PAS CIL EVENTS JULY 2014 The Leeds Community Infrastructure Levy - Lessons Learnt

Non-residential development: CIL Charge Supermarket ≥ 500 sqm in City Centre£110 Supermarket ≥ 500 sqm outside of City Centre£175 Comparison Retail ≥ 1,000 sqm in City Centre£35 Comparison Retail ≥ 1,000 sqm outside of City Centre£55 Offices in City Centre£35 Development by a predominantly publicly funded or not for profit organisation, including sports and leisure centres, medical or health services, community facilities, and education Zero All other uses not cited above£5

Leeds CIL Economic Viability Study – completed Jan Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule – March 2013 – 10% buffer. Later in 2013 exams set the precedent of buffers in range 30% - 50%. Overcame this with detailed evidence for exam about the contingencies and buffers in the assumptions, and the much higher CIL rates which would have resulted. Comparison against neighbouring authority rate / buffer. Developers and agents at the Leeds exam ultimately accepted this approach. N.B. may have been because of other agendas – make sure joined up working on all viability issues. The ‘Viability Cushion’ Now other precedents such as CIL as a % of sales value. Do all those calculations before finalise the viability study, and include them in it. Check outcome of viability study and proposed CIL rates with your authority’s valuation / asset management / economic development teams. Test it on your own sites - what ‘hit’ would the Council have been prepared to take on sites it recently sold or is about to sell? Useful evidence which did result in reducing our office and retail rates.

S106s and Planning Applications Existing S106 and planning application evidence was key for Leeds – takes time to research but worth it: Compare S106 and CIL income as broad guide and for specific sites. Remember current S106s not all based on viability so CIL can be higher. Identify S106 cost for different types/sizes of development. Inputs to viability appraisals, also especially justifies £5 ‘all other uses’. Research planning applications for schemes claimed unviable under CIL.

Only have to defend/evidence the way you have chosen, not all other variants. Prepare for exam as though is written reps, comprehensive evidence and answers. Demonstrate links to whole plan viability, cross working. Look at viability appraisals submitted on schemes, can contradict what developers are saying in their CIL reps. Meet with key representors. Even if still disagree as a result, shows have attempted to come to a solution and can at least agree a statement of common ground. We didn’t do this enough! Don’t underestimate the length of time for Member/Cabinet sign off at each round. With lead in dates for reports, simply getting through Development Plan Panel and Executive Board takes 2 months. Other Lessons Learnt

Look at existing allocations, what are their infrastructure needs? No strategic sites or certainty in Leeds! Meant generic R123 List. Started with the infrastructure list in CIL funding gap paper. Existing S106s; what types of infrastructure do they fund and how many S106s were grouped together? Would pooling or CIL bring in more income, balanced against viability and legal tests? Which projects faced a shortfall in assumed S106 funding? Met with transport providers. Agreed scale of major schemes so large unrealistic to expect CIL funding. Review R123 List annually. Now also not possible to spend S278s on the List, not a current issue as contains no highways schemes but will need to be careful at Site Allocations to identify required highways improvements and their funding methods. How we drafted the Reg 123 List Reg 123 List (extract): Primary education, except for large scale residential development identified in the Site Allocations Plan, which will be expected to provide primary schools either as an integral part of the development or as the result of no more than 5 separate planning obligations Green infrastructure and public greenspace, except for on-site provision required by Core Strategy policies Public realm improvements, except for on-site provision or where this is required as a direct result of an adjacent development Remember to consider normal development costs and on-site policy requirements – although expect developer challenges:

Map who will be involved and at broadly what stage. Corporate buy in and communication. Speak to the Heads of Services, Chief Executive, key Members, and full range of colleagues who will have to implement changes. Project manager role. IT’S NOT JUST THE POLICY PLANNER’S RESPONSIBILITY! Implementation

Assessment of the current process helps to identify which issues to focus resources on: 5,000 planning applications per year. 2,300 non- householder to be assessed for CIL liability. Assume 20% not CIL liable although may need exemptions procedures (e.g. change of use, self-build). 90% approved, a further 90% later constructed = 1,190 (approx 125 per month) involving CIL invoicing and payments. Plus permitted development (although expected to be small numbers) And finally – do yet more maths… Potential spike in applications immediately before the CIL adopted - resource issues. However some applications will delay until the CIL. Major applications nearing determination as come up to CIL adoption date. Still to determine in detail what potential new/changed staff roles are needed in Leeds, bearing in mind existing resources and roles.

Questions? Tom Ridley Lora Hughes Forward Planning and Implementation, Leeds City Council