14th November 2012

1. Community Infrastructure Levy
Background to Dudley’s
Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule
Helen Martin – Head of Planning
Dudley MBC
14th November 2012

2. Format
•An Introduction to Dudley Borough:
Growth Predictions for Dudley Borough
Existing Planning Obligations approach
•Reasons for moving towards CIL
•Work undertaken at Dudley to date:
Identifying Infrastructure Requirements
Assessing Viability
•Timetable for progressing the Dudley CIL

3. Dudley Borough
• 38 square miles, 24 wards
•25% consists of open space, inc.
approx. 1,700 ha Green Belt
•Population 312,900 (2011 Census) &
projected to be over 334,000 in 2026
•Diverse character of town centres
Dudley Community
Strategy 2005-2020
• Five Key Principles:
• Promoting equality –
tackling inequality
• Safeguarding the future
• Reflecting priorities through
physical change
• Delivery in partnership
• Involving people

4. Predicted Growth
Black Country Core Strategy
•Sets out vision up to 2026
•Development of comparison
shopping, office, employment, leisure, tourism and culture
within 4 main centres
•Network of vibrant and attractive town, district and local
centres
•Employment led Regeneration Corridors to provide sufficient
high quality and local employment land in the best locations
•Housing led Regeneration Corridors to create sustainable
communities on redundant employment land
•High Quality Environment through Urban Park beacons and
corridors, and respecting, protecting and enhancing
biodiversity and geodiversity
•First-class transport network providing rapid, convenient and
sustainable links between centres, communities and
employment sites
•Network of easily accessible community services, esp. lifelong
learning, health care and sport & recreation facilities .

5. Existing System of Planning
Obligations at Dudley
 Pre 2007 – Affordable Housing, POS,
Education…generally on larger schemes
 Dec. 2007 – Original Planning Obligations SPD
 Required on smaller schemes
 Raft of new formula-based obligations such as:
Public Realm
Libraries
Transport Infrastructure Improvements
Nature Conservation Enhancements

6. The Present – Common Issues
Viability, Viability, Viability…
• The sites and the scale of development identified in Plans
should not be subject to such a scale of obligations and
policy burdens that their ability to be delivered viably is
threatened. (NPPF Para. 173)
• Where obligations are being sought or revised, LPAs should
take account of changes in market conditions over time
and, wherever appropriate, be sufficiently flexible to prevent
planned development being stalled. (NPPF Para. 205)

7. The Present – Common Issues
Tests, Tests, Tests…
• CIL Regulation 122
• Planning Obligations should only be sought where they meet all of
the following tests:
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning
terms
• Directly related to the development; and
• Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the
development

8. Appeal Decisions at Dudley
Open Space, Sport and Recreation
•Residential application for 16 flats, contribution of £22,650
sought based on formula in SPD relating to number of
bedspaces
•Council recommended that monies be spent at improving
access (poor quality steps) to local park which was within 400m
of site
•Inspector concluded that there was another entrance point to
the park slightly further away which had better quality level
access that residents of the development could use.
“No convincing link has been shown between the
development and required funding for improvements to
open space, sport and recreation and it would not be
directly related to the development as the CIL Regulations
require.”

9. Appeal Decisions at Dudley
Public Realm
•Residential application for 7 flats within Brierley Hill Town
Centre and Conservation Area, contribution of £3,350
sought for public realm improvements
•Council recommended that monies be spent at improving
the public realm within the Town Centre/CA, a key
infrastructure requirement identified in the adopted Brierley
Hill AAP
•Inspector concluded that there was “insufficient detail
to demonstrate that the works that would be carried
out would be directly related to the proposed
development.”

10. Additional limitations from
April 2014
Use of Planning Obligations to be significantly scaled back
by CIL regulations
• Affordable Housing and Specific mitigation of a
development only
• Pooling of contributions restricted to 5 contributions for
any piece or type of infrastructure

11. Restricted to Specific Mitigation
Planning Application for 150m retail
extension
•Transport Infrastructure Improvements contribution of
£1,325 required using formula in SPD to offset impact of
additional traffic-based trips to and from development
•Council received monies and due to spend on Transport
Infrastructure Improvements within the locality, no specific
scheme identified within S106
•Due to small scale nature of development would be
difficult to justify now under CIL Regs – how to prove it is
directly related to development?

12. Pooled Contributions – Stourbridge
Library
Facilities were upgraded by the purchase of two new
newspaper stands, two graphic novel stands and
some new seating to enhance the new shelving
£2,625 library contributions from 10 planning
permissions (approved between Feb. 2008 and
Nov. 2009)
RESTRICTION TO 5 MEANS THAT THIS WOULD
NOT BE POSSIBLE AFTER APRIL 2014

13. Pooled Contributions – Leasowes
Restoration
57 ha Grade 1 public park in Halesowen – restored
walkways, new paths and additional planting to improve
access and help return the park and woodland to its historic
1740s layout
£187,000 Open Space, Sport and Recreation capital
contributions from 11 planning permissions (approved
between Aug. 2003 and Nov. 2007). Match funding of
£1.3m Heritage Lottery Funding
RESTRICTION TO 5 MEANS THAT THIS WOULD NOT
BE POSSIBLE AFTER APRIL 2014

14. Problems, Problems, Problems…
But Dudley Borough still needs infrastructure
contributions to support the growth planned for in the
Core Strategy
The only realistic way forward…?
Only current way to secure generalised developer
contributions is to move to away from Planning
Obligations to CIL

15. Why should developments make
contributions?
Generally accepted principle that new development
should pay a share of the cost of the infrastructure
required to support it.
“The purpose of the planning system is to contribute to
the achievement of sustainable development” (NPPF. Para.6)
 Provision of infrastructure is key to sustainable development:
 Economic – contributing to competitive economy, inc. provision of infrastructure
 Social – supporting strong, vibrant and healthy communities, providing housing to
meet local needs supported by high quality built environment and accessible local
services
 Environmental – contributing to protecting and enhancing natural, built and
historic environment

16. CIL - The Starting Point
 Is any level of CIL viable and justifiable in Dudley Borough in
the current economic climate?
 Scoping undertaken with Black Country neighbours to
ascertain possible viability and infrastructure
requirements
 Suggested that there is an Infrastructure Funding Gap
and that retail developments across the Borough and
residential developments in parts of the Borough
could afford to pay CIL
 Enough justification to undertake detailed viability
assessment for CIL and infrastructure requirements
across the Borough

17. Preparing the Preliminary
Draft Charging Schedule
Predicted Growth Infrastructure Viability Testing of
Funding Gap CIL rates
Core Strategy
DPDs/AAPs Infrastructure Requirements Different rates for
different sizes, locations
Past Trends Other sources of funding
and or uses
“aim to strike an appropriate balance between the
desirability of funding infrastructure from CIL and the
potential effects of the imposition of CIL on the
economic viability of development across its area.”

18. Evidence 1:Predicted Growth
The provision of appropriate infrastructure in a timely
manner underpins the whole transformational and
regeneration strategy
Without appropriate investment future development
will be neither sustainable nor acceptable
Policy DEL1 ‘Infrastructure Provision’

19. Evidence 2: Infrastructure
Requirements
Infrastructure Cost Funding Funding Gap
Available
Transport £91,951,000 £39,056,000 £52,895,000
Nature Conservation £4,310,000 £0 £4,310,000
Libraries £5,149,000 £5,025,000 £124,000
Air Quality £1,232,200 £120,000 £1,112,200
Public Realm £47,661,000 £4,548,000 £43,113,000
Flood Management & £8,216,000 £3,396,000 £4,820,000
Sustainable Drainage
Total £158,519,200 £52,145,000 £106,374,200

20. Evidence 3: Viability Testing
•Area Based and Strategic Residual Appraisals
•Not Site Specific
Residential
4 scheme types
10 postcode areas
Non Residential
Offices, Industrial, Retail, and others
2 scheme types – new build and extension
3 localities – Dudley TC, Merry Hill and remaining
areas
Appraisals assess potential surplus available for CIL
contribution after costs of development are deducted from
value

21. Evidence 3: Viability Testing
Example Appraisal for Small Residential
Scheme – 5 Homes in DY8
 Development Value £925,000
 Land £150,000
 Construction £425,000
 Fees £80,000
 Finance £30,000
 Profit £185,000 £870,000
 Surplus Available for CIL £55,000 (£134 / m2)

22. Evidence 3: Issues
Viability Assessment: in-house Pragmatism
Surveyor
Justifying the Funding Gap Preparing for Implementation
Sense of Realism Political Sensitivities

23. Striking a Balance between
Infrastructure Requirements and
Affordability
Infrastructure Funding Gap equates to
£106,374,200 over the Core Strategy Plan Period to
2026
Nil CIL rate proposed for locations and uses where
there is considered to be only marginal or no
viability
Potential CIL receipts between 2014 - 2026 will only
contribute to filling the funding gap

24. Is the projected CIL revenue enough to
make it worthwhile?
•Projected CIL receipts based on analysis of a combination
of past trends and predicted future development as set out in
Black Country Core Strategy and DPDs suggests that
sufficient revenue could be generated to justify
implementation
•This revenue is not as significant as potential receipts under
the previous S106 system, which would suggest viability
issues have been adequately taken into consideration
•However....no decision to implement at CIL taken yet

25. Date Stage in Process Timetable for
6th December 2012 Cabinet approval of
Preliminary Draft progressing
Charging Schedule for
formal consultation the Dudley CIL
4th January to Preliminary Draft
15th February 2013 Charging Schedule - 6
week public consultation
September to November Draft Charging Schedule
2013 -6 week Public
Consultation
November/December Draft Charging Schedule
2013 submitted to Secretary
of State for Public
Examination
January/February 2014 Public Examination
April/May/June 2014 Adoption

26. Any Questions?