Report to Selby District Council
by Mr Philip Staddon BSc, Dip, MBA, MRTPI
an Examiner appointed by the Council
Date:
3 September 2015
PLANNING ACT 2008 (AS AMENDED)
SECTION 212(2)
REPORT ON THE EXAMINATION OF THE DRAFT SELBY DISTRICT COUNCIL
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY CHARGING SCHEDULE
Charging Schedule submitted for examination on 30 April 2015
Examination hearings 12 August 2015
File Ref: PINS/N2739/429/5
Non-Technical Summary
This report concludes that, subject to some minor modifications, the Selby
District Council Draft Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule
provides an appropriate basis for the collection of the levy in the area. The
modifications required relate to adding definitions of retail warehouse and
supermarket development types to the Schedule for clarity. Subject to these
modifications, the Council is able to demonstrate that it has sufficient
evidence to support the Schedule and can show that the levy rates would be
set at levels that will not put the overall development of the area, as set out
in its adopted Core Strategy, at risk. The proposals will secure an important
funding stream for infrastructure necessary to support planned growth in
the district.
Introduction
1.
This report contains my assessment of Selby District Council’s draft
Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule in terms of Section
212 of the Planning Act 2008 (as amended). It considers whether the
schedule is compliant in legal terms and whether it is economically viable as
well as reasonable, realistic and consistent with national guidance set out in
the National Planning Practice Guidance (PPG).
2.
To comply with the relevant legislation and guidance the local charging
authority has to submit a charging schedule that should set an appropriate
balance between helping to fund necessary new infrastructure and the
potential effect of the proposed CIL rates on the economic viability of
development across its area.
3.
The basis for the examination, on which Hearing sessions were held on 12
August 2015, is the April 2015 Draft Charging Schedule (DCS), which
consolidates the originally published DCS with changes proposed through a
later Statement of Modifications (SOM). The original DCS was published for
public consultation between 14th July and 18th September 2014. The SOM
was published for public consultation between 3 February and 3 March
2015. Hereafter, all references in this report to the ‘DCS’ relate to the April
2015 consolidated version.
4.
The DCS proposes CIL charges for residential development and for certain
types of retail development.
5.
The proposed residential development CIL charges relate to three ‘value
zones’ defined on a map in the DCS. The ‘High Value Zone’ covers most of
the northern part of the district, which is a largely rural area but does
include the town of Tadcaster, along with a network of villages; the
1
proposed CIL charge in this zone would be £50 per square metres (psm).
The ‘Moderate Value Zone’ includes the southern and eastern parts of the
district which are, again, largely rural but include the south-western part of
Selby, the town of Sherburn in Elmet and a network of villages; the
proposed CIL charge in this zone would be £35 psm. The ‘Low Value Zone’
is a smaller and irregular shaped zone, centred on the northern and eastern
parts of Selby town, including Barlby to the north and a swathe of rural land
to the west (of Selby); the proposed CIL charge in this zone would be £10
psm.
6.
The proposed retail CIL charges are not zoned and would apply across all
parts of the district. The DCS proposes a £110 psm CIL charge for
‘supermarket’ development and a £60 psm CIL charge for ‘retail warehouse’
development.
7.
For completeness, the DCS sets out that CIL would be zero rated for ‘public/
institutional facilities’ and ‘all other chargeable development (incl.
apartments).’
Background evidence – Selby district, the development plan,
infrastructure needs and economic viability evidence
The district of Selby
8.
Selby is a relatively small district council in North Yorkshire. It is
predominantly rural and its population of just over 80,000 has strong
influences and dependencies with the nearby cities of York (to the north)
and Leeds (to the west). The largest settlement is Selby town, which has a
population of about 13,000 and is the principal location for housing,
employment, cultural facilities and public services. The two ‘Local Service
Centres’ of Tadcaster (an ancient market town in the north-west of the
district) and Sherburn in Elmet (in the west part of the district) each have
populations of over 6,000. Beyond these three towns, there is a network of
more than 60 villages and hamlets scattered through the remainder of the
district.
The Selby District Core Strategy Local Plan
9.
The Selby District Core Strategy (CS) was adopted in 2013. It sets out the
Council’s vision and strategy for sustainable growth in the district in the
sixteen year period between 2011 and 2027. The CS identifies a number of
key challenges for the district, including moderating unsustainable journeyto-work patterns, providing affordable housing and strengthening the
economy. The CS also identifies the context of constraints such as flooding
(which affects large parts of the district, including Selby town), climate
change and the need to improve the image of the district through protecting
and enhancing the natural and built environment.
2
10. In terms of the Plan’s housing proposals, the CS seeks to reverse past
trends that saw most new homes being built in the rural parts of the
district. The CS seeks to distribute growth according to the settlement
hierarchy. The majority of future development is directed to the district’s
principal settlement of Selby, which has benefitted from major
infrastructure investment, including a new by-pass and modern flood
defences. Development in the two Local Service Centres (LSC) of Tadcaster
and Sherburn in Elmet is set at a level that seeks to maintain or enhance
local services and facilities, and meet local housing needs. More limited
growth is proposed in Designated Service Villages (DSV) that have a good
range of services, whilst in the smaller and less sustainable Secondary
Villages (SV), no specific provision is made for planned growth.
11. In terms of housing numbers, the CS plans a minimum of 7,200 new homes
in the 16-year plan period (450 p. a.). Just over half of these new homes
(51% or 3,700 units) are proposed within or adjacent to Selby town and
this includes a large strategic development site (Olympia Park). About 18%
of the housing requirement is planned in the two LSVs (790 at Sherburn and
500 at Tadcaster) and about 29% (2,000 units) spread across the next tier
of the 18 DSVs. The remaining 2% (170 homes) is anticipated to come from
small scale developments in the lower order SV settlements and elsewhere.
The CS includes an affordable housing policy target of 40% (from all
sources over the plan period) but recognises viability issues may require a
pragmatic approach at times. The policy generally requires on site
affordable housing provision for schemes of 10 or more dwellings, with
commuted sum payments on smaller sites (1 – 9 units).
12. The CS’s approach to employment proposals mirrors the housing strategy,
with a heavy focus on Selby and the two LSCs. Up to 52 hectares of
employment land is proposed, which includes a 23 hectare allocation as part
of the Olympia Park strategic development in Selby.
13. The CS’s approach to retail development adopts a town centre first
approach, with a spatial strategy aimed at strengthening the town centres
of Selby and the two LSCs.
14. The Council is now working on a more detailed ‘Sites and Policies’ Local Plan
to support the CS. This plan completed an initial public consultation process
earlier this year and is being revised and updated in the light of that
exercise.
Infrastructure planning evidence
15. The CS was supported by an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP), which was
subsequently updated in September 2014. It assesses and analyses the
district’s future infrastructure needs and the investment plans of public and
private sector organisations. It is a wide-ranging document that covers the
anticipated next 10 years’ requirements in respect of transport (road, bus
and rail), energy, water and drainage, education, health, emergency
services, leisure, community facilities and ‘green’ infrastructure.
3
16. Based on known costs or estimates, the latest iteration of the IDP assesses
a total infrastructure bill of circa £118 million, most of which, circa £106
million, is currently unfunded i.e. there is an infrastructure ‘funding gap’ of
£106 million for the period to 2024. The majority of the funding gap relates
to transport schemes, education and flood relief projects. The Council
estimates that its CIL proposals may generate a revenue of £6.68 million in
the remaining plan period, with the majority of that (circa £6.4 million)
arising from residential development CIL charges.
17. The evidence indicates that the funding gap is substantial and that the
imposition of a CIL regime is justified. CIL revenue would make a modest,
but nonetheless important, contribution to reducing that gap and supporting
the delivery of new infrastructure required to support growth.
18. The Council has produced a Draft Regulation 123 list that sets out the
infrastructure that it intends to fund, partly or wholly, through CIL receipts.
The list includes infrastructure ‘headings’ (rather than specific projects)
covering pumping stations to address flood risk; primary and secondary
education; capacity increases in GP surgeries and dentist; strategic road
network improvements; green infrastructure and off-site recreation open
space. The list includes a column of notes and exclusions. The list also
includes the percentage proportions of CIL revenues that will be directed to
Parish / Town Councils and an indication that the Council will deduct a 5%
‘administration fee’.
19. The Guidance makes plain that it is not the purpose of the CIL examination
to ‘challenge’ the list1. However, I do feel that some comment is
appropriate, particularly as there have been representations and concerns
raised about the draft list, and I consider that the list could be improved in a
number of ways.
20. First, the list has been challenged for lacking sufficient project detail to
provide clarity and transparency (to CIL paying developers) and there is a
more specific, related, concern regarding education contributions. ‘Primary
and secondary school education’ is clearly stated as a CIL funded item, but
also appears as an exclusion on ‘large scale’ residential development to be
identified in the forthcoming Sites Allocations and Policies Plan. In my view,
there is nothing inherently wrong with defining the ‘types’ of infrastructure,
provided they are clear and unambiguous. As currently drafted, the
Council’s intentions on the use of CIL for education projects is unclear, as it
does not define ‘large’ sites. The Council needs to clarify this and ensure
that its approach follows its viability evidence and avoids any concerns
(whether real or perceived) of ‘double dipping’2 where developers may be
paying twice for the same infrastructure.
21. Second, whilst the infrastructure categories are typically framed in quite
general terms, the category relating to flooding appears to be restricted to
‘pumping stations’. The Council may wish to consider whether a broader
1
2
Planning Practice Guidance - Paragraph: 017 Reference ID: 25-017-20140612
Planning Practice Guidance - Paragraph: 093 Reference ID: 25-093-20140612
4
flood infrastructure definition might provide some useful flexibility.
22. Third, the inclusion of a fixed 5% administration fee should be reconsidered.
Charging authorities which also act as collecting authorities may apply CIL
to administrative expenses incurred in its collection, but a 5% ceiling is set
(by Regulation 61). It does not seem appropriate to me to set the level of
administrative collection costs at the maximum level, before collection
activity has commenced and those expenses have been incurred. Clearly, all
charging authorities will be seeking to maximise the efficiencies of their
collection regimes and, where an authority spends less than its permitted
maximum allowance in administrative expenses, it must transfer the
remaining allowance for use on capital infrastructure projects (PPG
paragraph 084 Ref ID 25-084-20140612).
23. These matters were discussed at the Hearing sessions and the Council has
agreed to make appropriate drafting adjustments to the Regulation 123 List
prior to adoption of any CIL regime.
Economic viability evidence – methodology, data sources and assumptions
Methodology
24. The Council commissioned consultants to undertake a Viability Assessment
to support its CIL proposals. The evidence has been subject to three
iterations: the Economic Viability Assessment (September 2013); the
Addendum Report (April 2014) and the Revised Draft Charging Schedule
Report (November 2014). Through that iterative process, the methodology
was revised to incorporate the use of a new financial model developed by
the consultants specifically for CIL testing. Unfortunately, that new model
contained a cell referencing error but the third and most recent report has
corrected this and also refreshed the evidence and modelling inputs. This
collective of Viability Assessment evidence is hereafter referred to as the
VA.
25. The VA uses a residual valuation approach. The modelling seeks to establish
a Residual Land Value (RLV) by subtracting all development costs (including
an allowance for developer profit) from the value of the completed
development (the Gross Development Value or GDV). The RLV is then
compared to Benchmark Land Values (BLV), which are set at a price at
which, it is assumed, a typical willing landowner would be prepared to sell
the land. If the RLV exceeds the BLV then any surplus or ‘overage’ could be
used to make CIL contributions. Where this overage occurs, the modelling
expresses it as a financial value per square metre and this value can be
seen as the maximum theoretical ‘ceiling’ for setting CIL.
26. Clearly, such modelling involves making a wide range of assumptions about
the component inputs of development costs and revenues, and these have
been adjusted and updated through the modelling iterations. Some of the
inputs, such as sales values, land costs, building costs and developer profit
levels, can have a profound influence on the modelling outputs and,
accordingly, assumptions need to be reasonable and robust.
5
Residential development modelling assumptions
27. The residential modelling was undertaken for site scenarios of 0.25 hectare,
1 hectare and 5 hectares. This aims to reflect the range of sites that the
Council considers will make up most of the supply of new homes (the one
large strategic housing site in the district is expected to secure planning
permission before the CIL regime is in place).
28. To establish residential sales value assumptions, the Council’s consultants
initially undertook an analysis of Land Registry data by electoral ward in the
two-year period between September 2010 and September 2012. The
consultants gathered achieved sales values and applied typical floorspaces
to house type categories to give suggested sales values per square metre.
This data was also used to produce ‘heat maps’ to show the variation in
sales values across the district which, at the risk of oversimplification, are
notably stronger in the north of the district than the south.
29. The achieved sales values analysis was complemented by a website based
review of asking prices for new homes in the district, with discounts applied
(reflecting assumed lower achieved prices) along with a stakeholder
workshop. The evidence was refreshed and updated (in a similar manner) in
the April 2014 and November 2014 iterations of the VA. Based on these
findings, the Council proposed three value levels for new houses of £1,910,
£2,075 and £2,250 psm for testing purposes.
30. The Council has used available evidence to assess sales values and that
data set is reasonably comprehensive and up to date. However, a note of
caution is required in its approach of seeking to define a quite narrow band
of average sales values, given the range of values that does exist, both
across different house types, and across different locations in the district (a
sales value range of £1,261 - £3,973 psm was included in the VA evidence).
The variability either side of the averages is a matter that needs to be
considered when interpreting the results in the context of most likely and
most relevant development scenarios.
31. To establish assumed land values the Council triangulated evidence from a
number of sources, recognising that transactional evidence was limited.
These included Valuation Office Agency (VOA) reports, discussions with
developers and agents active in the market, and an assessment of applying
premium uplifts to existing land use values (employment and agricultural
uses). This led to the establishment of three assumed benchmark land
values (BLVs) of £450,000 per hectare (low value), £650,000 per hectare
(moderate value) and £900,000 per hectare (high value) reflecting the
assessed variation in land prices across the district. To ensure
comparability, the modelling assumes that all sites were readily developable
i.e. greenfield sites were fully serviced ‘parcels’ and brownfield sites cleared
and remediated. Given the limited availability of hard transactional
evidence, I consider the Council’s approach on assumed land values to be
reasonable and appropriate.
6
32. ‘Base’ building costs for residential schemes were drawn from Building Cost
Information Service (BCIS) rates using the median value for estate housing,
with adjustments made for the assumed value areas (reflecting the higher
buyer specifications in higher value locations) and site size. The November
2014 iteration of the VA updated the figures to reflect recent build cost
inflation. Additional allowances for external works (10%) and contingencies
(5%) were applied on top of the base build costs. I consider the building
cost assumptions to be reasonable, although current signals of building cost
inflation do need to be considered when assessing proposed CIL rates.
33. Costs assumptions in respect of fees, contingencies and finance conformed
with accepted industry norms. Developer profit was assumed at levels of
20% of GDV on market housing and 6% of GDV on affordable housing,
which I consider reasonable.
34. Affordable housing costs were modelled at policy compliant levels in terms
of proportion (40%), with assumed on-site provision on larger sites and
commuted sums on smaller sites. Although there have been some recent
national policy changes and legal challenges concerning affordable housing
requirements on small sites3, these do not directly affect the Council’s CIL
approach. This is because its modelling has consistently assumed that small
sites will incur affordable housing costs in line with its policy (which accords
with the current national position following the judgment of the High Court).
35. The modelling assumed that residual S.106 planning agreement costs would
be limited to £500 per unit on the 0.25 hectare and 1 hectare scenarios, but
would be £2,500 per unit on the larger 5 hectare scenarios, reflecting a
greater degree of on-site infrastructure provision.
Commercial modelling assumptions
36. The commercial development modelling used similar assumptions and
methodology to assess the viability of different types of office, industrial and
retail uses. The assumptions employed for assumed rents, yields, build
costs, developer’s margin and finance all appeared reasonable. There has
been some challenge to the retail development cost assumptions, notably in
terms of costs associated with obtaining planning permission and the
residual S.106 agreements costs. These issues are dealt with later.
Conclusions on background evidence
37. The Selby CS provides a clear strategic planning framework to guide
sustainable growth in the district to 2027. The Plan’s strategy has a strong
focus on delivering housing and employment growth in the major
settlements. The IDP identifies the infrastructure required to support this
planned growth in population and jobs. The evidence demonstrates a
3
West Berkshire District Council and Reading Borough Council v Secretary of State for Communities and Local
Government [2015] EWHC 2222 (Admin).
7
sizeable infrastructure funding gap that justifies the introduction of a CIL
regime. CIL receipts will help to reduce that gap, although a significant
funding shortfall will remain.
38. Overall, the background economic viability evidence for both residential and
commercial development that has been used is reasonable, robust,
proportionate and appropriate. The interpretation and use of that evidence
in defining the proposed CIL rates and zones is discussed more fully below.
Residential Development CIL –appraisal findings, zones and charges
Appraisal findings
39. The broad brush methodology employed by the Council generates a
relatively concise set of ‘overage’ results which are expressed as maximum
CIL rates psm. In total there are nine results, comprising overage
calculations for the three site size typologies (0.25, 1.0 and 5.0 hectares) in
each of the three assumed value areas (low / moderate / high). The
modelling does not include any sensitivity testing but all of the tested
permutations generate positive results i.e. there is a modelled surplus after
all costs and profit have been deducted that could be used to fund CIL
payments.
40. In the ‘low value’ scenario, the modelling indicates that the small 0.25
hectare site (below the on-site affordable housing policy threshold) could
fund a maximum CIL charge of £95 psm. The larger schemes, with policy
compliant on-site affordable housing, returned lower rates of potential CIL
of £28 psm for the 1 hectare site and just £14 psm for the 5 hectare site.
41. The ‘moderate value’ assumptions generated modelling results indicating
stronger viability, with results, in the same site size ascending order, of
£144 psm, £73 psm and £48 psm.
42. With the ‘high value’ sales and land values applied, the modelling indicates
a further increase in viability, with results in the same order of £197 psm,
£108 psm and £71 psm.
Charging zones and proposed CIL rates
43. These most recent VA results, along with updated property price ‘heat
maps’, have been used by the Council to inform a three charging zone
approach (as opposed to two zones in the earlier iterations).
44. The approach to setting the proposed CIL charges is to take the lowest of
the appraisal results in each of the value areas (the 5 hectare scenario in all
three areas) and apply a viability buffer of around 30% from the theoretical
maximum. Accordingly, in the ‘high value zone’ the Council proposes a
charge of £50 psm (against the lowest appraisal result of £71 psm); the
respective charges and figures for the ‘moderate’ and ‘low’ value zones are
£35 psm (against £48 psm) and £10 (against £14 psm) respectively.
8
45. Such an approach does, in theory, ensure that the vast majority of
developments will remain viable with CIL applied. Indeed, the evidence does
suggest that, in some cases, the viability buffer or margin is substantial. For
example, small sites in the higher value zone could in theory support a CIL
charge almost four times higher (£197) than that actually proposed (£50
psm).
46. I have considered two specific challenges to the Council’s zoning and
charging proposals. The first was a view that the application of CIL charges
on top of a 40% affordable housing policy requirement would be too
onerous. The second concerned a view that the ‘low’ value zone should be
extended to include an additional area to the south of Selby (Brayton ward).
47. With regard to the first issue, I have not been presented with any evidence
to substantiate the suggestion that viability would be challenged by the CIL
charges. Indeed, the evidence before me includes full affordable housing
policy compliance and a charge setting approach that builds in viability
buffers, which, in many cases, are very substantial. I do accept that the
Council’s relatively broad brush approach to viability, whilst modelling the
most typical development scenarios, will not cover all real world
development permutations i.e. there may be exceptions. However, there is
a degree of flexibility and pragmatism in the CS policy approach to
affordable housing. The CS makes clear that the 40% affordable housing
proportion is included as ‘an upper target level’ achievable in good market
conditions4. Based on the evidence, I am not persuaded that the CIL
charges would unduly threaten the achievement of affordable housing policy
objectives.
48. With regard to the second issue, it has been argued that the updated ‘heat
maps’ indicate that the Brayton Ward displays similar values to the ‘low’
value zone. It is indeed the case that, for detached and semi-detached
houses, values are similar, although terraced house and apartment prices in
Brayton are higher. It was suggested that, as detached and semi-detached
houses would be the principal new build products, these sales values should
take precedence.
49. Although a degree of caution is needed in using heat maps (as they map
average house prices rather than more precise psm sales values), they can
be a useful source of readily available evidence, particularly in helping to
define the ‘tone’ of local values. However, the patterns highlighted in the
Brayton ward are also apparent in with other nearby wards (of Hambleton
and Camblesforth & Carlton). The distinguishing feature about the Council’s
defined ‘Low’ value zone is that it displays the lowest values across the
board i.e. all dwelling types (including apartments) which, in my view,
demonstrates weaker underlying sales values, than the generally more
suburban settlement areas within Brayton. At the Hearing sessions this was
confirmed with more recent house price data reports.
4
Paragraphs 5.105 – 5.106 of the Selby District Core Strategy – Adoption Version – October 2013
9
50. The ‘Low’ value zone also coincides with the area where much of the new
development is planned through the CS, whereas Brayton is expected to
have much lower growth (perhaps circa 200 units in the plan period). I do
accept that defining zones in this manner is not a precise science, and a
degree of judgement is required. However, there is nothing in the evidence
before me that suggests that the proposed charge zones are unreasonable,
or that the charges will put the viability of development schemes generally,
or Brayton Ward specifically, at undue risk.
Apartment developments
51. Apartments appear in the DCS as nil rated for CIL purposes. Although the
Council has not undertaken any detailed viability testing, it is clear that the
absence of any development activity (no new build transactions have been
recorded since 2012) is a clear signal that such schemes are not currently
economically viable. Based on current evidence and circumstances, the nil
rate is appropriate.
Non-residential development – viability appraisal evidence and
proposed CIL charges
52. The non-residential assessments tested a range of different types of
commercial development including town centre office, business park office,
industrial and different types of retail development. With the exception of
certain types of retail development, the commercial appraisals
demonstrated that these could not currently support CIL charges. The VA
tested different types of retail development, in varying sizes, formats and
covenant strengths, which are explored below (in each case relating to the
most recent testing results).
53. ‘High Street comparison retail’ development, using reasonable yields, rents
and other cost assumptions, was found to be not sufficiently viable to
support a CIL charge, and generated a negative CIL ‘value’ of -£18 psm.
Although it should be noted that only a large format ‘High Street’ store was
tested, there is no firm evidence to suggest that smaller formats would fare
any better in viability terms in this location.
54. Small ‘neighbourhood convenience’ store (500 square metres gross
floorspace) fared slightly better, but the modelled maximum CIL rate of just
£6 psm does not provide support for a meaningful CIL charge, once buffer
and administrative costs of collection are factored in.
55. The testing of a large format ‘retail warehouse’ generated a maximum CIL
rate of £83 psm. In my view, the assumptions employed appeared
reasonable and the proposed CIL charge of £60 psm would allow a
reasonable viability buffer, although there is no currently planned or
anticipated development of this type in the district. However, it would be
advisable to include the VA definition of ‘retail warehouse’ as a footnote to
the DCS and I have included this in my recommendations.
10
56. The testing of a 4,000 square metre ‘supermarket’ development type
generated a maximum modelled CIL rate of £150 psm. There was some
challenge to the modelling assumptions with views expressed that costs
associated with securing planning permission, along with residual S.106
costs, had been underestimated. Whilst examples of much greater costs
were quoted, these related to developments in different locations in the
country (the south of England) which do not appear to be directly
comparable. The Council’s proposal to set CIL at £110 psm would provide a
degree of flexibility to accommodate variations in S.106 and other costs, in
most cases.
57. There was also some challenge to the definition of ‘supermarket’. The
‘definition’ that appears in the VA indicates that such stores would have a
sales area that would “...generally be above 500 sq. metres”5. It was
argued that there was no evidence to support the suggestion that this
floorspace figure represented a viability threshold. However, the figure of
500 square metres does not appear in the DCS, which simply uses the word
‘supermarket’ without definition or embellishment.
58. The Council’s approach to ‘defining’ supermarkets in the VA is based on a
number of criteria, of which size is one, along with trolley usage, dedicated
customer parking and defined servicing areas. None of the criteria is
absolute, but taken together they do allow for a reasonably precise level of
differentiation. However, the definition used does need to be included in the
DCS for consistency and clarity, and I propose to recommend an
appropriate modification. In any exceptional case of dispute over the
chargeable amount arising from the use of this definition, there is the
review and appeal mechanism available through the provisions of
Regulations 113 and 114.
Overall Conclusions
59. The evidence demonstrates that, subject to two minor modifications, the
overall planned development of Selby district, as set out in its CS, will not
be put at risk if the proposed CIL charges are applied. The minor
modifications required are to include definition of ‘retail warehouse’ and
‘supermarket’ development types. Subject to these revisions, I conclude
that, in setting the CIL charges, the Council has used appropriate and
available evidence that has informed assumptions about land and
development values and likely costs. The CIL proposals are anticipated to
achieve an important income stream that will help to address a well
evidenced infrastructure funding gap.
60. Overall, I conclude that the Selby District Council Draft Community
Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule (April 2015) satisfies the
requirements of Section 212 of the 2008 Act and meets the criteria for
viability in the 2010 Regulations (as amended). I therefore recommend that
5
Paragraph 3.14 - Revised Draft Charging Schedule Report – PBA – November 2014
11
the Charging Schedule be approved subject to my recommended
modifications.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS
National Policy /
Guidance
The Charging Schedule complies with national policy /
guidance.
2008 Planning
Act and 2010
Regulations (as
amended)
The Charging Schedule complies with the Act and the
Regulations, including in respect of the statutory
processes and public consultation, and consistency with
the Core Strategy for Selby District and is supported by
an adequate financial appraisal.
P.J. Staddon
Examiner
Attached: Appendix A – Recommended Modifications
12
Appendix A
Modifications that the Examiner specifies so that the Charging Schedule may be
approved.
These modifications should be read in conjunction with Examination Document
CD 2 ‘Draft Charging Schedule – April 2015.’
Modification
Number
Modification
EM1
Page 6 of Draft Charging Schedule – Table
Add Footnote 1 to Table:
Retail Warehouses – Retail warehouses are usually large
stores specialising in the sale of household goods (such as
carpets, furniture and electrical goods), DIY items and other
ranges of goods. They can be stand-alone units, but are also
often developed as part of retail parks. In either case, they
are usually located outside of existing town centres and cater
mainly for car-borne customers. As such, they usually have
large adjacent, dedicated surface parking.
EM2
Page 6 of Draft Charging Schedule – Table
Add Footnote 2 to Table:
Supermarkets – Supermarkets are large convenience-led
stores where the majority of custom is from people doing their
main weekly food shop. As such, they provide a very wide
range of convenience goods, often along with some element of
comparison goods. In addition to this, the key characteristics
of the way a supermarket is used include:




The area used for the sale of goods will generally be above
500 sq. m.;
The majority of customers will use a trolley to gather a
large number of products;
The majority of customers will access the store by car,
using the large adjacent car parks provided; and
Servicing is undertaken via a dedicated service area,
rather than from the street.
13