural and community

facilities.

The document does not reflect the guidance in Paragraph 70 of the National Planning Policy

Framework (NPPF) that states ‘to deliver the social, recreational and cultural facilities and

services the community needs, planning policies and decisions should: plan positively for the

provision and use of shared space, community facilities (such as local shops, meeting places,

sports venues, cultural buildings, public houses and places of worship) and other local

services to enhance the sustainability of communities and residential environments’

Further, paragraph 173 of the NPPF Ensuring Viability and Deliverability states that ‘Pursuing

sustainable development requires careful attention to viability and costs in plan-making and

decision-taking. Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, 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.’

Theatres (sui generis) and other cultural facilities have a positive impact on the health and

well being of the local community and are part of your social infrastructure. The vast majority

of local authorities in England do not have a levy for this type of community

infrastructure. Many D1, D2 and sui generis uses (e.g. theatres) often do not generate

sufficient income streams to cover their costs. Consequently, they require some form of

subsidy to help them establish and operate as this type of community facility is very unlikely to

be built by the private sector.

*** Please note that Rose Freeman has retired from The Theatres Trust. Please refer future

planning correspondence to [email protected]

Regards, Ross Anthony

Planning Adviser The Theatres Trust 22 Charing Cross Road, London WC2H 0QL

Tel: 020 7836 8591 Fax:020 7836 3302 www.theatrestrust.org.uk


http://www.theatrestrust.org.uk/

The Theatres Trust

Protecting Theatres for Everyone National Advisory Public Body for Theatres

Canal & River Trust 1 Sheldon Square Paddington Central London W2 6TT

T 0303 040 4040 E [email protected] www.canalrivertrust.org.uk

Patron: H.R.H. The Prince of Wales. Canal & River Trust is a company limited by guarantee registered in England & Wales under

number 7807276; and a charity registered with the Charity Commission under number 1146792.

26 September 2014

Sid Jha

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

CIL Draft Charging Schedule

Development Plans Team

Dear CIL Team,

Re: Public Consultation for draft CIL charging schedule

Thank you for your consultation in respect of the above. The British Waterways Board (Transfer of Functions) Order 2012 has substituted references to British Waterways in the Town and Country Planning (Development Management Procedure) (England) Order 2010 to the Canal & River Trust. As such, local planning authorities are now required to consult the Canal & River Trust on applications for planning permission in the same way as British Waterways was previously consulted. In addition, under the British Waterways Board Transfer Scheme 2012 (also made under the Public Bodies Act 2011) all the property of British Waterways in England and Wales has now vested in the Trust. The Canal & River Trust is a company limited by guarantee and registered as a charity. It is separate from government but still the recipient of a significant amount of government funding. The Trust has a range of charitable objectives including: • To hold in trust or own and to operate and manage inland waterways for public benefit, use and enjoyment; • To protect and conserve objects and buildings of heritage interest; • To further the conservation, protection and improvement of the natural environment of inland waterways; and • To promote sustainable development in the vicinity of any inland waterways for the benefit of the public.

We work extensively with private, public and voluntary partners to conserve, enhance and improve

our waterways within the Borough and nationally. We believe that our expertise and responsibility

2

for waterspace, combined with the ownership of docks, canals and waterside properties, puts us in

a unique position to facilitate redevelopment for economic, social and environmental gain. The

canals in particular have historically experienced a prolonged period of decline. However, in recent

years, the canals and navigable rivers have experienced significant development pressures from

mixed use, commercial, residential, tourism/recreation and other developments. Attractive

waterside environments have stimulated this interest and been at the heart of some of the most

significant regeneration schemes in London (and the borough), including the Queen Elizabeth

Olympic Park.

Our waterways are helping to stimulate regional, sub-regional and local economies and are being

used successfully as tools in improving community well-being, urban and housing offers; attracting

and generating investment; place making and shaping; as well as in delivering wider public benefit.

They are also making an increasingly important contribution to the visitor economy and there is a

growing national awareness of the added value and commercial betterment deriving from the

presence of waterways in developments.

The health and performance of the inland waterway network is directly linked to the quality of the

neighbourhood and environment through which waterways passes. The public benefit delivered by

the inland waterway network in turn is substantially dependent upon its health and performance.

The Town and Country Planning Association’s Policy Advice Note: Inland Waterways (2009)

outlines the value of the waterways to local economies and health and well-being aims, providing a

comprehensive framework for assisting in the delivery of high quality public waterspaces and

waterside developments, and should be referenced within these documents:

http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/inland-waterways.html

We passionately believe that our London network of multi-functional canals, navigable rivers and

docks have significant untapped potential to deliver leisure, recreation, tourism, culture, heritage,

biodiversity, education, sustainability and regeneration opportunities. For example, our waterways

can help to deliver the LDF’s objectives by, amongst other things:

1. Encouraging high quality, mixed use, waterside regeneration schemes with an appropriate

mix of moorings can help to transform London’s inclusive canals and navigable rivers and improve access to the towpath and the water for active use as open-air gyms or as quiet places to address inequalities in physical and mental health;

2. Promoting the waterways as 200-year old ‘working heritage’ which are part of the third largest heritage estate in England and attract innovative and entrepreneurial businesses on and by the water;

3. Place-making with the waterways integrated at the heart of new and existing communities contributing towards high quality environments;

4. Transforming the city with well maintained and managed waterways in iconic locations with high quality modern architecture, complementing 200-year old working heritage that can help to improve Londoner’s health (open air gyms), welfare (strong focus for communities) and development (opportunities for volunteering, education, etc);

5. Helping London to mitigate and adapt to climate change; and 6. Providing a truly sustainable 100-mile long, transport network right across London for

walking, jogging, cycling, waterborne passengers and freight.

We have the following specific comments to make on the documents:

http://www.tcpa.org.uk/pages/inland-waterways.html

3

Draft CIL

The Grand Union Canal transects through H&F halfway between St Mary’s Catholic Cemetery and Old Oak Lane. This area is within the Mayor’s suggested location for the Park Royal and Old Oak Mayoral Development Corporation. The canal and towpath are both important items of physical and social infrastructure and we would assume that they fall to be considered under the heading “Transport and Technical Services”. As the section of canal that falls within Hammersmith and Fulham is to be the subject of significant development we consider that improvements and maintenance to the canal towpath are important to ensure the network is able to withstand the significant increase in use. The Canal and River Trust notes that money collected from CIL is available for maintenance purposes and that this money should be made available for towpath maintenance and improvements, including the provision of boater facilities and moorings. I hope these comments are clear. Should you have any queries please feel free to contact me. Yours sincerely, Russell Butchers Area Planner - London Telephone: 020 7985 7229 E-mail: [email protected]

Wormholt and White City Neighbourhood Forum


White City Community Centre, India Way, London W12 7QT

Dear Siddhartha Jha

RE: Consultation on Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule

I am writing this letter as Wormholt and White City Neighbourhood Forum’s

(WWCNF) representation to London Borough of Hammersmith’s (LBHF) consultation

on Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule. WWCNF is a

stakeholder group comprising of representatives from community/ voluntary

organisations, residents, private developers, and commercial businesses. From

reading the consultation documents, Wormholt and White City ward has been

highlighted as one of the five strategic sites for significant housing development in

Hammersmith and Fulham. There is a forecasted increase of 5,000 properties in the

area.

In LBHF’s CIL DCS Consultation Document there is reference to White City East and

the suggestion that there should not be any Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

place on each property. This is based on the position of LBHF already agreeing with

private developers their Section 106 (S106) contribution should be £1,000.00 per

private residential unit. In the case of White City East it is stated that the agreements

will meet the cost of the impact to infrastructure incurred by the increase in the

number of households. Although the document outlines the amount of money

obtained through S106, WWCNF feels that should LBHF not set a CIL for White City

East this will prevent the guarantee of income generated being specifically allocated

for new infrastructure and services to support those living in the area.

Peter Brett Associates’ Hammersmith and Fulham Community Infrastructure Levy

Viability Study makes reference to land values in the area, that they are not at the

level as others in the borough, recommending a fee of £80 per square metre (m2).

WWCNF questions the suggestion of introducing a CIL of the value of £80m2 for the

strategic site in the north of the borough. We feel there is a disparity in that it does

not reflect the growth in residential values across the area, becoming closer as an

annual growth percentage with those in other areas in the borough.

WWCNF would like LBHF to reconsider both positions. WWCNF would like LBHF to

introduce a CIL specifically for White City East, whilst maintain the same S106

agreements with private developers. We feel that although this priority area for

development there still remains a community with a number of social factor factors


specific to characteristics of a highly economically deprived area. With the

introduction of a CIL, supported by S106 it will enable the availability of new and

innovative resources to support the betterment of the community and those moving

into the area.

The second through introducing a CIL is to set it at a level that is reflective of the

growth in residential value in the ward and in comparison to new-build private

developments in other parts of the borough. White City East will continue to be an

area of high demand and properties will be sold above the London average. This

must be reflected in setting a suitable CIL. WWCNF feels that this essential in order

to obtain resources that enable the development of new infrastructure that meets the

needs of the current and emerging communities.

WWCNF is disappointed that the CIL cannot be used to fund affordable housing. The

section 106 agreements to date have been woefully inadequate in addressing this

issue. Instead of developing mixed communities the current planning framework is a

charter to pander to the rich 1% and perpetuate inequality. We hope the new

administration will readdress the lack of affordable housing in White City East at the

earliest opportunity.

WWCNF believes in the introduction of a CIL as The Planning Act and The Localism Act state that 25% of income generated within the neighbouring area should go to the local community. WWCNF, as a strategic stakeholder partnership forum

recommends that LBHF supports this essential aspect of the Act and introduces the policy of 25% of all CIL contributions going towards addressing the specific concerns

and demands that any new developments create on an area. WWCNF would want to work in partnership with LBHF in order to guarantee that appropriate and new infrastructure and services are developed specifically for the area in order to address

the ever-changing needs of current and emerging communities.

As part of the LBHF’s commitment to widely consult on the charging strategy,

utilising existing engagement mechanisms, WWCNF hopes that the council will use

us as their mechanism to defining the needs of this community. Our forum comprises

of a group of stakeholders that is representative of the community and collectively

can reflect the wide range of needs. With our request for LBHF to introduce a CIL for

White City East, we would like to work with the council as the representative

stakeholder forum and be the mechanism to engage with the community and

identifying their needs and priorities for the area.

WWCNF would very much welcome the opportunity to meet the examiner to discuss

in more detail our representation to the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft

charging Schedule.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely

Andy Sharpe Secretary Wormholt & White City Neighbourhood Forum

GA: 3927683_1

Siddhartha Jha


Transport & Technical Services

Hammersmith & Fulham Council

5th Floor Town Hall Extension

King Street

Hammersmith

London

W6 9JU

[email protected]

By Email and by Post

Our ref: PPG/CD/RB/45119238

Your ref:

29 September 2014

Dear Sirs

Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended)

Draft Charging Schedule Consultation closing 6 October 2014

Response to Consultation on behalf of Asda Stores Limited

We act for Asda Stores Limited (“Asda”) and are writing on behalf of Asda to make

representations in respect of the Council’s Draft Charging Schedule.

We have previously made representations on the Council’s preliminary draft charging

schedule, which was released for consultation in 2012.

As the Council is aware, under Regulation 14 of the Community Infrastructure Levy

Regulations 2010 (“CIL Regulations”) the Council’s primary duty when setting the level of

Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) charge is to strike an appropriate balance between

the desirability of funding the cost of infrastructure required to support development from

CIL and its potential effects on the economic viability of development.

In our view, the approach taken to assessing the Draft Charging Schedule does not achieve

an appropriate balance between these two objectives.

We wish to object to the approach taken to assessing the Draft Charging Schedule on the

following grounds:

1. The fact that the consultation study fails to take account of major changes to the

Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 by the Community Infrastructure

Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014/385;

2. the financial assumptions and viability assessments contained in the Council’s

Viability Study; and

3. further concerns relating to State Aid

4. concerns about the Council's approach to setting CIL charges generally.

-

GA: 3927683_1

2

1 Impact of Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations

2014/385

As the Council will be aware, the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations

2014/385 came into effect in February.

These regulations have made a number of wide-reaching changes to the CIL regime, the

most important of which, for the purposes of this letter, are summarised below:

Regulation 14 has been amended so as to strengthen the obligations on the Council

objectively to justify the adopted charging rates. Reg 14 now states that a Council

“must strike an appropriate balance” as opposed to simply aiming to do so;

Examiners are now being asked to assess whether an appropriate balance has, in

fact, been struck;

The Regulations governing payment in kind have been amended to allow local

authorities to accept items of infrastructure as well as the transfer of land;

Draft Regulation 123 lists should now be made available much earlier in the rate-

setting process and these will be capable of being examined at inquiry; and

There have been significant changes to the various CIL exemptions; which will

significantly affect the Council’s expected levels of receipts.

The Draft Charging Schedule and the viability report on which it is based, do not consider

the full impact of these amendments. Whilst the Council acknowledges that a balance ‘must’

be struck, the viability report itself appears to move away from this objective test,

commenting that the Council ‘should’ strike an appropriate balance but that the striking of

that balance is essentially a matter of judgment for the charging authority. This significantly

waters down what is now, in essence, an objective test.

We would urge the Council to undertake a further, more detailed, viability appraisal based

on the CIL regime as it now is, and taking into account the matters raised below. We would

then request that the Council re-consults on the Draft Charging Schedule once the results of

this further appraisal are available.

2 The financial assumptions and viability assessments contained in the

Council’s Viability Study

We also have a number of concerns about the study Peter Brett Associates conducted in

June 2014 (the “Viability Study”).

The Viability Study contains retail development assumptions that in our view remain

inadequate as they do not make sufficient allowance for the costs involved in obtaining

planning permission for a development scheme.

The Viability Study does not make an allowance for residual s106 / s278 agreements for

non-residential development, in addition to Mayoral and local CIL that may be borne by

developers within retail. We urge you to make allowances for such residual contributions.

We note the assertion by the Council that such contributions are not expect ed to be the

norm and will be taken from the ‘headroom’ in the ‘overage’ generated by the development.

GA: 3927683_1

3

This approach is misconceived in two respects, firstly the appraisal model expressly states

in paragraph 4.2 that local planning obligations should be taken into account. By excluding

them from the calculations for commercial retail, the council is missing out an important

part of the overall picture.

By excluding the true cost of residual planning for a commercial development, the Council

has underestimated the true cost of retail developments and artificially inflated the residual

land values used for the financial viability models. This will, in turn, have inflated the

amount of CIL proposed for these uses.

Secondly, the Council has underestimated the frequency with which non-residential

schemes will incur residual s.106 payments.

Although the Council will not be able to pool section 106 contributions once CIL is adopted,

the types of commonly pooled contributions tend not to make up a large proportion of the

contributions sought from commercial schemes – which are usually focussed on site specific

highways and access works, employment and training contributions, environmental

mitigation works and other, site specific, requirements.

This is demonstrated by the Council’s draft Regulation 123 list, which makes it clear that

any site specific green infrastructure, flood mitigation, cctv, environmental or network

improvements that are needed to mitigate the impact of the development and to make it

acceptable in planning terms, will still be funded through section 106 and section 278

agreements.

Taking the example of a 2,000 sqm convenience supermarket used in the Viability Report,

this sized store, would be expected to bear a CIL payment of £160,000 and building costs

of £2,482,000 (£1,241 per sqm). In addition, it would potentially fund all of the following

potential costs:

demolition, remediation and on site highways works

the cost of any off-site highways works required to make the development

acceptable in planning terms including junction improvements, road widening

schemes, new access roads, diversion orders and other highways works;

the cost of extending the Council’s CCTV or public transport network to include the

scheme (including the costs of c reating new bus stops, real time information and

providing new bus services to serve the site);

monitoring costs of compliance with employment/apprenticeship schemes and travel

plans;

environmental off-set contributions to mitigate the loss of habitat or greenery

caused by the scheme;

The cost of any remediation and decontamination works to be carried out by the

council on the developer’s behalf;

payments for town centre improvements intended to mitigate the impact of the

development on the town centre or neighbouring areas; and

the costs incurred by the Council of maintaining any site specific infrastructure

required by the development.

To put this in context:

the section 106 Contributions incurred in relation to a c.3,000 sqm food store in

Ware, Hertfordshire amounted to £871,800. These sums related to bus service

contributions; development of a community centre, nursery; education

contributions; various highway safety improvements; youth service contribution;

residents parking schemes and open space contribution. In addition to these

GA: 3927683_1

4

Contributions, green travel plan contributions, monitoring fees and architectural

lighting on pedestrian routes between the store and city centre were also incurred.

the section 106 Contributions incurred in relation to a c.6,700 sqm food store in

Newhaven, East Sussex amounted to £1,345,544. These sums related to

contributions for improvements to and an extension of the local bus network;

economic initiatives; contributions for relocating local habitats; improvement of

recreational space; recycling contributions; residential and retail travel plan

auditing; transportation and town centre contributions.

With this in mind, we again, suggest that the Council has significantly underestimated the

impact of CIL on the viability of such developments. We request that the underlying viability

evidence be revised accordingly.

3 State Aid

We thank the Council for acknowledging that there are be EU State Aid issues arising out of

the setting of differential rates for different types of commercial entity within the same use

class. Introducing such differential rates confers a selective economic advantage on certain

businesses depending on their size or their type of business.

As far as we are aware, the UK government has not applied for a block exemption for CIL.

CIL charges do not form part of the UK’s taxation system and there does not appear to be

an exemption in place to cover any State Aid issues that may arise. With this in mind, we

would be grateful if the Council adopted a flat levy rate for comparable sectors of the

economy or, if it is not prepared to do so, provide a more detailed explanation as to why

State Aid issues are not engaged by the setting of differential rates to the Inspector at the

Inquiry.

4 Concerns about the Council’s approach to setting CIL charges generally

The stated purpose of CIL is to raise revenue for infrastructure necessary to serve

development. CIL is intended to address the imbalance of raising funds for infrastructure

under the section 106 route, where larger schemes have effectively subsidised minor

developments. However, CIL does not replace the section 106 revenue stream – it will

simply provide additional revenue for infrastructure.

In light of this, we have some further suggestions:

ASDA’s SUGGESTIONS

1. Instalment Policy

We note that the Council is not considering a draft instalments policy for CIL, but will

instead be relying on the Mayoral CIL instalments policy. We would encourage the Council

to reconsider.

Managing cash flow during development is often key in determining whether a scheme will

be successfully delivered. We would strongly encourage the Council to adopt a realistic

instalment policy that spreads the cost of CIL over a number of months or years (depending

on the size of the development scheme proposed).

We would recommend that any instalment policy should link the instalments to the pace of

the actual development; and should not link the instalments to an arbitrary time frame

following on from the date the development is commenced.

GA: 3927683_1

5

2. Exceptional Circumstances Relief

We note that the Council has indicated that it will not provide any relief from CIL.

We would encourage the Council to adopt an Exceptional Circumstances Relief Policy. By

doing so, the Council will have the flexibility to allow strategic or desirable, but unprofitable,

development schemes to come forward, by exempting them from the CIL charge or

reducing it in certain circumstances.

Given the rigid nature of the CIL regulations, which operate in a similar manner to a

development land tax, this is a necessary and worthwhile safeguard that the Council will be

able to use in appropriate circumstances.

3. Flat Rate Levy

Accepting for the purpose of this argument the premise that CIL is necessary for the

purpose of funding Borough-wide infrastructure, a much fairer solution would be to divide

the Council's estimate of total infrastructure costs over the charging period (and in this

connection, it is important to remember that the Government's guidance as recorded in the

National Planning Policy Framework is that only deliverable infrastructure should be

included) by the total expected development floor space and apply a flat rate levy across

the Borough and across all forms of development. That will have the least possible adverse

effect upon the market for land and for development, and yet the greatest possible

opportunity for the economy to prosper and thrive and for jobs to be created.

The potential impact of a flat rate levy on the viability of those types of development which

are not currently identified as viable could be balanced by the Council’s implementation of

Exceptional Circumstances Relief, as mentioned above.

4. Provision of Infrastructure as Payment in Kind

As stated above, the latest set of amendments to the CIL Regulations have now made it

lawful for authorities CIL contributions to be paid by the provision of infrastructure in

certain circumstances.

Given that the provision of infrastructure is often key to unlocking unimplemented planning

permissions and enabling developments, we would urge the Council seriously to consider

adopting a policy to allow payment in kind in this manner. Such a policy could be vital for

ensuring that necessary infrastructure comes forward in a timely manner, as there is no

legal obligation on the Council to actually deliver any of the projects on its regulation 123

list.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, we would ask that the Council undertakes a rethink of its position and

substantially alters its Charging Schedule in so far as it relates to retail development.

Accordingly, we would request that the Council:

Revisits its viability assessments, to address the concerns set out above;

Adopts a staged payments policy;

Adopt an Exceptional Circumstances Relief Policy;

GA: 3927683_1

6

Considers the allowing developers to pay their CIL Liability through the provision of

infrastructure; and

Adopts a single flat rate levy across all development within its boundaries.

Yours faithfully

Thomas Eggar LLP

Email: [email protected]

Direct Dial: 01293 742888

Direct Fax: 01293 742999

Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd

30 Warwick Street London W1B 5NH

+44 (0)20 7493 4933

jll.co.uk

For the Attention of Siddhartha Jha Development Plans Team - Planning Division Hammersmith and Fulham Borough Council 5

th Floor, Town Hall Extension

King Street Hammersmith LONDON W6 9JU

Your ref

Our ref JO/meh

Direct line +44 (0)20 7087 5480

Direct fax +44 (0)20 7087 5498

[email protected]

01 October 2014

Dear Sir/Madam

Draft Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule

On behalf of Imperial College London, we hereby submit representations to your consultation

on the Draft Charging Schedule, in respect of the White City East Charging Zone.

Although the educational uses that Imperial College will be bringing forward are exempt from

the Community Infrastructure Levy, the College supports both the identification of the White

City East area as a separate Charging Zone, as well as the proposed nil rate suggested for all

types of development.

Creation of the White City East Charging Zone

In respect of the former, the White City East area forms part of the Borough's wider Opportunity

Area that seeks to encourage regeneration. As such, its characteristics are very different to most

other parts of the Borough and therefore a standardised Borough-wide approach would not have

been appropriate. The work undertaken by your consultant team demonstrated that

development viability was different in White City East and therefore treating this area

separately is justified.

The rates for the White City East Zone

The nil rate is supported because in order to achieve the successful regeneration of the White

City East area, substantial infrastructure requirements have been identified by the Borough

Council, that development will need to help fund.

These specific elements of infrastructure are better funded under Section 106 Agreements, in

order to focus funding where it is needed most and to enable viability and other considerations

2

to be taken into account, which is simply not possible under the Community Infrastructure Levy

regime.

The approach proposed by the Council therefore offers the best opportunity for securing the

infrastructure and other improvements that are required, whilst at the same time enabling

officers to take into account the type and form of development being proposed and its ability to

fund the improvements sought.

Matters Not Covers

Imperial College is concerned that there are two important matters that need to be identified in

the Charging Schedule, that are not covered in the Draft.

We ask that the Charging Schedule specifically allows for payments to be made in instalments

where development is to be phased.

Secondly, we also ask that the Charging Schedule explicitly states that it will allow for relief

from the levy to be given in exceptional circumstances having regard to viability considerations.

The Regulations allow Charging Authorities the option of giving such relief, but the Charging

Schedule has to specifically include such provisions. Otherwise, the Borough Council will not

have the flexibility to be able to exercise its judgement and the levy will have to be charged,

even where this would prevent desirable development from coming forward.

Thank you for providing Imperial College London with the opportunity of making

representations during your consultation period.

Yours faithfully

James Owens

Director

Nathaniel Lichfield & Partners Limited 14 Regent’s Wharf All Saints Street London N1 9RL

Registered in England No. 2778116

Regulated by the RICS

Offices also in Cardiff Leeds Manchester Newcastle

CIL Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Development Plans Team Planning Division Transport and Technical Services Hammersmith and Fulham Council 5th Floor, Town Hall Extension King Street, Hammersmith London W6 9JU By email to [email protected]

14 Regent's Wharf

All Saints Street

London N1 9RL

020 7837 4477

[email protected]

nlpplanning.com

Date 2 October 2014 Our ref 14203/NT/NF/7520792v2 Your ref

Dear Sir / Madam

Hammersmith and Fulham Council: Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule – Response by Fulham Football Club

Our client, Fulham Football Club, has asked us to respond to the consultation on the London

Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging

Schedule.

In summary, Fulham Football Club objects to the lack of viability testing of future developments of

sports stadia (specifically football grounds), and to the inclusion of such developments within the

‘catch all’ other uses category of development for which the Draft Charging Schedule proposes to

charge £80/m2.

Response to Section 4: Viability

The Charging Schedule Summary document provides an overview of London Borough of

Hammersmith and Fulham’s (LBHF) response to the principal areas of comment made in respect

of the earlier Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. This includes, in relation to the proposed CIL

charges and uses, the comment that:

“it is not agreed that there is evidence that the following uses would be unable to pay CIL at £80/m2: … football stadiums…”

This comment is made in spite of there having been no testing of viability impacts on football

stadia.

In its full response to representations made by Chelsea Football Club (in relation to the potential

expansion of its current stadium or development of a new stadium at alternative locations locally),

LBHF states that as there is no basis on which to define schemes for CIL appraisal purposes, …“it

is not appropriate or necessary to assess the viability of a hypothetical scheme.”

The Peter Brett Viability Study states that viability testing has not been extended to ‘other D2’

leisure uses (beyond health and fitness clubs) because such uses are, of themselves, very

P2/4 7520792v2

specialist. While together they total a significant amount of floorspace, it states, viability testing of

these uses would add an “unnecessary layer of complexity to the CIL charging schedule”. We note

that sports stadia are not even referred to within this context, such that the viability testing is

completely silent on this development type.

It is acknowledges that viability testing must, to some extent, be selective; it should be based on

“appropriate available evidence” and, in this regard, the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG)

recognises that it is unlikely to be fully comprehensive. It is also accepted, in line with the PPG,

that testing of proposed CIL rates should be linked closely with the relevant Local Plan and the

strategy and sites that are central to this.

Fulham Football Club wishes to raise three issues here.

Firstly, the LBHF Core Strategy clearly supports the presence of major sporting venues, and

investment in their future development / redevelopment. Policy CF1 confirms the Borough’s

support for the continued presence of the major public sports venues for football and tennis

(subject to management of local impacts). The same policy also supports the re-provision of

outdated facilities, including for sporting use, and the provision of new facilities (including “major

new leisure and recreation facilities in the White City Opportunity Area”). It is also notable that the

Queens Park Rangers ground lies within an Opportunity Area, where Core Strategy policy

considers the possibility of redeveloping the stadium. The Core Strategy, therefore, establishes a

clear policy basis for considering the impact of CIL charges on sporting / football stadia

development.

Secondly, and notwithstanding the above comments, Planning Practice Guidance is clear that a

charging authority should be able to explain how their proposed levy rates will contribute both

towards the implementation of the relevant Plan and support development across their area

(Reference ID: 25-018-20140612). This suggests that evidence can extend beyond the Core

Strategy. Based on this statement, the suggestion that viability evidence can pass over as yet

unspecified developments that are not directly identified in a Local Plan is disputed.

LBHF is home to major sporting venues, and has a noteworthy concentration of national and

international class football clubs; all of which will continue to need to invest in improved and

expanded facilities to continue to offer world-class sporting venues. Following the redevelopment

of the Riverside Stand, and as you are aware, Fulham Football Club is advancing further plans for

development that will enhance other parts of the stadium and associated facilities. Chelsea FC has

also stated its intention to look at development.

Given the prominence of football in the Borough, the support for major sporting venues in the Core

Strategy, and the likelihood that some (if not all) of the Borough’s football clubs will be looking at

redevelopment, enhancement or expansion, Fulham Football Club wishes to challenge the

assertion that football stadia are not of relevance in viability testing, and would urge the Council to

work with the Clubs to assess this. The fact that stadia redevelopment or expansion is not detailed

specifically in the Core Strategy is more of a function of these facilities being established and

supported by the Borough, rather than an indication that development will not occur.

The third, and related point, is that it is unreasonable to simply assume that an £80/m2 CIL charge

is acceptable for such an important land-use in the Borough based on tests of other major uses.

P3/4 7520792v2

Sports stadia are clearly distinct developments from other major sectors, such as offices,

residential, and leisure, and should be tested accordingly.

One notable area of distinction is in the nature of their impacts and how these can be controlled.

While many stadia-related developments are modest in comparison to other major land-use

sectors, they result in very specific impacts within a concentrated period; i.e. around matches and

across the football season. As evidenced by the s106 agreement for Fulham Football Club’s

Riverside Stand, these impacts led to bespoke contributions to highly defined matters, generally

localised, that are clearly impacted by the concentrated major activity of the Clubs. These impacts

are unlikely to be addressed via CIL, so will inevitably remain to be addressed through the s106

process. Appropriate viability testing in this sector would therefore highlight the fact that s106 costs

are unlikely to substantially reduce for this type of development, clearly impacting on the level of

CIL that stadia development could sustain – and potentially resulting in a nil charge.

Response to Section 5: Draft Charging Schedule

Based on the above comments, Fulham Football Club believes that viability testing will show that

development related to football stadia in the Borough is unlikely to be able to withstand the £80/m2

CIL charge.

The Club is particularly concerned that, in association with future developments, it will be required

to deliver significant bespoke contributions to mitigate local impacts through s106 as well as

making substantial contributions through CIL; the combination of which it could not sustain. This

could undermine future development of and investment in the Club.

The Club therefore objects to this proposed charge.

Response to Section 5.6: Exceptional Circumstances Relief

While Fulham Football Club accepts that the offering of ‘Exceptional Circumstances Relief’ is

discretionary, it would urge the Council to publish such a policy to ensure that the individual

circumstances of development can still be taken into account when CIL is applied. As set out in the

PPG, “use of an exceptions policy enables charging authorities to avoid rendering sites with

specific and exceptional cost burdens unviable.”

It is also worth noting that Section 55 of the CIL Regulations ensures that, even where a charging

authority offers exceptional circumstance relief, that authority has the discretion to apply relief in

individual cases – or indeed to refuse to apply relief. There seems no good reason not to offer

exceptional circumstances relief in the Borough from the outset and the Club would request that

this is introduced.

Response to key questions

Fulham Football Club requests:

• The right to be heard by an Examiner upon examination of the Draft Charging Schedule.

• To be notified that the Draft Charging Schedule has been submitted to the Examiner.

• To be notified of the approval of the Charging Schedule by LBHF.

P4/4 7520792v2

Please address correspondence to me, as representative of the Football Club in this matter.

We trust the above is helpful, and will be reflected in further changes to the Draft Charging

Schedule. Please contact Nicola Furlonger or myself to discuss any of the content of the Club’s

representations.

We look forward to receiving details of progress and future consultation stages.

Yours faithfully

Nick Thompson Senior Director, Head of Major Projects and Design

Copy Sean O’Loughlin Fulham Football Club

End

Planning Policy Officer London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham [email protected]

Our ref: NE/2007/103171/PO-02/IS1-L01 Your ref: Date: 2 October 2014

Dear Siddhartha Hammersmith & Fulham Council Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL): Draft Charging Schedule (DCS), supporting evidence and related matters. Thank you for consulting us on your draft CIL charging schedule. Having reviewed the submitted charging schedule we have no comments to make with regards to the proposed charging zones or rates. We are pleased to see that flood mitigation and defences, and sustainable drainage systems (SuDS) have been included on the draft Regulation 123 list and within the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (draft), August 2014. However, it is important that these documents remain adaptable to ensure there is the opportunity to include any gaps in flood risk infrastructure that are identified at a later date. We are currently working on the revision to the Thames River Basin Management Plan (RBMP). Following its publication, it is possible that CIL contributions may be required to supplement other sources of funding for river restoration projects in the borough. It is also important that, where development proposals impact on a river, it remains possible to secure s106 planning contributions towards any required river enhancement works to make a development acceptable and meet the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD). Following the adoption of your Surface Water Management Plan (SWMP) we strongly encourage you to explore opportunities to implement recommendations made into your delivery schedule. There may be a cross over between some of the green infrastructure projects which have been highlighted and projects suggested in your SWMP. For example, there may be opportunities to include SuDS such as swales and ponds within green areas which would provide surface water storage. You may also wish to consider whether any recommendations made within the Thames Estuary 2100 (TE2100) Plan would qualify as infrastructure gaps and if they warrant inclusion into your plan. I hope that these comments are helpful. We would be happy to meet with you to discuss any of these points in more detail. Yours sincerely Mr Andy Goymer Planning Advisor

Telephone: 020 3263 8054

E-mail: [email protected]

Address: Environment Agency, Ergon House, Horseferry Road, London SW1P 2AL



email: [email protected] date: 2 October 2014 By E Mail Sid Jha CIL Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Development Plans Team Planning Division Transport and Technical Services, Hammersmith and Fulham Council, Town Hall Extension, King Street, Hammersmith, London, W6 9JU

Dear Mr Jha,

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, Community Infrastructure Levy, Draft Charging Schedule

I am writing on behalf of the Berkeley Group to make representations in relation to the Consultation on your Draft Charging Schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy in Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF).

Berkeley has several land interests in the borough including St. George’s consented developments at Chelsea Creek, Fulham Reach and Sovereign Court. St James has interests at Carnwath Road, Lime Grove Mews and the Marks and Spencer site at White City. The latter is subject of a separate joint representation as part of this consultation by the landowners in the White City Opportunity area.

As you are aware, and have referenced in Appendix 8 to your consultation document, Berkeley has already submitted formal representations to your Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (PDCS) and observations on the proposed inputs to the revised Viability Assessment. We are grateful that the Council has taken the responses to the PDCS consultation seriously and undertaken further work in relation to large and strategic developments of the type that the Berkeley Group tends to build.

We remain concerned however that the inputs to the appraisals for larger developments are not reflective of Berkeley’s extensive experience of development in LBHF and elsewhere in London, and in particular that phasing and sales assumptions are extremely unrealistic. As a consequence the development appraisals for those sites, particularly in the south of the Borough, significantly overstate their capacity to viably contribute to CIL whilst also delivering policy compliant affordable housing. Given that the South Fulham Riverside area accounts for over 10% of the Borough’s housing target (Figure 2.5 of the consultation document) we are of the view that this puts at risk the delivery of the targets in the Local Plan.

This response will firstly consider the issues of viability as these are our principal concern, and will reiterate points that have been made in previous rounds of consultation that it would appear have not been properly addressed. It identifies that car parking has not been considered as part of the residential appraisals and seeks clarification from the Council that this will be charged at a zero rate or alternatively be classified as an ‘other’ use rather than be charged at the proposed residential or commercial rates. It will then consider some of the wider points around how ongoing Section 106 requirements will be managed and seek clarification on residual Section 106 assumptions set out in the draft Regulation 123 list and Infrastructure Schedule.

Viability Assessments, Inputs and Typologies

In our response to the PDCS we raised concerns that the Viability Assessment did not consider larger strategic or mixed use developments, which have been common in LBHF and form a significant part of the Borough’s development pipeline.

In response to this point, which we understand was also raised by a number of other respondents, the Council has commissioned further appraisals from its consultants including new development scenarios of 500 and 750 homes, both stand-alone and with associated commercial development.

The Council consulted on the inputs to these appraisals and we provided a detailed response listing specific comments based on Berkeley’s experience in the Borough. We attach at Appendix 1 to this letter a schedule which sets out the key variables, our previous response, and the Council’s reply taken from Appendix 8 of the current Consultation document. In summary the revised Viability Study has largely ignored these concerns and continued with its original assumptions as listed in Appendix A of that document.

We believe that, as a result, the conclusions of the large site appraisals are unsafe, particularly due to very unrealistic assumptions about development phasing which has a significant impact on cashflow, holding costs and costs of finance and therefore goes to the heart of viability.

The current appraisals assume that a 500 home development would be constructed in 18 months and a 750 home development in 27 months. This is a delivery rate of 28 homes per month. The document also assumes that for both developments there would be two phases of sales at 41 homes per month.

We had previously suggested that the following sensitivities should be tested for the private dwellings:

Planning: – both scenarios – 12 to 18 months

Site Preparation: – up to 6 months

Main Construction: (100 homes per year)

o 5 years – 500 homes/and mixed use scenario

o 7.5 Years – 750 homes/and mixed use scenario

Sales:

o 6 to 8 per month from consent (ensuring differentiation between pre-sales commencing

and occupation, as it is only at occupation that sales receipts - including deposits - should

be reasonably taken into consideration in the viability)

In our view the current assumptions in the appraisals are completely unrealistic and contradict the Council’s own phasing assumptions for delivery of new homes. Taking South Fulham Riverside as an example, Table 2.5 of the Consultation Document and Table 3.1 of the Viability Study show the anticipated housing trajectory. They assume the delivery of 2,200 homes across a 20 year period, equating to 110 per year or around nine per month. Even in the first period of the plan when higher delivery rates are expected across a number of sites this still only equates to 13 per month. In this context the delivery of 28 homes per month on a single site, and sales of 41 per month, does not appear to us to be credible.

This is further emphasised by the Council’s most recent 5 year housing supply statement (http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/220812%20Five%20year%20housing%20supply_tcm21-175822.pdf). Table 5 of that document shows a release of 100 homes per year to around 250 per year for strategic multi year developments, and this doesn’t include site preparation and early development works. This should be regarded as ‘appropriate available evidence’ produced by the Council itself which should be taken into account in considering the viability of proposed CIL charges.

We would therefore respectfully request again that the Council at the very least re-runs the appraisals using the sensitivities we have identified to confirm the effects of that on viability, particularly in the south of Borough scenarios.

We also have concerns about some of the proposed rates of CIL, even on the basis of the current appraisals. We note that the viability study at Table 6.2 and the Consultation Document at Figure 4.6 both place great emphasis on the proportion of Gross Development Value (GDV) that CIL represents. The tables seek to demonstrate that even in the south of the Borough, where the highest residential rates are proposed, the maximum proportion of GDV that the proposed CIL charges account for is 3.5%, and that a range of 1% to 5% is acceptable.

However the report does not include in this calculation the London Mayor’s CIL (MCIL) of £50 per square metre and, for developments in the South of the Borough a potential residual Section 106 estimated by the Council at up to £100 per square metre of private development (which as we note below could be higher). Where these requirements are added they take the required contribution to 5% of GDV and above for developments in the south of the Borough. In this context we are concerned that the proposed rates will allow little flexibility to deal with on-site costs nor allow provision of the required levels of affordable housing particularly when, as the Council acknowledges (at para 4.2.11 of the consultation document), it is not currently getting close to its affordable housing target when there is no Borough CIL charge in place.

We also note that in the appraisals contained in Appendix C of the Viability Study, no allowance has been made for car parking. As you will be aware covered and underground car parking will usually be regarded as Gross Internal Area (GIA) and therefore potentially as chargeable development. The Council has provided no evidence about the viability of car parking as part of large scale residential developments. It would be useful for the Council to confirm its assumptions about how car parking will be treated for the purposes of CIL. We assume that it will either be zero rated (as no evidence has been provided of its impact on viability) or at the rate for ‘other uses’ (£80/sqm). If car parking were to be charged at the relevant residential and commercial rates in the same development it would make a very significant difference to CIL liability and, aside from our other concerns, invalidate the viability assessments for the larger development scenarios (500 and 750 homes).

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/220812%20Five%20year%20housing%20supply_tcm21-175822.pdf

Section 106 Obligations and Regulation 123 List

We welcome the detailed work on infrastructure planning that the Council has produced to support the publication of the DCS and the Draft Regulation 123 list. The schedule at Appendix 3 provides a very helpful way of understanding which items of infrastructure are likely to be funded from which source and, in particular, those that are assumed to be continued to be funded via Section 106 contributions.

In the case of two of the three main regeneration areas of the Borough (Fulham/Earls Court and White City) this is proposed to be through a zero CIL charge with infrastructure delivered directly through Section 106 obligations. In the case of South Fulham Riverside on the other hand the Council is proposing the highest rate of CIL in the Borough, on site infrastructure provision, and residual Section 106 contributions.

The latter are shown in Appendix 3 as Refs CS4, CS7 (both early years), HR6 (Employment Training), TTS4 (Decentralised Energy), TTS57 (Pier), TTS60 (Buses), and TTS74 to 79 (Highways). Collectively these have a total indicative cost of £55 million and are explicitly excluded from the Regulation 123 list. If this total were split between each private dwelling, using the same assumptions as the viability study this would equate to around £500 per square metre. This is significantly in excess of what is assumed in the Viability Study.

We acknowledge that the Council says in the Consultation document (at para 3.2.28) that the Infrastructure List should not be taken to identify likely residual Section 106 requirements as some will already be secured and others will be expected to be taken from the site value. Nevertheless as it stands the table does not provide the necessary reassurance that S106 will be appropriately scaled back as assumed in the CIL guidance. At the time of the publication of the PDCS the Council suggested that it would be producing a revised Planning Obligations SPD, which would have the potential to offer greater clarity and reassurance around these issues. Berkeley Group strongly supported this approach in its representations and is disappointed the Council has chosen not to pursue it. It would be very useful, prior to any Examination, if the Council could provide more clarity over the ongoing Section 106 requirements in South Fulham Riverside.

Other Matters (Consultation Document Section 5.6)

We note the Council’s intention to adopt the Mayor of London’s Instalments Policy. In the context of the potential scale of CIL contributions for Borough CIL compared to MCIL – up to eight times as much – we would hope the Council would consider a longer instalments policy for large developments as for example recently adopted by LB Wandsworth. This allows for four instalments for larger developments with timings being based on the overall liability.

(http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/6696/cil_payments_by_instalments_policy)

http://www.wandsworth.gov.uk/download/downloads/id/6696/cil_payments_by_instalments_policy

We also note that the Council is not proposing to allow for any of the Discretionary Reliefs. Given the potentially significant impacts of the proposed CIL rates described above we would also hope that the Council might consider allowing for discretionary reliefs in Exceptional Circumstances and for Social Housing.

Conclusion

We welcome the opportunity to respond to LBHF’s draft charging schedule and appreciate the care that the Council has taken in its infrastructure planning and developer engagement as part of the charge setting process.

We remain concerned however that unrealistic inputs into the appraisals for larger residential and mixed developments make the findings of the viability study unsafe. As a result the proposed CIL charges, particularly in the south of the Borough, put at risk the delivery of plan targets particularly for affordable housing which we know is a key priority for the Borough.

Given that Hammersmith and Fulham has typically been achieving close to the top of the range of Section 106 contributions in London we would suggest that scope for extracting greater obligations from large scale developments in the Borough is limited. We would therefore suggest that the Council seriously consider, even at this late stage, reducing the proposed residential CIL charging rates.

In line with the CIL regulations I would like to request the following:

To reserve the right to be heard by an examiner upon examination of the Draft Charging Schedule

To be notified that the Draft Charging Schedule has been submitted to the examiner in accordance

with section 212 of the Planning Act 2008

To be notified of the publication of the recommendations of the examiner and the reasons for

those recommendations

To be notified of the approval of the Charging Schedule by the charging authority

I confirm that the contact details for notification are those set out in this letter.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you require further information.

Yours sincerely,

Tom Dobson

Director

Private FlatAffordable

Flat

Intermediate

FlatPrevious Reponse

LBHF Response

(Appendix 8)Further Response

Construction Cost (per sqm) 1,801 1,801 1,801

Low, should be up to 30%

higher No change

Construction inflation has continued

since previous comments and assumed

costs remain significantly below actual

current outturns

Area Per Home (sqm, NIA) 64 64 64 Small average size No change

Area Per Home (sqm, GIA) 75 75 75

Fees Low 12% more typical No change

12% remains an appropriate ratio for

larger developments

Marketing

Very Low, up to £15k per

unit£1k is industry standard

Marketing costs remain exceptionally

low, particularly for high end

residential dwellings.

500 flats

750 Flats

Average sizes remain small

The Council's own most recent five year

housing supply document does not

support these rates of delivery.

(http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/Images/22081

2%20Five%20year%20housing%20suppl

y_tcm21-175822.pdf) Average output

on large sites (Table 5) ranges from c.

100 to c. 250 per annum. This does not

include planning/pre-development.

Build Rates

Aligned with sales rates

and reasonable

27 months

18 months

Requires pre planning

and more realistic

delivery rates (see

covering letter)

10% of build costs

£1,000 per private unit

Development, Enterprise and Environment

[email protected] | City Hall, London, SE1 2AA | london.gov.uk | 020 7983 4271

Dear Sir/Madam,

Planning Act 2008 London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Community Infrastructure Levy – Draft Charging Schedule I am writing on behalf of the Mayor with comments on the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) draft charging schedule. We are pleased to note that the Mayor’s CIL has been taken fully into account in bringing forward your Borough’s proposals as required by regulation 14(3) of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (as amended). In addition, we are content that your CIL proposals will not put at risk the objectives and detailed policies in the London Plan (which, as you know, forms part of the development plan across Greater London) part of the test set out in Regulation 14(1). I would be grateful if you could note our request to be notified of submission of your draft charging schedule for examination, publication of the examiner’s recommendation and approval of the charging schedule. We would also request that we be heard at any public examination that is held into your draft schedule in accordance with regulation 21 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, in particular to address the question of compliance with regulation 14(3). In respect of the above requests for notification, I would be grateful if you could contact Peter Heath, Senior Strategic Planner at the address below, and/or by email to [email protected]. Yours sincerely

Stewart Murray

CIL Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Development Plans Team – Planning Division Transport & Technical Services Hammersmith & Fulham Council 5th floor, Town Hall Extension King Street Hammersmith London W6 9JU

Our ref: H&FCILDCS/PH

Your ref:

Date: 3rd October 2014


- 2 -

Assistant Director – Planning

Gerald Eve LLP is a limited liability partnership registered in England and Wales (registered number OC339470) and is regulated by RICS.

The term partner is used to refer to a member of Gerald Eve LLP or an employee or consultant with equivalent standing and qualifications.

A list of members and non-members who are designated as partners is open to inspection at our registered office; 72 Welbeck Street,

London W1G 0AY and on our website.

Sid Jha

CIL Draft Charging Schedule Consultation


Planning Division

Transport and Technical Services,

Hammersmith and Fulham Council,

Town Hall Extension,

King Street,

Hammersmith,

London, W6 9JU

1 October 2014

Our ref: NTH/STH/J7217

Your ref:

Dear Sir London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, Community Infrastructure Levy, Draft Charging Schedule We write on behalf of our clients, Stanhope Plc to make representations in relation to the Consultation on your Draft Charging Schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy in Hammersmith and Fulham (LBHF). Stanhope are the joint applicants for the BBC TVC site within the White City Opportunity Area, and

are a key developer and investor within the area. Stanhope have been working together with other

landowners in the White City area, the Council, the Greater London Authority (GLA) and Transport

for London (TFL) to ensure that this strategic area of London is developed in a collaborative

manner including where infrastructure is concerned.

The White City Opportunity Area Planning Framework (OAPF) was adopted in 2013 and is

supported by the White City Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS). The DIFS study

identified the full range of infrastructure requirements including on site infrastructure costs and

mitigation requirements. These were then categorised by delivery priority.

The study concluded that the best approach for this area was for a combination of on-site provision

and a proposed ‘tariff’ contribution (from developments of £75/sqm for retail, £100/sqm for

residential and student accommodation, and £40 per square metre for offices). The report made

reference to the fact that the tariff could be converted to a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

charge in the future but recommended that in the interim the tariff approach be adopted, subject to

viability on a site by site basis.

Stanhope support the DIFS approach for this area and encourage its continuation instead of the

CIL approach as it ensures suitable tariffs are applied on a site by site basis and enables this to be

considered against other financial contributions taking account of viability of the individual

developments.

Stanhope therefore agrees with the Council’s approach to propose a zero CIL rate for the White

City East area. Stanhope consider that this will ensure the delivery of essential infrastructure in the

area and is fully consistent with the Government’s emphasis in the CIL regulations and guidance

and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) of ensuring the delivery of strategic sites

based on an understanding of the full range of obligations likely to be placed upon them and the

impact of that on the viability of development.

Conclusion

Stanhope fully support the nil CIL rate in the White City area as it will encourage investment into the

area and its infrastructure whilst ensuring delivery is achievable through consideration of the

viability of individual developments.


Yours faithfully Gerald Eve LLP

[email protected]

Direct tel. +44 (0)20 7333 6377

Mobile +44 (0) 7909 878 026

Appendix 11 Consultation Response Form

Contact details Name

Stanhope c/o Stephenie Thourgood

Position

Associate

Organisation

If relevant

Stanhope c/o Gerald Eve LLP

Agency

If making comments

on behalf of an organisation

Gerald Eve LLP

Postal address

72 Welbeck Street London

Postcode

W1G 0AY

Email address

[email protected]

Telephone number

020 7333 6265

I am making comments on…

Please check all

boxes that apply

X The Draft Charging Schedule & supporting

evidence base – Form A Neighbourhood CIL suggestions – Form B The Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) –

Form C

Please return your completed form either by email to [email protected] or by post to Sid Jha, CIL Draft Charging Schedule Consultation, Development

Plans Team, Planning Division, Transport & Technical Services,


Hammersmith & Fulham Council, 5th Floor, Town Hall Extension, King Street, Hammersmith, London W6 9JU. Representations must be received

by the council by 5pm on Friday 3rd October2014.

Other documents are available at www.lbhf.gov.uk/cil.

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/cil

Form A: Comments on the Draft Charging Schedule & supporting evidence base Please use this form to make comments on the Draft Charging Schedule or

the supporting evidence contained within this Consultation Document (Sections 2-4) and the relevant appendices (3: Infrastructure Schedule; 4: Draft R123 List; 5: Viability Study).

All such representations will be submitted to an independent examiner

as part of the independent public examination and will be made publicly available for inspection on the council’s website and other locations.

Please note that although comments on the content of the Draft R123 List will

be submitted to the examiner for information, it is not for the examination to challenge the list. The council will, however, consider all such comments

separately.

I request the right to be heard by an examiner upon examination

of the Draft Charging Schedule

This request must be made before the end of the consultation period

I request to be notified that the Draft Charging Schedule has

been submitted to the examiner in accordance with section 212 of the Planning Act 2008

I request to be notified of the publication of the recommendations of the examiner and the reasons for those

recommendations

I request to be notified of the approval of the charging schedule by the charging authority

If any of the above requests are made, I confirm that the contact details for notification are set out in the contact details section

(previous page)

Document

or Appendix

Section, Paragra

ph or Ref # Comment

Document

or Appendix

Section, Paragra

ph or Ref # Comment

Document

or Appendix

Section, Paragra

ph or Ref # Comment

Please continue on separate sheets as necessary

Form B: Neighbourhood CIL suggestions Please use this form to make suggestions for use of potential Neighbourhood CIL monies.

Please read section 3.3 and Appendix 3 Infrastructure Schedule before completing.

These representations will not be submitted to an independent examiner as they will not be part of the independent public examination. A

summary of the representations will be made publicly available for inspection on the council’s website.

We would like to know if you think any of the infrastructure sub-categories and schemes listed in the Infrastructure Schedule (Appendix

3, summarised below), are particularly appropriate for spending Neighbourhood CIL. Please tick the sub-category(/ies) and write in the relevant references (#s) of schemes you support.

Sub-Category Ref # of particular

schemes you support

Adult Social Care ASC…

Health ASC…

Early Years CS…

Schools CS…

Youth CS…

Culture ELRS…

Community Safety ELRS…

Emergency Services ELRS…

Leisure ELRS…

Parks ELRS…

Waste & Street Enforcement ELRS…

Community Investment FCG…

Housing & Regeneration HR…

Economic Development, Adult Learning & Skills HR…

Libraries & Archives LA…

Energy TTS…

Environmental Health TTS…

Drainage & Flooding TTS…

Highways TTS…

Transport TTS…

Please put forward any other suggestions for spending Neighbourhood CIL to address demands placed on an area by development

Description of your suggestion

How does the suggestion address demands

that development places on an area?

The suggestion helps address demands that

development places on which (ward) area? 1. College Park &

Old Oak

2. Wormholt &

White City

3. Shepherds

Bush Green

4. Askew

5. Ravenscourt

Park

6. Hammersmith

Broadway

7. Addison

8. Avonmore &

Brook Green

9. Fulham Reach

10. North End

11. Palace

Riverside

12. Munster

13. Fulham

Broadway

14. Town

15. Parsons

Green & Walham

16. Sands End

Larger ward maps are

available in Appendix 12

What other information, if any, can you

provide on your suggestion?

E.g. other organisations involved, estimated costs (£), other committed or possible funding

Please put forward any other suggestions for spending Neighbourhood CIL to address demands placed on an area by development

Description of your suggestion

How does the suggestion address demands that development places on an area?

The suggestion helps address demands that

development places on which (ward) area?

1. College Park &

Old Oak

2. Wormholt &

White City

3. Shepherds

Bush Green

4. Askew

5. Ravenscourt

Park

6. Hammersmith

Broadway

7. Addison

8. Avonmore &

Brook Green

9. Fulham Reach

10. North End

11. Palace

Riverside

12. Munster

13. Fulham

Broadway

14. Town

15. Parsons

Green & Walham

16. Sands End

Larger ward maps are

available in Appendix 12

What other information, if any, can you provide on your suggestion?

E.g. other organisations involved, estimated costs (£), other committed or possible funding


Form C: Comments on the Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) Please use this form to make comments relating to the Equalities Impact

Assessment (EqIA) (section 5.10 / Appendix 7 EqIA).

These representations will not be submitted to an independent examiner as they will not be part of the independent public examination. A summary of the representations will be made publicly available for

inspection on the council’s website.

Document or

Appendix

Section or Page

# Comment

Appendix 7 EqIA

Appendix

7 EqIA

Appendix 7 EqIA


Jones Lang LaSalle Ltd 30 Warwick Street London W1B 5NH +44 (0)20 7493 4933 jll.co.uk

Jones Lang LaSalle Limited

Registered in England & Wales Number 1188567

Registered Office 30 Warwick Street London W1B 5NH

CIL Consultation

Policy and Spatial Planning

Hammersmith and Fulham Council

Town Hall Extension

King Street

Hammersmith

London

W6 9JU

Your ref

Our ref

Direct line 020 3147 1019

Mobile 07702 778013

[email protected]

2 October 2014

Dear Sir / Madam

RE: COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) PRELIMINARY DRAFT

CHARGING SCHEDULE (PDCS)

We write on behalf of our client Romulus Construction Ltd, who is the freehold owner of land in

the town centres of the London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham Borough (LBHF).

Specifically, Romulus is currently engaged in pre-application discussions with planning officers in

relation to the proposed redevelopment of their site in Beadon Road in Hammersmith town centre -

known as ‘The Triangle site’ - for a large scale office-led and office/residential-led mixed use

redevelopment. Indeed, Romulus plan to submit a full planning application in the coming weeks.

Romulus is therefore particularly interested in how the proposed LBHF CIL will affect the viability

of this imminent and strategically important redevelopment proposal, as well as the potential future

development of their other landholdings.

Romulus were recently notified that LBHF is carrying out a second round of consultation on its

Preliminary Draft CIL Charging Schedule (PDCS) following the provision of comments dated 17th

October 2012 on the first round of consultation (copy of the representations attached).

We have therefore reviewed the latest PDCS on behalf of Romulus, and set out their comments

below:

1. It is extremely disappointing that, in the 2 years following the first round of consultation, the

PDCS does not appear to have changed at all. Indeed, the CIL figures in respect of

Hammersmith town centre remain the same despite our client’s previous representations

making clear that:

2

− The proposed CIL, when taken together with the Mayoral CIL of £50 per sq m, will have a

significant detrimental impact on the viability, and therefore the timely deliverability, of

otherwise sustainable development proposals.

− The high CIL charging rates proposed are likely to result in a continuing under delivery of

all forms and tenure of housing, in the context of the London Plan targets, and the same

applies to office, hotel and other commercial land uses.

2. The PDCS makes no allowance for relief for exceptional circumstances. As set out in our

previous representations, this approach runs contrary to the Government’s stated strategy to

incentivise developers to bring forward more development in the current economic climate.

Indeed, a consequence of the proposed approach is that there is little, if any, scope for

applicants and developers to negotiate with the Local Authority on Planning Obligations. This

compounds the concerns over development viability outlined above, and has a critical link to

the ability or otherwise of residential development schemes to contribute to towards the LBHF

and wider London targets for affordable housing.

3. Finally, none of our concerns regarding the methodology underpinning the proposed CIL rates

have been addressed. Notably, the impact of the proposed CIL rates on the viability of mixed

use schemes has not been taken into account, and an allowance has only been made for

architects fees in determining the cost of consultants employed in bringing development

proposals forward. Generally, we refer back to our previous comments in respect of this issue

and request that the matter be addressed prior to the final CIL charging rates being adopted.

We trust both the above points, as well as our client’s previous comments, will be taken into

account by officers when coming to a decision on the final CIL figures, and we look forward to

receiving formal notification that these comments have been received in due course.

Yours sincerely

Sarah Roe

Associate Director

Jones Lang LaSalle Limited

Encs. CIL representations – first round of consultation

email: [email protected] date: 3 October 2014 BY EMAIL Siddhartha Jha CIL Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Development Plans Team Transport and Technical Services, Hammersmith and Fulham Council, 5th Floor Town Hall Extension, King Street, Hammersmith, London, W6 9JU

Dear Mr Jha,

London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham, Community Infrastructure Levy, Draft Charging Schedule

I am writing on behalf of the landowners in the White City East regeneration area (St. James Group Ltd, Stanhope PLC, Imperial College London and Westfield Shoppingtowns Ltd) to make representations to the consultation on your Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) in Hammersmith and Fulham.

As you will be aware, the landowners in the White City area have been working with the Council (LBHF), Greater London Authority (GLA), and Transport for London (TFL) to ensure that this critical area of London is developed in a co-ordinated fashion and that the necessary infrastructure is in place to support that development.

Detailed policy for the area is set out in the White City Opportunity Area Planning Framework (WCOAPF), which was supported by the White City Development Infrastructure Funding Study (DIFS). The latter identifies the site-specific and area-wide infrastructure requirements and sets out a tariff-based approach for delivering area-wide infrastructure.

It has been our view that, given the complexity of on and off-site infrastructure requirements and the Council and GLA’s other priorities, not least affordable housing, taking a policy-based approach to infrastructure delivery, secured through Section 106 agreements for each site, is the most effective way for partners to achieve the common priorities for the area.

We are pleased that the Council agrees with such an approach and has proposed to set a zero CIL rate White City East. In our view, this will maximise the delivery of essential infrastructure needed to support development in the Opportunity Area and is fully consistent with the Government’s emphasis in the CIL regulations and guidance and the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) (2012) of ensuring that the delivery of strategic sites is based on an understanding of the full range of obligations likely to be placed upon them and the impact of this on the viability of development.

The White City Opportunity Area

The White City Opportunity Area covers around 110 hectares. It is identified in the London Plan (2011) and the LBHF’s Core Strategy as a key growth location. The London Plan identifies capacity for 5,000 homes and 10,000 jobs. The WCOAPF identifies within this a ‘White City East’ sub-area which contains the Opportunity Area’s main capacity for these new homes and jobs.

White City East includes the following sites:

The Marks and Spencer site, which is the subject of a current planning application from St James

Group Ltd for a residential-led mixed-use development of up to 1,465 new homes, providing new

links through and across the area and White City Green, the new strategic open space for the area;

Imperial West, owned by Imperial College London and comprised of two sites on either side of the

Westway - Woodlands to the north and the former Dairy Crest site to the south. Imperial West is

the College’s major new campus, co-locating world class researchers, businesses and higher

education partners to create value from ideas, for the benefit of society on a local, national and

global scale;

Westfield London, which comprises the Westfield London Shopping Centre, which opened in 2008,

and a proposed extension, together with 1,522 new homes which was recently granted planning

permission;

Television Centre, a partnership between Stanhope PLC and the BBC which will provide

entertainment and leisure facilities, public open space, offices aimed at the creative sector, a new

boutique hotel and 1,000 homes. Planning permission was granted in January 2014, and a revised

application is currently being considered by LBHF;

BBC Media Village, which is still occupied by the BBC.

White City East has historically been separated from its surrounding neighbourhoods by large roads (the A40 Westway, and West Cross Route) and railway lines (the Central Line and London Overground). The area to the east of Wood Lane has been in mainly industrial use with little public access. As a result, the sites have significant development costs including, in some cases, decking to create development platforms and new bridges, roads and open space. The new residential and working populations will also bring additional demands for social and community infrastructure including schools and health provision. In addition, there are also other site-specific costs that need to be factored into any consideration such as significant abnormal construction costs resulting from the listed status of the Television Centre.

In recognition of the need for co-ordinated development and fair apportionment of infrastructure costs, the Council, GLA and TfL worked with landowners to commission the DIFS. This study identified the full range of infrastructure requirements including on site infrastructure costs and requirements and mitigation requirements which were classified as ‘essential’, ‘high priority’ and ‘desirable’.

The study then considered how these requirements could be best delivered, alongside other obligations such as affordable housing which is a high priority for the Borough. It identified a combination of on-site provision and a proposed ‘tariff’ contribution from developments of £75/sqm for retail, £100/sqm for residential and student accommodation, and £40 per square metre for offices. The report noted that this may be converted to a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charge but recommended that in the interim the tariff approach be adopted, subject to viability on each site.

In our view the advantage of such an approach is that it provides the Council, GLA and TFL with the flexibility to secure infrastructure delivery on-site, off-site contributions and other obligations, such as affordable housing, in a flexible way and without the significant legal constraints placed on it by the CIL regulations. It, therefore, allows an appropriate balance to be struck on a site by site basis in an area with a limited number of large strategic sites which have significant abnormal infrastructure costs.

CIL and Strategic Sites

The CIL regulations allow an authority some flexibility in determining an appropriate CIL rate. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) goes further and actively encourages authorities to consider the impacts of CIL on strategic sites and the option of setting lower or zero rates to ensure their deliverability.

Regulation 13 of the CIL Regulations (2010 as amended) allows local authorities to charge differential rates of CIL, including by different zones in which development would be situated (13.(1)(a)).

Regulation 123 of the CIL regulations limits the use of Section 106 obligations to fund infrastructure after a CIL Charging Schedule is adopted or, in any event, April 2015. However, it does allow authorities to pool fewer than five separate planning obligations in an area for the funding of a project or type of infrastructure.

The NPPG contains several specific references to the consideration of strategic sites. Paragraph 19 of the CIL section suggests that strategic sites should be considered in the testing of the impact of CIL on viability and Paragraph 20 highlights the need to consider development costs, including the need for site specific infrastructure, for such sites.

Paragraph 21 states that:

“If the evidence shows that the area includes a zone, which could be a strategic site, which has low, very low or zero viability, the charging authority should consider setting a low or zero levy rate in that area. The same principle should apply where the evidence shows similarly low viability for particular types and/or scales of development.”

We note that the Council’s updated Viability Study (June 2014) at paragraphs 5.7.2 to 5.7.10 recommends that, if the Council were to continue to pursue the delivery of infrastructure through the S106 route, a zero CIL rate would be appropriate in White City East. The Council, in its CIL Consultation Document (August 2014), paragraphs 4.2.18 to 4.2.21, accepts these conclusions and notes that in the context of several of the developments in the area already having planning permission, it should be possible to continue to secure obligations in the area without contravening the restrictions set out in Regulation 123 of the CIL regulations as described above.

Conclusion

The White City Opportunity Area is a key growth location for London and the development sites in White City East have the capacity to meet, and exceed, the minimum targets identified in the London Plan (2011). Significant infrastructure investment, both on-site and in the surrounding area, is required to support this development. To ensure this happens, the main developers in the area have worked with the Council, the GLA, and TFL to identify those needs and agree a mechanism for infrastructure delivery. This mechanism remains capable of working in the context of the CIL regulations and their restrictions on the use of Section 106 agreements.

The replacement of the White City tariff with a CIL charge would add unnecessary complexity to the delivery of infrastructure in the area, particularly on-site infrastructure, and limit the Council’s flexibility to balance its requirements for tariff contributions, direct infrastructure delivery and affordable housing on a case by case basis, reflecting the particular circumstances of each site which cannot be picked up in a generic viability approach. Introducing an inflexible CIL charge would, therefore, undermine the delivery of plan targets in this key area.

For this reason, the landowners and developers support the Council’s proposed approach in the White City area which they believe will both maximise investment in critical infrastructure and ensure that sites can be delivered viably.


Yours sincerely,

Tom Dobson Director

Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum Planning Group response on

Hammersmith Council consultation on its CIL (CIL) October 2014.

Introduction

1. Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum Planning

Group (DF) is hosted by Action on Disability (formerly Hafad).

Our purpose is to identify and advise on access issues relevant to disabled residents and visitors to the borough of Hammersmith and Fulham by providing:

brief comments on over 250 planning applications

annually

detailed written advice relating to access issues on 48 to 50 planning applications annually for new public buildings and new housing developments

formal advice and recommendations on LBHF and GLA consultations on planning and regeneration policy

advice to highways officers on proposals for pedestrian improvements.

We are all disabled volunteers and our response is based on our experience in dealing with planning applications since 2005. We act as a local Access Group for planning and development in Hammersmith and Fulham. We are pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the draft CIL. Members of the Planning Group contributed to this response. Draft regulation 123 List We note the number of competing priorities on this list. As a group of disabled people we have three top priorities

The Hammersmith & Fulham Disability Forum

Affordable housing. We would not want CIL or s 106 obligations to jeopardise viability of affordable rented housing. It will also be helpful for people on low incomes to have affordable rent properties within the housing benefit cap.

Health: We support including health on draft R123 List that includes primary health care and out of hospital care team facilities. It will be important that any health needs assessment considers availability of suitable sites in town centres with good transport links to support

the strategic change of direction across London of centralising specialist health care in major hospitals

moving most health and social care services into local hospitals; other community settings or enhanced GP surgeries.

So patients do not travel so far or have difficult or inaccessible public transport journeys.

Highways and Transport: we support including highways and transport on draft 123 List: our priorities will be the walking environment (dropped kerbs; crossings, smooth pavements etc) and bus services (accessible bus stops, bus shelters with seats, frequency of accessible bus routes etc)

Jane Wilmot Chair Hammersmith and Fulham Disability Forum Planning Group 3 October 2014

Lambert Smith Hampton is a trading name of Lambert Smith Hampton Group Limited Registered office: United Kingdom House, 180 Oxford Street, London W1D 1NN Registered in England Number 2521225. Regulated by RICS

3rd

October 2014

T +44 (0)20 7198 2000 F +44 (0)20 7198 2001

www.lsh.co.uk

CIL Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Development Plans Team Transport & Technical Services Department Hammersmith & Fulham Council 5th Floor Town Hall Extension King Street Hammersmith London W6 9JU

Lambert Smith Hampton

United Kingdom House

180 Oxford Street

London

W1D 1NN

By email to: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam,

LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERASMITH AND FULHAM

CONSULTATION ON COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY DRAFT CHARGING SCHEDULE

Lambert Smith Hampton has been instructed by the Mayor’s Office for Policing And Crime

(MOPAC) to submit representation in respect of the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule.

CIL Draft Charging Schedule

The CIL Draft Charging Schedule indicates that CIL payments will be required for ‘All uses unless

otherwise stated’ in the North, Central A, Central B and South charging zones. This category

includes community facilities such as policing facilities. Should policing facilities be subject to CIL

payments MOPAC will be prejudiced in being able to provide essential policing facilities. This is

contrary to the aims of the NPPF, London Plan and the Core Strategy, where providing such

facilities is considered to be a key social infrastructure and an important part of communities. It is

therefore essential that CIL is not payable for new policing floorspace in the Borough. MOPAC

support the proposed CIL rate of nil for ‘All uses unless otherwise stated’ in the White City East and

Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area.

In addition, providing community facilities such as new policing facilities which are subject to CIL

payments would effectively double count the MOPAC’s contribution to community infrastructure.


For the reasons stated above the MOPAC expect new community facilities such as policing

facilities attract a nil rate in the draft charging schedule in all of the charging zones, to enable these

facilities to come forward.

Draft Regulation 123 Infrastructure List

The MOPAC support the inclusion of ‘Community Safety’ within the Draft Regulation 123 List and

welcomes the recognition that that there are instances where the use of S106 agreements would

be more appropriate in seeking to secure policing infrastructure. This would allow for the direct

mitigation of large developments which are likely to increase the demand on policing resources.

In accordance with Regulation 21(1) we request the right to be heard by the Examiner, to be

notified of the publication of the Examiner’s recommendation and to be notified of the adoption of

the CIL Charging Schedule.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you have any queries regarding the content of this letter.

Additionally, we would be happy to arrange a meeting with yourselves should you wish to discuss

these matters further

Yours faithfully

Kevin Gleeson Director DL: +44 (0)207 198 2292 E: [email protected]


Dear Sirs Your letter of 16 August 2014 addressed to my former colleague Bernard Moran refers. The retained Hammersmith and Fulham NHS Primary Care Trust estate transferred to NHS Property Services Limited, Community Health Partnerships and Central London Community Healthcare NHS Trust on 1 April 2013. NHS Property Services works with Hammersmith and Fulham Clinical Commissioning Group who are responsible for commissioning all of primary care and community service s in the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. Our public health role means that we have a role in ensuring that improvements are made against wider factors that affect health and wellbeing and health inequalities. Good housing, healthy living environments, access to health facilities and sustainability are some of the wider determinants of health that we have an interest in and these are areas that our submission will focus on. Health We support the inclusion of out of hospital care in the community infrastructure levy charging schedule as out of hospital care is a key priority for NHS Property Services Ltd. We would like to note that the room improvements to Richford Gate Practice have now been completed (H6) as has the relocation of the North End Centre for Health and Well Being into a new facility (H7). Cumulative Impact The NHS Healthy Urban Development Unit (HUDU) has developed a model that predicts the future health needs based on the size and proposed use of the development. The HUDU model has been run to estimate the cumulative cost impacts for 2016 to 2032 based on 720 housing units per annum (as per Figure 2.7of the infrastructure plan). We recommend that the capital cost figure from this plan should be included in the plan minus: -The White City (East) facility - £1.64million - South Fulham Riverside - £4.04m - Mental health communities services - West London Mental Health NHS Trust funding gap - £2m This would give a borough wide capital cost figure 2016-2032 of £4,750,080. We recommend that this should be added as a row titled primary and secondary healthcare requirements 2016-2032 with no assumed/committed funding. The Out of Hospital costs reflect the longer term ambition to shift care closer to home and out of hospitals. We recommend therefore that annual ongoing cost should be projected forward to 2032 which would give a total of £10.6m (£520k X 20). We suggest using this cost estimate rather the HUDU model revenue cost figure below. I trust that this gives you the information that you need. Please contact me if you require anything further. Regards

Simon Harwood Senior Property Manager (Interim) NHS Property Services Ltd 1 Lower Marsh London SE1 7NT 020 3049 4225 www.property.nhs.uk Registered in England and Wales No: 07888110

NHS Property Services Ltd, 451C Skipton House, 80 London Road, London SE1 6LH. Registered in England, No: 07888110

Disclaimer This e-mail is not intended nor shall it be taken to create any legal relations, contractual or otherwise. This e -mail and any

accompanying documents are communicated in confidence. It is intended for the recipient only and may not be discl osed further without the express consent of the sender. Please be aware that all e -mails and attachments received and sent by

NHS Property Services Ltd are subject to the Freedom of Information Act (2000) and may be legally required for disclosure to a third party.

http://www.property.nhs.uk/



White City Community Centre, India Way, London W12 7QT

RE: Consultation on Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule

Dear Siddhartha Jha,

I am writing this letter as Wormholt and White City Neighbourhood Forum’s

(WWCNF) representation to London Borough of Hammersmith’s (LBHF) consultation

on Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule. WWCNF is a

stakeholder group comprising of representatives from community/ voluntary

organisations, residents, private developers, and commercial businesses. From

reading the consultation documents, Wormholt and White City ward has been

highlighted as one of the five strategic sites for significant housing development in

Hammersmith and Fulham. There is a forecasted increase of 5,000 properties in the

area.

In LBHF’s CIL DCS Consultation Document there is reference to White City East and

the suggestion that there should not be any Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)

place on each property. This is based on the position of LBHF already agreeing with

private developers their Section 106 (S106) contribution should be £1,000.00 per

private residential unit. In the case of White City East it is stated that the agreements

will meet the cost of the impact to infrastructure incurred by the increase in the

number of households. Although the document outlines the amount of money

obtained through S106, WWCNF feels that should LBHF not set a CIL for White City

East this will prevent the guarantee of income generated being specifically allocated

for new infrastructure and services to support those living in the area.

Peter Brett Associates’ Hammersmith and Fulham Community Infrastructure Levy

Viability Study makes reference to land values in the area, that they are not at the

level as others in the borough, recommending a fee of £80 per square metre (m2).

WWCNF questions the suggestion of introducing a CIL of the value of £80m2 for the

strategic site in the north of the borough. We feel there is a disparity in that it does

not reflect the growth in residential values across the area, becoming closer as an

annual growth percentage with those in other areas in the borough.

WWCNF would like LBHF to reconsider both positions. WWCNF would like LBHF to

introduce a CIL specifically for White City East, whilst maintain the same S106

agreements with private developers. We feel that although this priority area for

development there still remains a community with a number of social factor factors

specific to characteristics of a highly economically deprived area. With the

introduction of a CIL, supported by S106 it will enable the availability of new and


innovative resources to support the betterment of the community and those moving

into the area.

The second through introducing a CIL is to set it at a level that is reflective of the

growth in residential value in the ward and in comparison to new-build private

developments in other parts of the borough. White City East will continue to be an

area of high demand and properties will be sold above the London average. This

must be reflected in setting a suitable CIL. WWCNF feels that this essential in order

to obtain resources that enable the development of new infrastructure that meets the

needs of the current and emerging communities.

WWCNF is disappointed that the CIL cannot be used to fund affordable housing. The

section 106 agreement to date have been woefully inadequate in addressing this

issue. Instead of developing mixed communities the current planning framework is a

charter to pander to the rich 1% and perpetuate inequality. We hope the new

administration will readdress the lack of affordable housing in White City East at the

earliest opportunity.

WWCNF believes in the introduction of a CIL as The Planning Act and The Localism

Act state that 25% of income generated within the neighbouring area should go to

the local community. WWCNF, as a strategic stakeholder partnership forum

recommends that LBHF supports this essential aspect of the Act and introduces the

policy of 25% of all CIL contributions going towards addressing the specific concerns

and demands that any new developments create on an area. WWCNF would want to

work in partnership with LBHF in order to guarantee that appropriate and new

infrastructure and services are developed specifically for the area in order to address

the ever-changing needs of current and emerging communities.

As part of the LBHF’s commitment to widely consult on the charging strategy,

utilising existing engagement mechanisms, WWCNF hopes that the council will use

us as their mechanism to defining the needs of this community. Our forum comprises

of a group of stakeholders that is representative of the community and collectively

can reflect the wide range of needs. With our request for LBHF to introduce a CIL for

White City East, we would like to work with the council as the representative

stakeholder forum and be the mechanism to engage with the community and

identifying their needs and priorities for the area.

WWCNF would very much welcome the opportunity to meet the examiner to discuss

in more detail our representation to the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft

charging Schedule.

We look forward to hearing from you.

Yours Sincerely

Harry Audley Chairperson Wormholt & White City Neighbourhood Forum

Appendix 11 Consultation Response Form

Contact details Name

Chris Colloff

Position

Associate

Organisation

If relevant

Thames Water Utilities Limited

Agency

If making comments

on behalf of an organisation

Savills

Postal address

Hawker House 5-6 Napier Court

Napier Road Reading

Postcode

RG1 8BW

Email address

[email protected]

Telephone number

01189 520502

I am making comments on…

Please check all

boxes that apply

X The Draft Charging Schedule & supporting

evidence base – Form A Neighbourhood CIL suggestions – Form B The Equalities Impact Assessment (EqIA) –

Form C

Please return your completed form either by email to [email protected] or by post to Sid Jha, CIL Draft Charging Schedule Consultation, Development

Plans Team, Planning Division, Transport & Technical Services,



Hammersmith & Fulham Council, 5th Floor, Town Hall Extension, King Street, Hammersmith, London W6 9JU. Representations must be received

by the council by 5pm on Friday 3rd October2014.

Other documents are available at www.lbhf.gov.uk/cil.

http://www.lbhf.gov.uk/cil

Form A: Comments on the Draft Charging Schedule & supporting evidence base Please use this form to make comments on the Draft Charging Schedule or

the supporting evidence contained within this Consultation Document (Sections 2-4) and the relevant appendices (3: Infrastructure Schedule; 4: Draft R123 List; 5: Viability Study).

All such representations will be submitted to an independent examiner

as part of the independent public examination and will be made publicly available for inspection on the council’s website and other locations.

Please note that although comments on the content of the Draft R123 List will

be submitted to the examiner for information, it is not for the examination to challenge the list. The council will, however, consider all such comments

separately.

I request the right to be heard by an examiner upon examination

of the Draft Charging Schedule

This request must be made before the end of the consultation period

I request to be notified that the Draft Charging Schedule has

been submitted to the examiner in accordance with section 212 of the Planning Act 2008

X

I request to be notified of the publication of the recommendations of the examiner and the reasons for those

recommendations

X

I request to be notified of the approval of the charging schedule by the charging authority

X

If any of the above requests are made, I confirm that the contact details for notification are set out in the contact details section

(previous page)

Document

or Appendix

Section, Paragra

ph or Ref # Comment

Document

or Appendix

Section, Paragra

ph or Ref # Comment

5.1.1 The draft Charging Schedule include a rate of £80/m2 for all other uses which could potentially be applied to water or wastewater infrastructure

buildings should they fall outside of the exemptions listed within the CIL Regulations.

Thames Water provide essential infrastructure required to support growth and deliver environmental

improvements. That infrastructure provision can incorporate the provision of buildings such as a new

sewage pumping station or a new water treatment building. The nature of such infrastructure buildings means that there is no impact on other forms of

infrastructure requirements such as schools, open space and libraries. It is therefore considered that

water and wastewater infrastructure buildings should be exempt from payment of the Community Infrastructure Levy for the following reasons:

- the CIL has not been taken into account in

Thames Waters business plan; and - water and wastewater infrastructure

usually has no significant impact on wider

infrastructure provision.

The comments above are expanded upon below: Purpose of the CIL

The purpose of the CIL is to raise funds from

developers of new building projects to help fund infrastructure that is needed as a result of development. This includes transport schemes, flood

defences, schools, hospitals and other health and social care facilities, parks, green spaces and leisure

centres. However, water and wastewater infrastructure is also essential to all new development. Such water and wastewater

infrastructure provision is unlikely to put additional pressure on the above mentioned infrastructure,

conversely, such developments can enhance open spaces by improving the environment.

The Communities and Local Government document entitled “The Community Infrastructure Levy – An

Overview” sets out that the money raised by developer contributions should be spent in a way that developers feel is worthwhile namely on

infrastructure to support development and the creation of sustainable communities.

Continued on next page

Document

or Appendix

Section, Paragra

ph or Ref # Comment

5.1.1 Continued from previous page: The document also sets out that “the responsibility to

pay the levy runs with the ownership of land on which the liable development will be situated. This is in

keeping with the principle that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community. That

benefit is transferred when the land is sold with planning permission, which also

runs with the land.” The predominant aims of water and wastewater

infrastructure developments are to support growth (the same aim as the CIL) and to deliver

environmental improvements. Consequently, Thames Water do not benefit in the same way as residential or commercial developers through the

ability of selling operational sites with planning permission for operational buildings.

Given the aim of new water or wastewater infrastructure buildings are to provide the

infrastructure required to support growth or to deliver environmental improvements it is considered that

charging the CIL on such water and wastewater developments would be unreasonable.

Although most water and wastewater infrastructure buildings would fall under the exemptions set out in

the Regulations, for clarity and for the reasons set out above Thames Water consider that buildings required for water and wastewater infrastructure

provision should be included in the list of developments where there is a ‘Nil’ charge rate

within the schedule.


VAT number 756 2770 08

Our ref: Cdl/boroughplanning/Hammersmith & Fulham/CIL/ Draftchargingschedule London Borough of Hammersmith & Fulham CIL Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Development Plans Team – Planning Division Transport & Technical Services 5th floor, Town Hall Extension King Street Hammersmith London W6 9JU 3 October 2014 Dear Sir / Madam, LB Hammersmith & Fulham CIL – Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) Thank you for your invitation to comment on the borough’s CIL draft charging schedule. The comments provided here are based on the Draft Charging Schedule, particularly the DCS Consultation Document, and CIL documents identified on the website together with the supporting evidence. I am aware that the GLA are responding on behalf of the Mayor, addressing issues such as the proposed rates / viability, and compliance with the regulations and guidance. TfL supports the views expressed by the GLA. The Mayor is committed to providing £600m to Crossrail via the Mayoral CIL, together with raising developer contributions through the use of planning obligations via the SPG. It would be helpful and provide clarity if the Draft Charging Schedule could reference the Mayoral CIL. TfL’s focus is in ensuring that appropriate transport infrastructure is provided to support development across London. I note that:

i) you anticipate raising circa an average of £3m / year from your borough CIL, a proportion of which will be spent on neighbourhood funding and administration (3.2.29 of DCS Consultation Document)

ii) the residual Infrastructure Funding Gap in Hammersmith & Fulham is circa £350m (3.2.27)

Transport for London

Group Planning

Windsor House

42 – 50 Victoria Street

London SW1H OTL

Phone 020 7222 5600

Fax 020 7126 4275

www.TfL.gov.uk

iii) you have provided, at Appendix 4, a Regulation 123 list which you indicate is not for examination and whose purpose is to ‘help provide evidence on the potential funding gap – it is not the purpose of the examination to challenge the list’. (3.2.25)

iv) you indicate that ‘inclusion of items in the R123 List does not imply priority, or that the council will spend CIL on every item, or not spend CIL on other unlisted items’. (Appendix 4 – Regulation 123 List) v) the council considers that it is appropriate to continue to seek S106s in order to directly mitigate the development in identified opportunity areas ‘and that it should be possible to do this without contravening the limits on pooling S106s’. (4.2.20 & 4.2.24). Note 4 of the R123 list describes the constraint on planning obligations.

vi) TfL is identified as a scheme delivery agency / funding source for more than 70 of the schemes set out within the council’s Infrastructure Schedule (Draft). In respect of iii) & iv), your approach to the R123 list is substantially more detailed than those being brought forward by other authorities in London, where lists tend to be of a generic nature whilst identifying the need to continue to require site-specific mitigation. Your approach is to specify particular infrastructure funding arrangements via either Borough CIL (R123), s106, or particular development arrangements in respect of White City East, Earls Court & West Kensington, South Fulham Riverside. Whilst there are benefits from this clarity, for example in respect of bus service contributions, I am concerned at the potential limitation on future contributions arising from this specificity. CIL Guidance (2:6:3:2) states that ‘site-specific contributions like this should only be sought through planning obligations where this can be justified with reference to the underpinning evidence on infrastructure planning that was presented at the charging schedule examination’. I would wish to be reassured that the future delivery of essential transport infrastructure will not be unduly constrained by your R123 list approach. On point v) I am concerned that your consideration of using s106 (R123 – note 4) may not be compatible with CIL Regulation 123 (3) and its reference to the provision of a ‘type of infrastructure’. You indicate infrastructure provision ‘should be possible’ but given the importance of infrastructure delivery within these opportunity areas it is essential there is certainty in these arrangements. In respect of vi), as TfL may have a key role in the delivery of projects in Hammersmith & Fulham, we would wish to work closely together in developing transport proposals, ensuring that current thinking on potential transport infrastructure projects and their funding is aligned. I would be grateful if you could note our request to be notified of submission of your draft charging schedule for examination, publication of the examiner’s

recommendation and approval of the charging schedule by the council. We would also request that we be heard at any subsequent public examination that is held into your revised draft schedule. If you would find it helpful, I would be pleased to meet with you to discuss these matters.

Yours faithfully Neil Lees Team Manager, Planning Obligations Email: [email protected]


03 October 2014

Representation on behalf of Southern Housing Group LONDON BOROUGH OF HAMMERSMITH AND FULHAM: CIL CONSULTATION

Prepared for:

Southern Housing Group

Prepared by:

DAVID WAKEFORD IAN STEVENS

Director Senior Planner

For and on behalf of:

Savills UK Limited

33 Margaret Street

London W1G 0JD

Southern Housing Group: LBHF CIL Representation 03 October 2014

Contents

Contents ................................................................................................................................................ 2

Introduction ........................................................................................................................................... 3

The Proposed CIL Residential Charges and the LBHF Core Strategy ............................................ 4

Emerging Regulation 123 List / Infrastructure & Section 106/278 ................................................... 7

Effective Operation of CIL ................................................................................................................. 12

Viability Evidence ............................................................................................................................... 14

Summary ............................................................................................................................................. 22


Introduction

Savills has been instructed by Southern Housing Group to prepare representations on their behalf in respect of the consultation on the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham’s (LBHF) Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

The representation focuses on the viability evidence presented by Peter Brett Associates (PBA), to support the proposed CIL rates.


The Proposed CIL Residential Charges and the LBHF Core Strategy This representation is made in the context of the Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014 and relevant statutory guidance (February 2014; now added to the Planning Practice Guidance as of 12 June 2014 ). These Regulations and associated guidance came into force on 24 February 2014. The publication of the PDCS, after this date, means that the Charging Schedule will be subject to the requirements of these latest set of Regulations and Guidance.

Viability is at the forefront of Local Plan and CIL testing. It is therefore important that the Council fully understands the trade-off that occurs between affordable housing, Section 106 contributions and CIL when assessing the potential for charging a CIL in the Borough.

The fundamental premise is that to enable delivery, sites must achieve a competitive land value for the landowner and provide developers the required return on investment, otherwise development will be stifled. This is recognised by the National Planning Policy Framework1 (NPPF) and is ‘in-built’ within the CIL Regulations (as amended). It is also the basis of the definition of viability within the Harman report.2

Regulation 14(1) of the CIL Regulations sets out the key test that the Charging Schedule is measured against:

“In setting rates (including differential rates) in a charging schedule, a charging authority must strike an appropriate balance between –

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

- The potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area.”

The CIL Regulations previously required the Charging Authority to ‘aim to strike what appears to the Charging Authority to be an appropriate balance...’ (emphasis added), but the amendments now mean that the Charging Authority is required to ‘strike an appropriate balance’. The onus has therefore shifted away from being a matter of opinion to a matter of fact.

Savills Research Savills has recently published research that assesses the impact of CIL on development viability, notably the delivery of affordable housing . This research demonstrates the trade off required to enable a deliverable five year housing land supply, in respect of the level of CIL balanced against affordable housing provision. The key finding of the report is that “For local planning policies to be viable, there is a three way trade-off between the costs of CIL, Section 106 funding of infrastructure and affordable housing policy, with the costs of local standards and the move to zero carbon being additional costs to be factored into the trade-off.” (Emphasis added)

The research notes that the ability of an area to support CIL, Section 106 and affordable housing provision is largely driven by the strength of the local housing market. Where the housing market is stronger (higher £ per sq ft) the total “pot” available for these contributions increases. In contrast,


lower value areas see reduced viability and subsequently a reduced “pot”. It therefore becomes a question for local authorities to consider what the appropriate trade-off should be, taking into account adopted affordable housing policies.

As discussed above it is critical for the adequate delivery of housing that CIL does not threaten the delivery of the development plan. The National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) confirms and supports this by highlighting that for Local Plans to be found ‘sound’, the identified housing supply should be deliverable within the plan period. The NPPF states:

Plans should be deliverable. Therefore, 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, standards, infrastructure contributions or other requirements should, when taking account of the normal cost of development and mitigation, provide competitive returns to a willing land owner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.”

The introduction of CIL represents an additional obligation and therefore must be assessed holistically to establish the combined impact of CIL and existing planning obligations to ensure that the delivery of development would not be threatened by the introduction of CIL. We have therefore reviewed the identified housing supply for LBHF to determine whether the proposed CIL rates would threaten the delivery of development within the district.

The Core Strategy The CIL Guidance confirms that Local Authorities must have an “up-to–date” development strategy for the area in which they propose to charge CIL. In addition, it states that a Charging Authority must be able to demonstrate how the proposed levy rates will contribute towards the implementation of the Local Plan. This is not exclusive in approach and stems from the contents of Paragraph 137 of the NPPF.

The LBHF Core Strategy was adopted in October 2011 and proposes indicative housing targets in excess of the London Plan requirement for LBHF of 615 dwellings per annum; the indicative rates are 840 per annum between 2012-17 and 720 per annum between 2017-22. In applying the London Plan figure of 615 dwellings per annum, only 472 and 422 dwellings per annum have been completed in 2011-12 and 2012-13 respectively.

In addition to the overall housing requirement and recent delivery rates, policy H2 of the LBHF Core Strategy states that on sites with the capacity for 10 or more self-contained dwellings affordable housing should be provided having regard to the borough wide target of at least 40%. In the Council’s DCS Consultation Document it is noted that in 2012-13 only 18% of the approved homes on sites of more than 10 units were affordable and 30% of the completed homes were affordable. The Council acknowledges that “recently approved housing schemes have generally not provided affordable housing at the 40% policy level on viability grounds.”

The housing distribution and regeneration/opportunity area boundaries across LBHF differ from the CIL charging zone boundaries; for example, the White City Opportunity Area, where 5,000 dwellings (approximately 35% of the total housing requirement) are expected to come forward across the Plan period (2011-12 to 2031-32), covers both £100 per sq m and £0 residential CIL rate zones. The boundary for the Fulham Regeneration Area also crosses the Earls Court and West Kensington Opportunity Area (£0 per sq m proposed residential rate) and Central B zone (£200 per sq m


proposed residential rate). It is not clear why these boundary changes occur and what the implications would be on housing delivery given the significance of the housing delivery in these targeted regeneration areas. To secure the housing needed across LBHF it would be logical to introduce differential CIL rates, similar to the geographical split for the regeneration/opportunity areas from the Core Strategy and London Plan.

This evidence for both open market and affordable delivery strongly suggests that LBHF need to carefully consider the potential trade-off that will occur between CIL and affordable housing. It is therefore essential that the CIL rates are set at a viable level, as failure to do so will put additional pressure on the housing supply. We would also advise that the Council includes a suitable buffer to ensure that the proposed CIL rates are not set at the margins of viability.


Emerging Regulation 123 List / Infrastructure & Section 106/278 Regulation 123 List The new Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2014 require the Regulation 123 list to form part of the evidence base19. We therefore welcome the publication of a draft Regulation 123 list of infrastructure for LBHF. Whilst we acknowledge this is not the final version, nor will it ever be exhaustive, it does serve as a useful guide as to the direction that the Council envisages taking in providing for the delivery of infrastructure to support the Plan.

The table below is extracted from the CIL DCS Consultation Document and shows the infrastructure which the Council proposes to fund in part or in whole through CIL, together with the infrastructure proposed to be funded through S106 & S278 agreements.

Infrastructure Category Draft R123 List

Draft Potential Future S106 & S278 List (or Possibly Part of

Neighbourhood CIL)

Health • Primary healthcare and out

of hospital care team facilities

Early Years, Schools, Youth

• Primary, secondary and special education and youth facilities.

• Early years (nursery) contributions

• Youth outreach contributions

Community Safety

• Community safety facilities (including local policing facilities)

• Public realm CCTV infrastructure

• Enhanced policing contributions • CCTV within a development

scheme and connections to the council's system

Leisure & Parks

• Public leisure facilities including parks and other public open space, outdoor sports pitches, courts and greens, play and other spaces for children and teenagers, swimming pools, gyms and indoor sports halls, allotments and Linford Christie Stadium

• Provision of public open space or play areas within a development scheme required to comply with a policy of the Development Plan

Biodiversity

• On-site provision, maintenance or improvement of nature conservation areas and green corridors to comply with a policy of the Development Plan

Waste & Street Enforcement

• Household and public waste recycling and waste management facilities

• Provision of on-site facilities and bins on the highway required to service a specific development


proposal

Community Investment

• Community facilities including community centres, voluntary sector meeting places and centres, and public cultural facilities

Economic Development, Adult Learning & Skills

• Learning and training facilities, job shops, business hubs/incubators

• Employment, training and workplace coordinators, business engagement services, business procurement

Libraries & Archives • Libraries and archives

Energy • Decentralised energy networks • Carbon reduction & energy

efficiency (e.g. boiler insulation, LED lights)

Environmental Health • Air quality, noise and

contaminated land monitoring infrastructure

• On-site air quality monitoring infrastructure required to assess or help mitigate a development proposal

• Air quality monitoring costs • On-site contaminated land

mitigation • On-site noise reduction

measures and infrastructure • Noise monitoring costs

• Flood mitigation and

defences. • Borough Sustainable Urban

Drainage Systems (SUDS)

• Works required to mitigate flood risk to a specific development (including on-site Sustainable Urban Drainage Systems (SUDS)) (considered alongside SUDS Approval Body arrangements), or works to the Thames Wall where the responsibility lies with a riparian landowner

• Transportation infrastructure for walking, cycling, public transport and highways; excluding measures for highways & transport listed in column B.

• Provision of new or enhanced access from the highway or public transport facilities to a development site. (S106 &/or S278)

• Highway measures necessary to directly mitigate the impact of particular development proposals. (S106 &/or S278)

• Provision, relocation,


Whilst Southern Housing Group welcomes a number of the items included on the Regulation 123 list, and the general approach taken by the Council in linking the Regulation 123 list directly with its Infrastructure Delivery Plan, we would highlight that a number of infrastructure projects included on the list are also likely to be delivered through Section 106 & 278. There is subsequently a high potential for ‘double dipping’. We are therefore concerned that a significant amount of infrastructure will continue to be sought through “site mitigation” Section 106 obligations for items of infrastructure that could otherwise have been funded by CIL and that an insufficient allowance has been tested in the supporting Viability Study.

The Council should also be aware that the use of Section 106 obligations post-CIL are limited, as explained in the CIL Guidance:

“At that point no more may be collected in respect of a specific infrastructure project or a type of infrastructure through a section 106 agreement, if five or more obligations for that project or type of infrastructure have already been entered into since 6 April 2010, and it is a type of infrastructure that is capable of being funded by the levy. Where a section 106 agreement makes provision for a number

replacement or improvement of pedestrian cycle and bus facilities on-site or in the highways immediately surrounding the site (S106 &/or S278)

• Changes to, or introduction of, local traffic management or controlled parking (S106 &/or S278)

• Removal, relocation or replacement of street furniture, dropped kerbs, crossovers, street trees (S106 &/or S278)

• Bus service contributions • River bus service contributions • Provision or enhancement of

the Thames Path or canal path, and access to the river or canal.

• Provision of electric car charging parking spaces within a development scheme to comply with a policy of the Development Plan

• Car club contributions

Environmental Improvements

• Environmental improvements to enhance the appearance, safety and security of the public realm, especially in town centres.

• Action related to the public realm provided within a development site, or action in the area surrounding a site to mitigate the impact of development.


of staged payments as part of a planning obligation, these payments will collectively count as a single obligation in relation to the pooling restriction” (emphasis added).

It is therefore unnecessary to repeatedly exclude demand resulting from large sites and site specific mitigations as the Section106 regulations already specify that this must be so. This is important as a single development and Section 106 agreement can have more than one obligation in relation to a type of infrastructure, which further restricts the Councils’ ability to pool obligations. We would therefore recommend that the Council ensure that they understand the implications of Section 106 pooling post-CIL and its impact on their intended delivery mechanism for infrastructure, with particular focus on the use of planning obligations to secure contributions towards Education provision.

Southern Housing Group would like to see further refinement of the proposed Regulation 123 list in conjunction with the production of an SPD on Planning Obligations to ensure that any potential for ‘double dipping’ is reduced. In addition to this whilst we welcome the close relationship between the IDP and the Regulation 123 list, the meaning of a number of the items on the Regulation 123 list is unclear and furthermore a number of items included on the list are very similar. We would therefore request that the level of complexity is reduced and clarity improved on the Regulation 123 List to ensure potential for ‘double dipping’ and/ or misinterpretation is minimised and certainty is provided to the development industry.

Section 106 Obligations vs. CIL The CIL Guidance places a strong emphasis on the need for Local Authorities to demonstrate, when setting their Charging Schedule, that they have been realistic, when testing viability, about what residual Section 106 and 278 requirements will remain: “When a charging authority introduces the levy, section 106 requirements should be scaled back to those matters that are directly related to a specific site… For transparency, charging authorities should have set out at examination how their section 106 policies will be varied, and the extent to which they have met their section 106 targets”22.

We would recommend that alongside its draft Regulation 123 list and CIL charging schedule the Council should be seeking to produce a Section 106 and Planning Obligations SPD. The production of an SPD would support a holistic and realistic approach to the introduction of CIL and best ensure that the delivery of the plan is not compromised.

Section 106 and CIL are inextricably linked and as such should not be considered in isolation. It is therefore of paramount importance that the Council produces a draft Planning Obligations SPD document to clearly set out how CIL and Section 106 will work alongside one another on all sites. This will provide certainty to the development industry and ensure that no ‘double-dipping’ occurs. This should be prepared in conjunction with the draft Regulation 123 list to ensure that no items included on the list are items that the Council anticipates wanting to collect through Section 106.

Having reviewed this list we do not believe that the operation of CIL and Section 106 has been clearly defined and properly accounted for within the viability evidence. We are subsequently concerned about the scale of Section 106 contributions that will continue to be sought alongside the proposed CIL rates on sites within the Borough, particularly strategic or large sites. Extra care should be taken to ensure that the obligations required through S106 in addition to CIL do not combine to threaten the delivery of development in the Borough.

In preparing this document, we would advise that the Council has suitable regard to the provisions of Regulation 122 of the CIL Regulations23 which states:


“A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is –

(a) necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b) directly related to the development; and

(c) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.”

LBHF have provided a list of planning obligations that are likely to continue to be sought through Section 106 contributions (affordable housing notwithstanding) which is included in the third column of the above table.

Southern Housing Group appreciates the attempt to provide clarity regarding the items which the Council considers will be funded through site specific Section 106 Agreements. However, the cost assumptions within the Viability Assessment (up to a maximum of £1,000 per dwelling Section 106) would not be sufficient to provide the majority of those items referred to. Whilst the Council claim that this figure would largely absorb site specific obligations after CIL is introduced, it adds that “this would not apply to all schemes.” Despite figures being provided for total S106 monies received, no site breakdown or further detail has been provided, particularly with regard to linking any obligations and infrastructure requirements by development location (geographic area) and type (mix and density). We would therefore ask that more detail on the anticipated Section 106 contributions is provided to ensure that a realistic figure is included in the viability appraisals.

We would therefore highlight again that it is critical that the Council produces a Planning Obligations Strategy SPD outlining what is included within each of these generic infrastructure types. This will ensure that Section 106 and CIL can be used effectively to secure infrastructure, without ‘double dipping’ occurring.


Effective Operation of CIL Despite the narrow Regulatory requirements of the Examination, we urge LBHF to make clear at the earliest opportunity the supporting documentation needed to operate CIL and to make it available for consultation. Practically, this needs to be done prior to the Examination so that participants and stakeholders are able to comment on the effective operation of CIL. Whilst this supporting information is not tested at Examination, this information is critical to allow for the successful implementation of CIL and to demonstrate that the CIL has been prepared positively and supports sustainable development.

The documentation should include:

- Guidance on how to calculate the relevant ‘chargeable development’/level of CIL;

- Guidance on liability to pay CIL/Appeals process;

- Policy for payments by instalments;

- Approach to payments in kind;

- Guidance on relief from CIL and a policy on exceptional circumstances for relief from CIL.

We provide further comment on some of these points below.

Instalments Policy We note that LBHF propose to implement the Mayor of London CIL Instalments Policy. This Policy requires any amount of CIL liability up to £500,000 to be paid in full within 60 days of development commencement, with amounts over £500,000 to be paid in two instalments - the greater of £500,000 or half the value of the total amount payable within 60 days of commencement of development; and the remainder within 240 days of commencement of development.

Ultimately, developer cashflow is an important consideration, notably in respect of upfront infrastructure costs typically associated with strategic development. A proposed Instalment Policy should aim to reflect, as closely as possible, the timing of delivery of the development, to ensure that the CIL does not put unnecessary pressure on cashflow and viability.

We would therefore recommend the Instalments Policy is amended to cover a scale of sums with proportionate instalments and payment requirements which is more reflective of the type and scale of development anticipated in LBHF. This would be a more appropriate response instead of a single sum and fixed instalment regardless of scale.

Relief It is not the intention of the Council to offer discretionary charitable or social housing relief at present. We would remind the Council that such policies can only be applied if they are in force prior to an application being submitted, therefore the need for the policy will arise prior to it being made available.

We do not consider there to be any detriment arising from the Council making such reliefs available within policies as part of the Charging Schedule, as the Council will still retain control over the application of the policies. There are strict tests surrounding the availability and applicability of


Exceptional Circumstances Relief. It would therefore only be applicable to those schemes that can justify the need for it and meet those strict tests.

There may well be instances where CIL (even with a buffer) would render development, which the Council may otherwise want to support, unviable. For example, there can be instances where enabling development is permitted to support the delivery of some other planning objectives, such as ensuring the future of listed buildings or to facilitate the relocation of particular uses. With the lack of flexibility under CIL compared to Section 106, it is likely that such developments will simply not happen and important policy objectives might be undermined. It is also the case that where residential development is rendered unviable, by the cumulative impact of CIL and Section 106, that the only option open to the Council will be to negotiate on affordable housing. That may not always be the most appropriate planning balance.

We urge therefore the Council to make available Exceptional Circumstances Relief from the adoption of CIL so that it may be available within the area should planning or other policy considerations indicate that would be the most desirable outcome.

Payment in Kind The CIL Regulations now allow for Payment in Kind through the provision of infrastructure. However, there remain notable deficiencies in the operation of CIL, caused primarily by the CIL Regulations, which places MDC and the development industry in a difficult position.

The scope to reduce the CIL liability via utilisation of Payment in Kind is therefore restricted to those items of infrastructure which are not required to mitigate the impact of a development, which for strategic sites would exclude most (if not all) site-specific and ‘scheme mitigation’ infrastructure.

Payment in Kind is therefore not a credible option, which further emphasises the need to ensure that the Regulation 123 list does not include any items of infrastructure intended to be delivered through Section 106 agreements.

Reviewing CIL The CIL Guidance states that charging authorities ‘must keep their Charging Schedules under review’ to ensure that CIL is fulfilling its aim and responds to market conditions. Southern Housing Group therefore requests that regular monitoring is undertaken to ensure that any detrimental impact of CIL on housing delivery is noticed promptly and remedied. A review period of between 2-3 years from adoption, or sooner if there is a substantive change in market conditions or Central Government policy, should be publicly committed to by the Council.


Viability Evidence

Guidance The principal source of guidance for carrying out and assessing viability assessments is the RICS Guidance Note: Financial Viability in Planning, published in August 2012. Specific guidance on viability has also recently been published as part of the NPPF.

As a viability assessment is effectively a valuation for planning purposes, the RICS Valuation – Professional Standards 2014 (the Red Book) is also relevant.

Further guidance on individual assumptions can be found within appeal decisions, where a particular assumption has been a point of contention, and the Inspector has made a decision based on the evidence presented.

The National Planning Policy Framework and Viability Guidance states that viability should consider “competitive returns to a willing landowner and willing developer to enable the development to be deliverable.” It states that “This return will vary significantly between projects to reflect the size and risk profile of the development and the risks to the project.”

It is important to note, in relation to this case, that the NPPF references risk in relation to the size and risk profile of the development.

The RICS Guidance Note: Financial Viability in Planning echoes the NPPF’s concept of competitive returns, defining ‘Financial Viability’ as:

An objective financial viability test of the ability of a development project to meet its costs including the cost of planning obligations, while ensuring an appropriate Site Value for the landowner and a market risk adjusted return to the developer in delivering that project

Until the Guidance Note was published, the most debated topic between practitioners was the choice of, and assumptions behind, the Benchmark Land Value, against which the residual land value of the proposed scheme is compared. The Guidance Note provided clarity on this subject.

‘Site Value’ (which is commonly referred to as the Benchmark Land Value by practitioners) is defined as:

Site Value should equate to the market value subject to the following assumption; that the value has regard to development plan polices and all other material planning considerations and disregards that which is contrary to the development plan.

In the commentary to this definition, at paragraph 3.3.7, the RICS state that practitioners should “make an appropriate judgment which must be reasonable, having regard to the workings of the property market (see also 3.4.1 below). Clearly, if sites are not willingly delivered at competitive returns to the market, development will not take place, i.e. it will not be deliverable.”


And further commentary at 3.4.5 on this topic: “The practitioner will have regard to current use value, alternative use value, market/ transactional evidence (including the property itself if that has recently been subject to a disposal/acquisition), and all material considerations including planning policy in deriving the Site Value.”

And finally, at 3.4.6: “The assessment of Site Value in these circumstances is not straightforward, but it will be, by definition, at a level at which a landowner would be willing to sell which is recognised by the NPPF.”

The fundamental premise is that to enable delivery, sites must achieve a credible land value and provide developers the required return on investment, otherwise development will be stifled. This is recognised by the NPPF and the RICS Guidance Note, and is certainly ‘in-built’ within the CIL Regulations.

Recent Examinations It is worth noting the most recent Examiner’s comments in relation to a London Borough’s CIL Examination.

BNP Paribas (BNPP) prepared viability evidence for the London Borough of Southwark, which was examined in July 2014. In summary, BNPP prepared a similar study to PBA, which tested about 60 sites, using BCIS build costs and a similar methodology behind benchmark land values to PBA.

The Examiner presented his initial findings in August 2014, under document CDEIP13 of Southwark’s CIL website, which stated the viability evidence was insufficiently robust, and required additional work. The principal issues related to benchmark land values and the approach to build costs. We would recommend that PBA considers these comments.

Summary of Assumptions

We summarise below the headline assumptions used by PBA: Input Assumption

Residential Values £556psf, south Borough £745psf, central Borough £1,057psf north Borough

Intermediate Housing Values £242-£307psf

Rented Affordable Values £243-£249psf

Office Values £17-23psf capitalised at 6.75%-7.25%

Base Build Costs £110psf (houses) £167psf (flats) £144psf (commercial)

External works 5% of base build cost


Professional fees 10% of base build cost

Contingency 5% of base build cost

Profit target 20% on cost (16.7% on GDV)

Finance costs 7%

Timings up to 330 units built per annum up to 450 units sold per annum

Benchmark Land Values £4.6 - £5.7m per hectare, south Borough £9.2 - £11.5m per hectare, central Borough £23m per hectare, north Borough

Sites Tested

Six hypothetical sites have been tested in each of the three areas of the Bough, totalling 18 appraisals, based on the following developments:

- 10 houses;

- 50 flats;

- 500 flats;

- 750 flats;

- 500 flats (with some commercial); and

- 750 flats (with some commercial).

There is a need for market sense checking, and we would recommend that many more sites are tested that, preferably, reflect actual developments. Firm conclusions cannot be drawn from just six hypothetical sites.

A central issue of the LB Southwark CIL examination was whether enough sites had been tested. In that instance, around 60 individual sites had been considered, all of which were real sites.

Model Used

PBA have chosen to use their own internal residual appraisal model, rather than an industry recognised model. We will need to audit PBA’s model to ensure its accuracy.

Work carried out on other projects where PBA are involved suggested that their model produces optimistic results compared to Argus Developer, the industry standard residual appraisal tool.


Affordable Housing Values PBA have adopted affordable housing values based on consultation with housebuilders. In our experience the values stated appear high, particularly in relation to the rented accommodation, which we would expect to be closer to £200 per sqft. We would also expect to see a difference in rented affordable values across the Borough, as this is principally a function of Market Rents.

Advice from a Registered Provider should be sought.

Build Costs The BCIS build cost rates are correct as at November 2013 and should be updated. BCIS produce generic build cost rates, which are typically based on source data from affordable housing developments. The GLA Development Control Toolkit is also based on BCIS data, which is then adjusted for use in the Toolkit. The Guidance Notes state:

“‘Build costs’ are taken directly from the secondary data source, namely the BCIS Quarterly Review. These ‘costs’ are based on tender price/m2. The sample from which these costs are drawn are however predominantly social housing or RP development. The data has therefore been adjusted to reflect expected costs for market housing. The base ‘build costs’ do not include certain elements The BCIS base costs, do not include an element for external infrastructure/special landscaping; they do not include an allowance for professional fees ... ... The Toolkit build costs have therefore been adjusted to include an additional 15% for external works and 15% to reflect the particular qualities of market speculative development.”

We therefore suggest that the BCIS rates put forward by PBA should be adjusted upwards by 15% to allow for the difference in specification between affordable and private housing.

That said, we are aware that site specific circumstance can lead to significantly higher build costs. We would recommend that the build cost rates are market sense checked against actual build cost rates for schemes in the Borough.

As an example, Southern Housing Group have recently received tenders back from contractors in relation to two of their proposed mixed tenure (i.e. private and affordable housing) developments in other inner London Boroughs. The tenders received are all in excess of £200 per sqft.

Other Build Costs PBA have applied a rate of 5% of base build costs to cover site preparation and infrastructure. No allowance has been made for demolition or abnormal costs. The 5% allowance is itself inadequate, and an allowance should additionally be made for abnormal costs and demolition, as these costs will almost certainly arise on every site in the Borough.

For the larger sites, there tend to be considerable costs associated with servicing and on-site physical infrastructure required to deliver serviced land parcels. This is a separate cost to community or social infrastructure and relates to the provision of services, highways infrastructure, drainage etc. The standard allowance of 5% of build costs is highly unlikely to cover this. The Viability Study adds that


“on site preparation for internal access road and other external works will vary from site to site, these costs have been reflected in the 5% of external works. We have further assumed that more significant costs bespoke to a particular site would be reflected by the developer in the purchase price upon acquisition.”

The cost of these works has been accounted for in the Earls Court appraisal, at circa £19m per hectare. We do not have access to all the workings, but based on our calculations this should equate to approximately £60 per sqft, or about 30% of build costs. This is clearly a significant difference to the 5% assumption PBA have adopted on other sites, and needs reviewing.

Therefore this assumption is considered to be to be low and not reflective of the requirements to bring forward sites at the early planning stages. As a rule of thumb, the Harman Guidance indicates that the costs of strategic infrastructure is typically in the order of £17,000 - £23,000 per plot for larger scale schemes. Abnormal costs, demolition and external works would need to be added to this.

Profit

PBA has adopted an assumption of 20% profit on total costs. We feel this is too low.

In our experience developers require a minimum profit target of 20% on Gross Development Value, which equates to 25% on total costs.

There is some appeal evidence that is relent in relation to this topic. The appeal for ‘Land at The Manor, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9BX’, decided in 2012, is a landmark case in respect of developer’s profit, as it was a central issue of the appeal:

“The parties were agreed that costs should be assessed at 25% of costs or 20% of gross development value (GDV). The parties disagreed in respect of the profit required in respect of the affordable housing element of the development with the Council suggesting that the figure for this should be reduced to 6%....

The appellants supported their calculations by providing letters and emails from six national housebuilders who set out their net profit margin targets for residential developments. The figures ranged from a minimum of 17% to 28%, with the usual target being in the range 20-25%. Those that differentiated between market and affordable housing in their correspondence did not set different profit margins. Due to the level and nature of the supporting evidence, I give great weight it. I conclude that the national housebuilders’ figures are to be preferred and that a figure of 20% of GDV, which is at the lower end of the range, is reasonable.”

There is also a recent and relevant appeal decision, where profit was a principal issue: reference APP/V5570/A/14/2214889, regarding Ada Lewis House, Dalmeny Avenue, London N7 0LD. Savills acted in this case, on behalf of Southern Housing Group, and the decision was issued on 1st October 2014.

The Inspector commented: The profit level of 20 % of Gross Development Value was challenged, particularly as the initial viability assessment was on the basis of a lower rate. However, in view of the evidence


submitted by the appellant and from my experience in such matters I am satisfied that a level of 20% can be considered reasonable in the light of present day norms.

We suggest that a developer’s profit of 20% on Gross Development Value or 25% on cost (mathematically these are the same) across the scheme should be adopted.

Timings

PBA has adopted very optimistic timing assumptions based on the first sales within a development occurring six months after construction commences, followed by a sales rate of up to 450 units per annum.

For instance, the 500 flat development that has been tested, is assumed to start on site in April 2013, and be completed within 18 months, and fully sold and occupied 6 months later. This is completely unrealistic and skews the results of the viability assessment.

We would suggest that evidence is looked at, which should show how quickly schemes have been built and sold in the Borough. For instance, we understand that St George’s Fulham Reach development, which comprises 744 units, started on site around January 2012, and only two blocks with 187 units between them are under construction. Similarly, the Sainsburys site, Fulham Riverside, comprising 463 units started on site around September 2012, and the first phase of 215 units are not expected to complete until 2016, with the remainder yet to start construction.

Land Value Assumptions The CIL Guidance states that “A charging authority should directly sample an appropriate range of types of sites across its area...The exercise should focus on strategic sites on which the relevant Plan relies, and those sites where the impact of the levy on economic viability is likely to be most significant."

PBA acknowledge this limitation by commenting that “Actual site values will vary to reflect the landowner’s judgement and the extent to which the landowner takes account of the contextual nature of development, the site density achievable, the approach to the delivery of affordable housing (in the context of residential development), abnormal or site specific costs and expected S106 requirements and so on.”

The approach taken by PBA in assessing the BLVs is based on market comparables with a central benchmark applied in each instance. Whilst it is appreciated that a degree of confidentiality will apply to such figures, we would ask that LBHF provide further market evidence and commentary to explain, in relation to each market area, which BLV is most appropriate and how this relates back to the land supply coming forward in these areas (i.e. which BLV is most appropriate in each market area). This will ensure that the analysis of the viability appraisals in each area is appropriate given the nature of the sites coming forward for development.

The guidance from the RICS contained within their guidance note ‘Financial Viability in Planning’ (August 2012) states that when considering the value of The Development for planning purposes the ‘Site value should equate to the Market Value subject to the following assumption; that the value has regard to development plan policies and all other material planning considerations and disregards that which is contrary to the development plan.’


The Market Value as defined by the RICS is ‘the estimated amount for which the asset should exchange on the valuation date between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction after proper marketing wherein the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion.’

We would also highlight a recent appeal decisions relating to the use of Market Value and the recently published RICS Guidance ‘Financial Viability in Planning’, such as ‘Land north of St Edmund’s Terrace, London NW8 7QU’ and ‘271-281 King Street, London W6 9LZ’.

We list below a summary of all land sales recorded in the Borough over the last year. This is an unedited list of information gained from industry database Molior, showing only those transactions where both the price (from the land registry) and site area are known:

Scheme Postcode Total Homes

Land Price Date Site Area £/ha Sold with planning?

Sovereign Court (Kings Mall Car Park)

W6 0LJ 418 £5,500,000 Sep 13 0.84 £6,547,619 N

Marks & Spencer W12 7RQ 1,800 £99,500,000 Jul 13 4.2 £23,690,476 N Brickfields (Dairy

Crest Site) W12 7RP 1,150 £127,000,000 Sep 13 4.95 £25,656,566 Y

Mackenzie Trench House

SW6 7PD 28 £3,250,000 Nov 13 0.11 £29,545,455 PD

The Coda Centre SW6 6AW 150 £19,500,000 Jun 13 0.598 £32,608,696 N Ashlar Court W6 0TU 68 £21,360,000 Jun 13 0.557 £38,348,294 Y

271-281 King Street W6 9LZ 55 £10,350,000 Jul 13 0.194 £53,350,515 N Palace Wharf W6 9HN 27 £11,200,000 Oct 13 0.194 £57,731,959 Y

Bentley Place (22 Bute Gardens)

W6 7HN 50 £16,800,000 Dec 13 0.18 £93,333,333 Y

York House W14 8RW 11 £4,100,000 Oct 13 0.02 £205,000,000 Y London House SW6 4LX 24 £14,008,000 Dec 13 0.05 £280,160,000 Y

Most sites were sold with planning permission, so pass the ‘with regard to development plan policies’ test that the RICS requires. Sites sold without planning consent are still relevant as a comparator.

Of note is the scheme at 271-281 King Street, which was the subject of a recent successful appeal (reference APP/H5390/A/13/2209347). Benchmark Land Value was a central issue of the appeal, and the Inspector favoured the Appellant’s Market Value approach, which at the time of the appeal showed a land value of £12m (£62m / hectare):

“The evidence supplied by the appellants in support of a BLV of £12m is, in my opinion, wholly consistent. Not only have they provided a Red Book Valuation of the existing buildings on the site of £12m, but the purchase price of £11m, made around 12 months ago, and the 2 unconditional offers all support this position. The BLV put forward by the appellants has been informed by comparable, market based evidence as advised by paragraph 023 of the Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) and paragraph 3.4.7 of the RICS Professional Guidance”

This is of direct relevance to PBA’s CIL study and the approach they should take to determining benchmark land values.

Site Areas Some larger sites require a significant amount of land to enable them to deliver certain items of on-site infrastructure, such as public open space and educational facilities. Consequently the reduction


from gross land area to net developable area can range substantially with reductions on Brownfield sites ranging from 20 – 30% depending on density and location factors.

Whilst the development density applied to the net site area may be appropriate within the Viability Study, the gross land take is particularly important when comparing the Residual Land Value (RLV) with the Benchmark Land Value (BLV). If the BLV is reported on a per net acre basis, it is therefore important that the RLV is applied to the correct net area. Similarly, if the BLV is on a gross basis then the RLV should be applied to the total (gross) site area.

Looking at the viability summary tables contained in the PBA Viability Study it is unclear whether the BLV has been applied to the net or gross site area. It is also not clear how the BLV and density factors have been applied on the 500 and 750 dwelling site scenarios given the inclusion of commercial floorspace in both scenarios, per Borough area. We would therefore ask that PBA confirm what assumptions have been made as this is critical in establishing whether or not the proposed rates of CIL are viable.


Summary

We have raised the following issues:

- build costs –

o these are too low generally and do not accurately reflect the additional cost of delivering private housing, as opposed to affordable housing, which BCIS rates are based on;

o external works allowances are low;

o infrastructure and s106 allowances are very low;

o no allowance for abnormal costs or demolition.

- land value assumptions – these may be reasonable, but require further investigation as to the assumptions and evidence used by PBA;

- timing assumptions – the timings adopted are too optimistic;

- affordable housing values – the rates for affordable rent appear high;

- profit assumptions – the rate adopted is too low and does not reflect current market assumptions and recent appeal decisions;

- appraisal model used – the model used requires auditing to ensure accuracy. Adopting PBA’s assumptions verbatim and using an industry standard model produces a very different answer to the results shown from PBA’s mode.

We would welcome the opportunity to engage with the Council and PBA in respect of the above.

Yours sincerely,

David Wakeford

Director

For and on behalf of Savills UK Limited

Deloitte Real Estate

Development Appraisal

Corrected PBA Appraisal, Site S4, 750 units

LBHF CIL DCS

Report Date: 03 October 2014

APPRAISAL SUMMARY DELOITTE REAL ESTATE Corrected PBA Appraisal, Site S4, 750 units LBHF CIL DCS

Summary Appraisal for Phase 1

Currency in £

REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales

Private Units 450 28,800.00 11,385.00 728,640 327,888,000 Affordable Rent 90 5,760.00 2,685.00 171,840 15,465,600 Intermediate Housing 210 13,440.00 3,300.00 211,200 44,352,000 Totals 750 48,000.00 387,705,600

NET REALISATION 387,705,600

OUTLAY

ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price (2.50 Ha 38,628,940.66 pHect) 96,572,352 Stamp Duty 4.00% 3,862,894 Agent Fee 1.00% 965,724 Legal Fee 0.50% 482,862 Town Planning 20,000 Survey 20,000

101,923,831 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Rate m² Cost

Private Units 33,750.00 m² 1,801.00 pm² 60,783,750 Affordable Rent 6,750.00 m² 1,801.00 pm² 12,156,750 Intermediate Housing 15,750.00 m² 1,801.00 pm² 28,365,750 Totals 56,250.00 m² 101,306,250 101,306,250

Contingency 5.00% 5,065,313 Demolition 2.50 ha 375,000.00 /ha 937,500 S106 750,000 Mayor CIL 33,750.00 m² 50.00 pm² 1,687,500

8,440,313 Other Construction

External Works 10.00% 10,130,625 10,130,625

PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 12.00% 13,980,262

13,980,262 MARKETING & LETTING

Marketing 450,000 450,000

DISPOSAL FEES Sales Agent Fee 1.25% 4,098,600 Sales Legal Fee 375,000

4,473,600 FINANCE

Debit Rate 7.000% Credit Rate 0.000% (Nominal) Land 47,358,323 Construction 26,741,476 Other 8,283,314 Total Finance Cost 82,383,112

TOTAL COSTS 323,087,993

PROFIT 64,617,607

Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 20.00% Profit on GDV% 16.67% Profit on NDV% 16.67%

IRR 11.06%

Profit Erosion (finance rate 7.000%) 2 yrs 8 mths

lindyhoward

Highlight

lindyhoward

Highlight

APPRAISAL SUMMARY DELOITTE REAL ESTATE Corrected PBA Appraisal, Site S4, 750 units LBHF CIL DCS

Deloitte Real Estate

Development Appraisal

FGS Site Appraisal, with PBA Assumptions

Report Date: 03 October 2014

APPRAISAL SUMMARY DELOITTE REAL ESTATE FGS Site Appraisal, with PBA Assumptions

Summary Appraisal for Phase 1

Currency in £

REVENUE Sales Valuation Units m² Rate m² Unit Price Gross Sales

Private Units 720 46,080.00 11,385.00 728,640 524,620,800 Affordable Rent 144 9,216.00 2,685.00 171,840 24,744,960 Intermediate Housing 336 21,504.00 3,300.00 211,200 70,963,200 Totals 1,200 76,800.00 620,328,960

NET REALISATION 620,328,960

OUTLAY

ACQUISITION COSTS Residualised Price (7.00 Ha 18,746,085.93 pHect) 131,222,602 Stamp Duty 4.00% 5,248,904 Agent Fee 1.00% 1,312,226 Legal Fee 25,000

137,808,732 CONSTRUCTION COSTS Construction m² Rate m² Cost

Private Units 54,000.00 m² 1,801.00 pm² 97,254,000 Affordable Rent 10,800.00 m² 1,801.00 pm² 19,450,800 Intermediate Housing 25,200.00 m² 1,801.00 pm² 45,385,200 Totals 90,000.00 m² 162,090,000 162,090,000

Contingency 5.00% 8,104,500 S106 1,200.00 un 1,000.00 /un 1,200,000 Mayor CIL 54,000.00 m² 50.00 pm² 2,700,000

12,004,500 Other Construction

Site Specific Abnormals 21,500,000 21,500,000

PROFESSIONAL FEES Professional Fees 10.00% 19,289,450

19,289,450 MARKETING & LETTING

Marketing 720.00 un 1,000.00 /un 720,000 720,000

DISPOSAL FEES Sales Agent Fee 1.25% 6,557,760 Sales Legal Fee 1,200.00 un 500.00 /un 600,000

7,157,760 FINANCE

Debit Rate 7.000% Credit Rate 0.000% (Nominal) Land 100,907,050 Construction 42,835,599 Other 12,627,699 Total Finance Cost 156,370,348

TOTAL COSTS 516,940,789

PROFIT 103,388,171

Performance Measures Profit on Cost% 20.00% Profit on GDV% 16.67% Profit on NDV% 16.67%

IRR 10.11%

Profit Erosion (finance rate 7.000%) 2 yrs 8 mths

lindyhoward

Highlight

CIL Consultation London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham Email: [email protected]

Our Ref: Telephone: Date:

HD/P5023/09 020 7973 3747 3October 2014

Dear Sid Jha London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham: Community Infrastructure Levy - Draft Charging Schedule Consultation Thank you for consulting English Heritage on the London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule. As the Government’s Statutory Advisor on the Historic Environment, English Heritage is pleased to comment on this document. English Heritage recognises the importance of Community Infrastructure Levy as a source of funding to deliver the infrastructure necessary to support the Borough’s development. However, we are concerned that the application of a local CIL charge on development which affects heritage assets or their settings might lead to harm being caused to their historic significance. For example, there could be circumstances where the viability of a scheme designed to respect the setting of a heritage asset in terms of its quantum of development, could be threatened by the application of CIL. There could equally be issues for schemes which are designed to secure the long term viability of the historic environment (either through re-using a heritage asset or through enabling development). Paragraph 126 of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF) requires that Local planning authorities set out in their Local Plan, a positive strategy for the conservation and enjoyment of the historic environment, including heritage assets most at risk through neglect, decay or other threats. For the historic environment in particular we therefore encourage the borough to ensure that the conservation of its heritage assets is taken into account when considering the level of the CIL to be imposed so as to safeguard and encourage appropriate and viable uses for the historic environment. With this in mind we encourage the local authority to recognise in the Draft Charging Schedule that any CIL payment on development which affects heritage assets may need to be considered exceptional circumstances, and in particular, cases where the

requirement to pay CIL would have a harmful impact on significance of heritage assets due to impacts on economic viability of development. Following guidance set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Relief Information Document (2011) the conditions and procedures for this could be set out within a separate statement following the Draft Charging Schedule. The statement could set out the criteria to define exceptional circumstances and provide a clear rationale for their use, including the justification in terms of the public benefit (for example, where CIL relief would enable the restoration of heritage assets identified on English Heritage’s Heritage at Risk Register.) For clarity the statement could also reiterate the necessary requirements and procedures which would be followed in such cases, including the need for appropriate notification and consultation. English Heritage would strongly advise that the local authority’s conservation staff are involved throughout the preparation and implementation of the Draft Charging Schedule as they are often best placed to advise on local historic environment issues. Finally, I must note that this advice is based on the information provided by you and for the avoidance of doubt does not affect our obligation to advise you on, and potentially object to any specific development proposal which may subsequently arise from this or later versions of the Draft Charging Schedule, and which may have adverse effects on the historic environment. If you have any questions regarding the points raised above, please do not hesitate to contact me. Yours sincerely

Claire Craig Principal Adviser – Historic Places Team: London E-mail: [email protected]

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft charging schedule and supporting documents. The following comments are submitted on behalf on NHS England and the CCG.

Charging Schedule

We support the nil rate for health. We note that health is defined as “Development used wholly or mainly for the provision of any

medical or health services except for the use of the premises attached to the residence of the consultant or practitioner'. It is unclear where the definition comes from and whether the second half of the sentence relating to health services provided as part of a dwelling is

necessary. Appendix 2 Infrastructure Categories & Relevant Strategies

We suggest that the Infrastructure Category Adult Social Care should be renamed Health and Social Care.

Under the health strategies, we suggest that Hammersmith and Fulham CCG Strategic Plan 2012-2017 (October 2012) and Transforming the NHS in North West London: Five Year

Strategic Plan 2014/15 - 2018/19 (June 2014) is included. Appendix 3 Infrastructure Schedule

The following updates are suggested.

ASC 4 - North End Road Centre for Health – the North End Medical Centre has opened, although further investment in improvements is needed.

ASC 5 - White City Collaborative Care Centre. The Parkview Centre for Health and Wellbeing has opened.

ASC 10 - Health & Wellbeing Centre Earls Court – delete, this as it relates to the RBKC Earls Court s106 health contribution

ASC 11 – reword to read: North West London 'Shaping a Healthier Future', proposals to implement strategy, including CCG out of hospital proposals, including Charing Cross Hospital (Imperial College Healthcare NHS Trust) and Parsons Green Health Centre (Central

London Community Healthcare NHS Trust). Schemes and costs to be confirmed. There is the need to estimate costs relating to housing and population growth in Old Oak

Common (noting the 60% increase in population in College Park and Oak Common ward up to 2031). A further iteration of the infrastructure schedule could include this.

It is noted that s106 will be the sole funding gap source for ASC 7 - Health & Wellbeing Centre White City ‘East’ and ASC 9 - Health & Wellbeing Centre Earls Court. This will need to be kept under review as CIL funding may also be required.

Appendix 4 Draft Reg 123 List

The draft list refers to Primary healthcare and out of hospital care team facilities - please delete the word 'team'.

I hope that these comments are helpful. Regards

Malcolm Malcolm Souch NHS London Healthy Urban Development Unit

Mobile: 0795 8528066

Siddhartha, Thank you for providing the London Borough of Bexley the opportunity to make representations on your Draft Charging Schedule. We have no specific comments to make. We have recently moved to new offices; our new contact details are: Strategic Planning and Transportation London Borough of Bexley 2nd Floor East Civic Offices 2 Watling Street Bexleyheath DA6 7AT Tel: 020 3045 5869 In future could you send future consultations by email to sp&[email protected] (please note there are two ‘t’s). Regards, Ian Dunsford Team Leader (Sustainability), Strategic Planning & Transportation, London Borough of Bexley, Civic Offices, 2 Watling Street, Bexleyheath, DA6 7AT Tel: 020 3045 5774

mailto:sp&[email protected]

By email: [email protected] Our reference: 722 · If you have any questions or need any further...

Documents

Transcript of By email: [email protected] Our reference: 722 · If you have any questions or need any further...