Jersey Infrastructure levy Minister’s response to consultation · Jersey Infrastructure Levy Minister’s response to consultation (October 2017) 4 There was an even spread of views

Jersey Infrastructure levy

Minister’s response to consultation

October 2017

Jersey Infrastructure Levy Minister’s response to consultation (October 2017)

2

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

Executive summary ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 3

Survey responses ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

1. Levy principle ..................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Proposed levy residential rates ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 10

3. Proposed levy office rates ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 15

4. Proposed levy retail rates ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 19

5. Exemptions ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 23

6. Proposed types of development to be subject to the levy ................................................................................................................................................................................................................ 27

7. Proposed levy thresholds ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 31

8. Reduced Planning Obligation Agreements ...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 35

9. Community share ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 39

10. Spending the levy .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 42

11. General comments ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 43

12. Individually submitted responses .................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

12.1 States of Jersey Environment Minister - Addendum .................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 47

12.2 States of Jersey Minister for Housing – key points from letter dated 07 August 2017 ................................................................................................................................................................. 47

12.3 Association of Jersey Architects – key points from letter dated 06 September 2017 ................................................................................................................................................................... 48

12.4 States of Jersey Cultural Development Officer, EDTS – key points from email/letter dated 08 September 2017 ........................................................................................................................ 51

12.5 Jersey Chamber of Commerce – key points from letter dated 08 September 2017 ..................................................................................................................................................................... 51

12.6 Jersey Construction Council – key points from Lichfields letter & report dated 08 September 2017 ........................................................................................................................................... 52

12.7 Ports of Jersey – key points from letter dated 11 September 2017 ............................................................................................................................................................................................. 60

12.8 States of Jersey Development Company – key points from letter dated 11 September 2017 ..................................................................................................................................................... 62

13. Comment.gov.je Responses ............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. 63

Appendices – Individual submissions in full ......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... 64

Executive summary Following extensive pre-consultation with stakeholders, beginning in October 2016, the Minister for the

Environment published a draft policy document proposing the introduction of a broad, low and fair

development charge called the Jersey Infrastructure Levy (JIL) on 23 June 2017. The consultation

period was extended until 11 September at the request of the development industry. A total of 35

individual survey responses were submitted with over 300 comments made on key areas of the

proposal and a further eight substantive submissions were made by groups and organisations.

All of the comments received have been included in this report and, where specific comments have

been made, they have been responded to directly. The comments can be summarised by category and

are set out as follows:

The principle of the levy

The principle of the Jersey Infrastructure Levy is that developers who benefit from the increase in land

value that comes from development permission, make a contribution to the impact of that development

on the local community.

Consultees were broadly equally split on their support for the principle of introducing a levy to Jersey

with those comments received from the development industry being more negative and those from

members of the public or interested groups being more positive. This is not surprising and is as

expected given that the levy would benefit the community whilst being paid for from the development of

land.

The main case made against the levy is that it is a new tax; that it is unfairly targeted on the

development industry; and that it will lead to increased prices for development (purchase and rental).

The Minster for the Environment is not disputing that the levy is a new form of tax, but is one that is

designed to come from the development of land directly in order to deliver some community benefit.

The levy is targeted at the development of land because it is believed that it is right for a small

proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the

community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that funds derived from

the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the

community, to make them better places to live, work and visit.

Viability

The viability work that has been undertaken adopts a cautious and conservative approach in its

assumptions and demonstrates that the introduction of a levy would work in Jersey and that supply and

developer profits can still be maintained. It also shows that the introduction of a modest levy would

represent a small percentage of the final Gross Development Value, and no evidence has been

provided to demonstrate that this would add directly to end development prices, which are determined

by market forces. This conclusion is supported by recent work (2017) to review the operation of the

Community Infrastructure Levy in the UK and earlier work undertaken here in Jersey by Oxera to review

environmental land taxes in 2008.

Further economic advice will be sought from the Economics Unit to test and amend if necessary, a

more detailed levy proposal, should there be any evidence be forthcoming that the levy could lead to

higher prices and/or reduced supply.

Levy rates

The Minister’s draft policy document proposed a charge of £85 per square metre on new developments

that create over 75 square metres of new floor space - roughly the size of a two-bedroom apartment.

This would be applied to the development of net new retail, office and residential floorspace.

The responses to the proposed levy rates followed a similar pattern to the response to the principle of

introducing a levy, with the development industry offering objections and the community offering

support. Only one response (made by Lichfields on behalf of the Jersey Construction Council) provided

any evidence to challenge the proposed levy rates. Whilst this evidence supported a number of general

points it provided no new Jersey-specific data to challenge the assumptions made: The Lichfields

analysis in fact shows that most development is not viable if their assumptions are used and this is

clearly not the case in Jersey, as development is coming forward across the Island, and particularly in

St Helier, so in the view of the HDH consultant this undermines their case. The full response to the

Lichfields report is detailed in section 12.6 of this report.

Exemptions The Minister’s proposed policy stated that affordable housing and public developments, such as

government offices, would be exempt from the charge.

Comments about proposed exemptions were mixed suggesting that exemptions were too narrow or that

there should be no exemptions at all. None of the alternative suggestions received were evidenced and

were based on speculation or unsupported assertions.

Use of the levy The consultation document published by the Minister indicated that a levy could fund:

• new and improved streets, safe play spaces and recreational facilities, parks, tree planting and

community gardens, such as the Millennium Town Park and the Weighbridge

• improvements to public transport services and facilities, like more bus shelters and improved

services

• pedestrian improvement schemes and new footpaths, such as improvement to town streets

already completed in Conway Street and Broad Street

• new cycle routes, such as the Eastern Cycle Network or the St Peter’s Valley Cycle Path

• improvements to make local areas more resilient to climate change, by introducing sustainable

urban drainage schemes to help manage surface water; more tree planting to provide shade and

cooling; and better flood defences

Regulations would set out how these projects are identified and prioritised and a list will be published. It

was also proposed that 10% of JIL funds raised from development in a parish would be used for local

community improvements, to be administered by the parish.


4

There was an even spread of views on what the levy could be spent on, with some making alternative

suggestions to those already identified: these views will be considered in more detail should the

principle of introducing the levy be supported.

The proposed allocation of 10% of any levy funds to the parishes, derived from development within that

parish, generated mixed views with some of those who supported it some suggesting a higher share.

Many comments identified the need for an audited and managed process to spending the levy: this

would be addressed as part of future regulations should the principle of introducing the levy be

supported.

Planning Obligation Agreements

The development industry expressed concern about being asked to contribute for the same

infrastructure twice, through both the levy and the planning obligation agreements (POAs). A review of

existing POA charges would be included in the development of a levy, if the principle of its introduction

is supported, and restrictions would be put in place, through regulation, to ensure that developers are

not charged twice for the same infrastructure.

It is likely that if JIL is introduced, the existing POA requirements would be significantly reduced and

simplified to cover only site-specific issues, while the new levy would cover area wide improvements.

Conclusions The Minister for the Environment has published a draft policy document proposing the introduction of a

broad, low and fair development charge called a Jersey Infrastructure Levy and has sought a broad

range of views on this.

An extensive and soundly evidenced viability report based on Jersey-specific data has been prepared,

in consultation with the Jersey development industry, to support the Minister’s proposal to introduce an

infrastructure levy to Jersey (Viability assessment for review of developer contributions report): this

demonstrates that the introduction of a levy would work in Jersey.

During this formal round of consultation, there has been no further submission of alternative evidence

that directly or substantively challenges this supporting work. Whilst it is clear that the development

industry does not support the introduction of a levy it has not been able to offer to offer any substantive

evidence which demonstrates that a levy would not work in Jersey. On this basis, the Minister is content

that the evidence prepared to support the principle of introducing a levy has been thoroughly scrutinised

and can be considered robust.

It is also considered reasonable to conclude, in light of this, that the Jersey development industry’s

opposition to the introduction of JIL is a matter of principle. The principle of the levy, however, is to

ensure that developers who benefit from the increase in land value that comes from development

permission, make a contribution to the impact of that development on the local community. The Minister

believes that this is right and is supported by those community groups who have responded to this

consultation.

The Minister is, therefore, of the opinion that the outcome of this consultation provides a sound basis for

taking a proposition to the States to seek the Assembly’s approval of the principle of introducing an

infrastructure levy in Jersey and, if supported, to subsequently develop law, policy and regulation.

Next Steps The Minister for the Environment will lodge a proposition in the States seeking the Assembly’s support

for the introduction of a Jersey Infrastructure Levy. The proposition will seek the support of the

Assembly in principle.

If the States Assembly supports the introduction of a Jersey Infrastructure Levy, in principle, further

work will then begin on the development of legislation, regulation and policy to enable the

implementation of the levy. This work would be undertaken during 2018.

New legislation is required for JIL to take effect in Jersey. This would remain to be the subject of

approval by the States Assembly. It is envisaged that this might take place during Q4 2018/ Q1 2019.

The setting of an infrastructure levy rate will likely be the subject of independent professional scrutiny,

probably by a planning inspector, during some form of public inquiry: the provisions of new legislation

will likely provide for this. Before JIL takes effect in Jersey, the current data and assumptions about

costs and values set out in the Viability Assessment for Review of Developer Contributions (May 2017),

would need to be reviewed and updated, to reflect any change in the Jersey development industry and

market. This would form the basis the Minister’s proposed JIL rate and work would need to be carried

out, once legislation has been introduced, to ensure that the most up-to-date information was being

used to inform any proposal. It is envisaged that this might take place during Q1/2 2019.

It is only once the JIL had been reviewed and set, following independent scrutiny and review, would it

take effect, likely sometime in the second half of 2019.

http://consult.gov.je/file/4583290

Survey responses

1. Levy principle The decision to propose a levy follows a viability study which concluded there was scope to introduce a levy in Jersey in order to improve the quality of neighbourhoods affected by new development.

Is the levy an appropriate policy to help deliver community infrastructure improvements and, if not, what alternative would you suggest?

Questionnaire consultation results

% Total Count

Agree 49% 16

Neither 2% 1

Disagree 49% 16

Total 100% 33

Summary of responses

Consultees were broadly equally split on their support for the principle of introducing

a levy to Jersey with those comments received from the development industry being

more negative and those from members of the public or interested groups being

more positive. This is not surprising and is as expected given that the levy would

benefit the community whilst being paid for from the development of land.

The main case made against the levy is that it is a new tax; that it is unfairly targeted

on the development industry; and that it will lead to increased prices for development

(purchase and rental). No alternative evidence was, however, presented that could

be tested to support the case made.

The Minister, however, believes that it is right for a small proportion of the increase

in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the

community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that

funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of

that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and

visit.

The viability work that has been undertaken adopts a cautious and conservative

approach in its assumptions and demonstrates that the introduction of a levy would

work in Jersey and that developer profits can still be maintained. It also shows that

the introduction of a modest levy would represent a small percentage of the final

Gross Development Value, and no evidence has been provided to demonstrate that

this would add directly to property prices, which are determined by market forces.

This conclusion is supported by recent work to review the operation of the

Community Infrastructure Levy in the UK.


6

Please provide reasons for your answer and suggest any alternative proposals to deliver infrastructure improvements.

Ref Supporting/ Objecting Reasons for answer States of Jersey Response

JIL7 Agree It is right that an element of the economic value generated by allowing development should be reinvested in that locality in order to improve the living and working environment.

Comments noted

JIL10 Agree Excellent idea and would have a positive impact on the local environments. Examples could include any structure including greening of car parks relocation of services to allow tree planting directly into site rather than planters which although softening the landscape are higher maintenance and usually in locations where services stop direct planting.an element of funding put aside for refurbishment of locations would be wise as they do deteriorate as Liberation square.

Comments and suggestions for use of levy noted

JIL14 Agree Given the high level of development occurring in Jersey it is essential for money to be used to both adequately protect flora and fauna on the Island. Where the development is negatively impacting of these factors (proven via an EIA, or if an EIA is outside the scope of the development then assumed via the nature of the development) that appropriate mitigation, supplementary care (such as bat roost opportunities) or long term monitoring be provided for. There is currently inadequate screening of both planning and building control for property development and these is a major concern for species such as bats which rely upon the built environment for many of their roosts.

Comments noted on the levy proposal. (whilst outside the scope of the consultation, it is relevant to note that planning applications are screened and assessed relative to their impact on biodiversity)

JIL17 Agree Jersey requires significant investment in infrastructure particularly for pedestrians and cyclists

Comments noted As currently proposed the levy, if adopted, would be able to deliver improvements in these areas.

JIL18 Agree I live very close to a disused area of land adjacent to derelict greenhouses, it would be great if at some point this area was developed for families. If land like this were to be developed, there must be provision for outdoor play for children, this should allow for free play on natural surfaces as well as the usual static equipment. In an ideal world there would be provision of a "play team" that visited these areas to encourage resourceful play resilience and holistic appropriate social/emotional development.....these people would need a robust shed.


JIL21 Agree Seems reasonable Comments noted JIL23 Agree Infrastructure in Jersey needs a lot of upgrade work to meet the challenges of climate

change etc., and someone has to pay. People expending energy and carbon, and using up green land, developing properties in Jersey make a lot of easy money; there is no reason why they should not contribute substantially to this.


JIL25 Agree This is an appropriate policy providing it is adequately policed and that quality of the provision is the primary concern. Any community development must be fit for purpose and have the client group as its focus. It is not clear as to what % of each levy paid will be spent on the project it was raised from. 10% is to go to the Parish but what % is to be spent on the project from the money raised by the project?

Comments noted As currently proposed the levy, if adopted, would be pooled into one ‘pot’ to be spent on essential community infrastructure required to help improve the quality of places for people to live, work and visit. This may not be related to a specific development project. The management and governance of the fund remains to be determined through the development of detailed regulations. These regulations will set out how projects are identified and prioritised.


7


Work on the development of detailed regulations will follow if the principle of introducing an infrastructure levy is supported.

JIL27 Agree Provided the funds raised are ring fenced and used in addition to existing planned Government infrastructure spend (i.e. not to subsidise), then I' supportive. Re the use of the funds I absolutely support the importance for St H in developing first class network of cycle paths and pedestrianised areas, with more green space. As someone who lived in town for the past 2 years seeing the vibrant atmosphere along Queen Street, disappear whenever you get near slow moving cars pumping out exhaust fumes, always used to frustrate me. Now I cycle into town from Victoria Village every day, using main roads the real danger is unfortunately constant and also once again breathing in fumes from slow moving/ stationary traffic is most unpleasant. When I compare this with major cities like Amsterdam, Berlin and even London, you can see that cyclists and pedestrians are being prioritised, whereas in Jersey, the car remains king. When is traffic at its worst?, around school opening and closing times. Wouldn’t it be great if the norm for schools was walking, bike or as a last resort public transport (teachers take the lead?). A joined up strategy in this space would make a real difference, but we have to make cycling feel much safer and pleasant. In summary with some brave and joined up thinking Jersey could become a leading example such as the likes of Vancouver. They clearly have had a joined up plan, ensuring all the shore line is green and public access, cyclist routes required with every road development etc. With St we have a jewel, but it needs some polishing!

Comments noted As currently proposed the levy, if adopted, would be ring-fenced to develop new community infrastructure in the areas such as those identified. It would not be used to offset existing government revenue expenditure.

JIL29 Agree Infrastructure is important in ensuring communities are safe and healthy and include all members. A policy to support improvement is to be commended. Comments noted

JIL3 Agree Jersey is becoming over developed and no consideration is given to outside space or the general feel of the area. People live in their homes but they also live in the surrounding area. St Helier is becoming wall to wall concrete and is a horrible town. Years of planning failures have made it devoid of open space or nice areas for residents and people who work in the area. The planning department is failing in protecting any culture or heritage or open space for residents. A case in point is the new green street development of la Collette flats. The development shall remove the last bit of green space on green street. Their attitude: hey who cares I don't live there. But this continual creep of development eating up space is suffocating st Helier in concrete. It is quite literally a horrible place to live. They have more consideration for this in London. There are parks everywhere and the streets often have trees. They should provide


JIL1 Disagree If money is short in the States, it should be spent on supporting people, not frippery. and wasted projects like unused cycle paths

The levy represents a share of private profit from the increase in land values that occurs when planning permission is granted. The reinvestment of these funds will provide community benefit of value to people who live in, work in and visit these areas.

JIL2 Disagree The levy places the burden on one section of the business community only It is considered right for a small proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and visit. Almost all development has some impact on the


8


need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that all such development pays a share of the cost. Those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community which granted it, to help fund the community infrastructure needed to make development acceptable and sustainable.

JIL8 Disagree 1. Infrastructure improvements must only be provided by government if and when essential - we do not have the spare cash for fancy improvements. 2. If essential for safety, well-being or security, it is the job of government to provide infrastructure improvements through general taxation.

It is considered right for a small proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and visit. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that all such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community which granted it, to help fund the infrastructure needed to make development acceptable and sustainable. The department has consulted with the States Economic Advisor. There is no evidence to suggest that the levy would result in higher house prices. This conclusion is supported by recent work to review the operation of the Community Infrastructure Levy in the UK together with earlier work undertaken by Oxera in 2008 on land development taxes.

JIL9 Disagree Building is expensive, and the view seems to be that if you can afford to build, then you can afford to pay more. Everyone wants a finger in the pie - lawyers are allowed to charge exorbitant amounts for property conveyancing, the States charges stamp duty for doing next to nothing. And now this proposed Infrastructure Levy is aimed at taking even more from the cash cow. What about 'user pays'? Why should new homebuyers have to pay for community and Island infrastructure just because they want somewhere to live? The entire community will benefit from improved roads and public transport, parks and open spaces, public art and cycle paths. Funding for these should come from Island taxes and parish revenue and not be used as a ransom on planning permission to build a home. It is wrong.

JIL12 Disagree The fact that development is being undertaken in the first place is a benefit to the community itself Noted and accepted

JIL13 Disagree A carbon levy would be a lot more appropriate. Soil is capable of storing three times as much carbon than the atmosphere. New buildings generate lots of CO2, and then stop CO2 from being drawn down. If a CO2 levy was introduced and used to reward landowners who could prove CO2 drawdown, the benefits to Jersey would be fairer to everyone, and it would help Jersey meet its international commitments to the 4 per 1000 initiative.

Noted, but carbon reduction has no direct relevance to the proposed introduction of the infrastructure levy. The Energy Plan for Jersey is the policy vehicle for CO2 reduction in the Island.

JIL5 Disagree It's simply a tax on new home owners. Indirectly, it puts up the cost of home ownership, of office rental, which increases the cost of living.

The levy is not expected to increase house prices. There is no evidence to suggest that the levy would result in higher house prices. This conclusion is supported by recent work to review the operation of the Community Infrastructure Levy in the UK.

The levy will be a small part of the overall cost of building a home, and it is expected that developers will either negotiate to pay less for land they buy in time, or absorb some of the cost.

The levy will only be applied to new housing (about 30% of annual housing sales in Jersey) and will exclude affordable homes or developments by charitable trusts.

Developers set asking prices for new developments, but values are set by the market and this is usually based on what similar houses in the area sell for, as well as the formal valuation carried out by a bank’s appointed valuer, if the buyer is applying for a mortgage for the property.

JIL15 Disagree This is mad and will only further push up the cost of housing in Jersey. We already have very well-funded infrastructure and do not need yet another tax

JIL24 Disagree This will be passed on to the end-consumer and will further inflate the costs of buying property in Jersey (as if it isn't inflated enough already). Govt and Parishes should pay for "community infrastructure improvements" through tax and rates,

https://www.gov.je/Government/Pages/StatesReports.aspx?ReportID=1039


9


A buyer of a new property will only pay a premium for a new property if it is more attractive than those in the wider market.

In the long-run, a fixed levy will provide certainty about the level of charge that a developer must pay and they will be able to factor this in to the price that they pay for land.

JIL19 Disagree The rubbish that has been fostered upon the public due to unsightly and buildings of little community importance unless your some ultra-egotistical finance leach on the island.

The aesthetics of new buildings will always invite opposing views and private developments will not always provide public community benefit. The introduction of an infrastructure levy is a way of providing wider public benefit from development to deliver real community improvements.

JIL11 Disagree This should be done via general tax revenues.

It is considered right for a small proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and visit. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that all such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community which granted it, to help fund the infrastructure needed to make development acceptable and sustainable. General income tax receipts will remain to fund other public services.

JIL26 Disagree Community infrastructure should be paid for out of income tax - this is the existing position and seems to have worked for decades. Commercial development of real estate is already taxed at 20%.

JIL28 Disagree The states already collect a levy from citizens, it’s called income tax. Adding further cost simply pushes up the cost of living in Jersey which is to no body’s advantage. The argument that there is a budget shortfall is not acceptable. The States should learn to manage within its means and not fund further spending through a range of stealth taxes.

JIL30 Disagree 1. This is a new tax and, as such, unwelcome. 2. It is a selective tax which falls unevenly in that it selects just one sector to pay a higher rate of tax than other sectors. 3. It is, in effect, a land tax and inevitably it will be passed on in the form of an increased cost of housing: Jersey has an acute housing shortage and the development sector should be encouraged to build more residential accommodation, not disincentivised through punitive taxation. 4. it is an inappropriate way to fund infrastructure development: government should manage our finances in such a way as to enable infrastructure development through 'normal' capital programmes, i.e. by managing revenue expenditure in such a way as to provide an annual surplus which can be diverted to capital expenditure. 5. An alternative way forward is for the Environment Department to cut costs. It employs people in environmental activities that should be left to the voluntary sector; these post should all be made redundant; the payback benefit for the cost of VR or CR would begin immediately.

JIL31 Disagree Cut red tape and your costs and spend the savings on infrastructure improvements. JIL4 Neither As it will not work I think that all Islanders should have a say as the government

always wants their ways to improve which does NOT work. This should be sent in the post as there are many people (especially the elderly) who DO NOT use cp,putors.

Comments noted. Consultation material was available in hard and electronic copy and the department welcomes the submission of comment in whichever way people find most convenient.


10

2. Proposed levy Residential Rates A levy rate of £85 per square metre of development has been proposed for residential developments. Do you think that this is a viable rate?


% Total Count

Yes 32% 11

No 55% 17

Not Sure 13% 5

Total 100% 33

Yes32%

No55%

not sure13%

2. Proposed levy Residential Rates


The Minister’s draft policy document proposed a charge of

£85 per square metre on new residential developments that

create over 75 square metres of new floor space - roughly

the size of a two-bedroom apartment. This rate was based

upon the viability assessment for review of developer

contributions report which recommended viable rates of up

to £125/Sqm.

The responses to the proposed levy rates followed a similar

pattern to the response to the principle of introducing a levy,

with the development industry offering objections and the

community offering support.

Although this question provided a more negative view (55%)

from 33 respondents, some of those supporting the principal

of the levy opposed the levy rate as they considered it too

low (without evidence), which does not give a true picture to

the statistical response to this question.

With regards to those comments who were opposed to the

levy, a number of valid points were made but no new or

alternative direct local evidence is produced to support the

comments made.




11

Please give reasons for your answer and provide any relevant evidence.

Ref Supporting/

Objecting Reasons for answer States of Jersey Response

JIL3 Yes Yes every developer I have seen is very rich. They probably don't even pay tax on their income" because they classify it as a capital gain. But this cannot be at the expense of the planning law. Continual pressure must be put on developers to provide improvements to the area, not just maximise profit.

The principal of the levy is to seek community improvements from the awarding of planning permission and a reasonable return (developer’s profit) is required in order to deliver successful developments.

JIL6 Yes For non-resident companies make it double! The policy will not consider the ownership of companies as this is outside the scope of the levy proposal.

JIL7 Yes We need simple and clear charging structure. Yes it could be higher or lower, but we have to start somewhere and this can then be reassessed with time/ experience

The single rate levy structure is considered to be simple and clear and more importantly viable.

JIL13 Yes All building should face the levy, Jersey has a responsibility even if it is small. The viability assessment for review of developer contributions report recommended that for small developments the levy could be unviable at the higher rates. Having variable rates is considered too complex for the outcome.

JIL16 Yes No comment Noted JIL17 Yes Seems a reasonable compromise amount Comments noted – the levy has been designed to be simple to use,fair and equitable. JIL21 Yes Yes, but fixed for what period, tied to inflation etc? The policy will be reviewed every 3 years and /or following significant changes in costs

or values. The rates and governance of the levy remains to be determined through the development of detailed regulations should the levy be approved in principle and which will then be subject to further public consultation and States approval.

JIL22 Yes I think it should be £100 The viability assessment for review of developer contributions report recommended a range of rates and for residential developments it could be as high as £125/Sqm, whilst for offices it was £80/Sqm. The Minister has proposed a consistent rate for all development types in order to provide a simple, equitable and fair policy framework. It is accepted that the proposed rate is at the lower end of the recommended range.

JIL23 Yes In line with UK, and we have to start somewhere Comments noted JIL27 Yes This needs to be measured though against the planning gain The contributions made by developers through the current planning obligation

agreement (POA) policy is included and is part of the modelling undertaken in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report. It is considered that the levy is viable and will be delivered through the awarding of planning permission. Should the levy be adopted POA’s will be reviewed and some dropped. However some will still be in place to capture specific planning gain from developments that have a significant local impact (e.g. drainage, contamination, road junction improvements, etc.)

JIL10 not sure Might have a negative impact on residential prices any could drive development off the Island ,but would support a slightly lower levy of 60 to get the scheme started , suspect it has been set knowing it will come down.

The levy rate has been set based upon evidence from the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report undertaken by the consultants and local, surveyors. The rate will be adjusted according to new viability evidence as it emerges and is verified.

JIL14 not sure It may be a case to exempt some development or to charge upon a variable scale depending on the nature and scale of development (if it is the re-development of an existing structure, building on an existing footprint then perhaps to be treated differently to a green-site development).

The levy is applied only to certain development types (Residential, office and retail) and then only for net new development. A conversion of an existing floor space to residential for example would not be charged the levy unless a new additional floor area was added to the building.

JIL25 not sure If this sum is reached following local professional research then it is a viable rate. The viability assessment for review of developer contributions report was carried out by UK and local surveyors using Jersey specific evidence and is considered robust.








12


JIL29 Not sure Insufficient information available to make comment. The rates are based upon recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report published with the survey

JIL35 Not Sure There definitely should be a levy but not sure a what rate. Could it not be based on a percentage of the profits out of the development?

The viability assessment for review of developer contributions report recommended that the current rates were viable and capable of delivering a sufficient annual community benefit from new developments on the Island. Other levy types were considered but the proposal put forward was favoured as being the simplest and fairest option.

JIL1 No Wow, a tax on buildings, bet the tax we pay in general will still all be spent It is considered right for a small proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and visit. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that all such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community which granted it, to help fund the infrastructure needed to make development acceptable and sustainable. General income tax receipts will remain to fund other public services.

JIL2 No The formula makes no reference to profit level, and will in any case be passed on to tenants or purchasers The model assumes a minimum profit level for developers of 20% GDV

JIL4 No As this seems too cheap it should be at least £100 minimum The modelling undertaken in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report recommended a range of viable levy rates, with residential rates being able to be charged of up to £125. The Minister has decided to have a single rate across all in order to keep the levy simple to use, fair and equitable.

JIL5 No Adds £4,000 to a small property purchase. The levy is designed to come off land values and will vary according to the size of development proposed. The £4,000 indicated in the response has no supporting evidence and so is not clear how it is arrived at.

JIL8 No I do not agree with the levy on principle. Either a residential development is approved in accordance with the Island Plan because it is required (in which case no levy should be charged) or it is rejected, in which case such a levy is irrelevant.

The levy is separate to current planning policies and the principle is based upon using the profit from awarding planning permission to pay for community improvements for all Islanders. It is considered right for a small proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and visit. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that all such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community which granted it, to help fund the infrastructure needed to make development acceptable and sustainable.

JIL9 No Aside from the fact that this levy is no more than a stealth tax to avoid having to use central funding for community infrastructure improvements, £85/sq.m is between around 4% and 9% of build cost! It is extortionate.

The viability assessment for review of developer contributions report has calculated that the levy represents around 2.5% of Gross Development Value, which is a more








13


relevant way of viewing the impact as it is not a direct cost to development as it is intended to come off the value of the land.

JIL11 No This just increases the general costs of development that are already excessive and have driven out the chance of any smaller developer. The island is now so expensive that only companies with huge financial resources can operate.

Larger companies are likely to have a more competitive edge on certain types of developments, particularly where economy of scales exist, however the levy is considered to be a marginal cost which should be negotiated from the land value and allow developers of all sizes to operate as normal on the island.

JIL12 No Should not apply to residential developments that remain under the ownership of the developer.

The residential land ownership considerations will not be included as exceptions to the levy unless the levy is for affordable housing. In some situations developers may already have purchased land and so won’t be in a position to adjust land values, although in a rising market land values will likely be higher the longer the ownership period to more than cover any potential levy imposition. This is also being mitigated by the Minister for the Environment’s clear, early signals to the industry of his intent to not introduce the levy until 2019 at the earliest and the fact the levy is being set at a low rate to maintain the incentives to develop. It will be a requirement that where planning permission has been granted before the implementation an infrastructure levy in Jersey a project will not be liable.

JIL15 No It is mad to tax building new homes and totally counterproductive. will lead to spending more money on housing subsides.

The levy is aimed to come off land values not increase house prices. Affordable housing is exempt.

JIL18 No This is far too high, I can only imagine you want this to fail before it is agreed! The rates are based upon recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report which was an extensive and soundly evidenced piece of work and has recommended rates that would be viable.

JIL19 No Our ignorant politicians need to tackle the population crisis that is creating a number of issues to the island. As a single person it has been impossible for me to afford to purchase a property, this is not right or fair when we allow untold immigrants into the island. Which idiot thought up this levy?

Although the population is a major issue for the Island, it is not a major consideration in formulating the levy proposal. Affordable housing developments will be exempt from paying the levy and can only be accessed by eligible Jersey resident households.

JIL20 No This is just another "tax" on the end user. It is a "tax" which appears to be only based on the square metre-age of the site, therefore, if the development is a block of flats, it will only be based on the ground floor area? Every new development already includes, at the planning application stage, landscaping (trees, gardens, environment) and a play area (if appropriate). It also includes access and pathways.

The proposal is for the levy to be applied to all new net additional floor areas only and will only apply to the buildings and not landscaping or footpaths.

JIL28 No The states already collect a levy from citizens, it’s called income tax. Adding further cost simply pushes up the cost of living in Jersey which is to no body’s advantage. The argument that there is a budget shortfall is not acceptable. The States should learn to manage within its means and not fund further spending through a range of stealth taxes.





14


The Government is currently undertaking a major reform/efficiency programme aimed at improving Public Services which is not the appropriate route to fund public realm improvement plans from development related activities.

JIL30 No As stated above, this cost will be passed on by the developer and will emerge as higher building costs and ultimately the purchaser of the building will pay more. It will inflate dwelling unit prices.

The levy is not expected to increase house prices. There is no evidence to suggest that the levy would result in higher house prices. This conclusion is supported by recent work to review the operation of the Community Infrastructure Levy in the UK.

The levy will be a small part of the overall cost of building a home, and it is expected that developers will either negotiate to pay less for land they buy in time, or absorb some of the cost.

The levy will only be applied to new housing (about 30% of annual housing sales in Jersey) and will exclude affordable homes or developments by charitable trusts.


A buyer of a new property will only pay a premium for a new property if it is more attractive than those in the wider market.


Through the informal consultation with the development industry that was carried out to inform the Viability Assessment, comments were received raising the concern that the levy would be added to the sale prices of developments thus increasing already high house prices in Jersey. The department has had initial discussions with the Economics Unit and their view is that charges like the Jersey Infrastructure Levy (JIL) that intend to capture a small fraction of the uplift in land values that arise when a site gets permission for development would normally be expected to impact on land values. In a competitive market developers would have a strong incentive to make sure the charge leads to lower land values because if not new built properties would become relatively more expensive than similar properties that have already been developed and were not subject to the levy. New build homes only form a minority of homes sold each year and in a competitive market prices will be determined by the interaction of overall supply and demand for properties and therefore general conditions in the market. This conclusion is supported by recent work to review the operation of the Community Infrastructure Levy in the UK together with earlier work undertaken by Oxera in 2008 on land development taxes.

JIL31 You have used incorrect build costs, the difference of which is roughly equivalent to the proposed levy, so it doesn't work.

No evidence has been provided for alternative costs and so this statement cannot be tested.


15

3. Proposed levy Office Rates A levy rate of £85 per square metre of development has been proposed for office developments. Do you think that this is a viable rate?


% Total Count

Yes 43% 14

No 43% 14

Not Sure 14% 5

Total 100% 31

Yes43%No

43%

not sure14%

3.Proposed levy office rates

Summary of Responses

Although this question provided a balanced view from respondents,

as with the residential rates, some of those supporting the levy

opposed the levy rate as they considered it too low (without

evidence), which does not give a true picture of the overall

statistical results to this question.

With regards to those comments who were opposed to the levy, a

number of valid points were made but no new or alternative direct

local evidence is produced to support the comments made.

Many of the comments received were repeated from the previous

question on residential rates and the subsequent one on retail

rates.


16



JIL3 Yes This should probably be higher. The rates are based upon recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report which was an extensive and soundly evidenced piece of work and has recommended rates that would be viable.

JIL6 Yes for non resident companies double it

JIL7 Yes We need simple and clear charging structure. Yes it could be higher or lower, but we have to start somewhere and this can then be reassessed with time/ experience

The single rate levy structure is considered to be simple and clear and more importantly viable.

JIL10 Yes Agree as many businesses get away with not paying the portion of costs that residents pay Unable to comment

JIL14 Yes It may be a case to exempt some development or to charge upon a variable scale depending on the nature and scale of development (if it is the re-development of an existing structure, building on an existing footprint then perhaps to be treated differently to a green-site development)

Following recommendations made in viability assessment for review of developer contributions report, the levy is applied only to certain development types (Residential, office and retail) and then only for net new development. A conversion of an office use to residential for example would not be charged the levy unless a new additional floor was added to the building.

JIL17 Yes Seems a reasonable compromise amount Comments noted – the levy has been designed to be simple to use,fair and equitable. JIL18 Yes Jersey does not require any more office space, if this was the proposal developers

would think very carefully and those who can afford this i.e. the finance sector would go ahead.

Comments noted but not directly related to the Levy proposal.

JIL19 Yes No more offices please. We need houses not offices. Comments noted but not directly related to the Levy proposal. JIL20 Yes I agree with this, as commercial property incurs an enormous amount of

revenue. Every new development already includes, at the planning application stage, landscaping (trees, gardens, environment) and a play area (if appropriate). It also includes access and pathways.

Comments noted

JIL23 Yes In line with UK, and we have to start somewhere Comments noted JIL27 Yes This needs to be measured though against the planning gain The contributions made by developers through the current planning obligation

agreement (POA) policy is included and is part of the modelling undertaken in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report. It is considered that the levy is viable and will be delivered through the awarding of planning permission. Should the levy be adopted POA’s will be reviewed and some dropped. However some will still be in place to capture specific planning gain from developments that have a significant local impact (e.g. drainage commination, road junction improvements, etc.

JIL22 Yes I think it should be £100 The viability assessment for review of developer contributions report recommended a range of rates across development types. The Minister has proposed a consistent rate for all development types in order to provide a simple, equitable and fair policy framework.

JIL21 not sure Are the levels of human traffic around an office development not higher and therefore more maintenance hungry than a residential development, a higher rate would seem sensible

JIL12 not sure Creation of office development contributes to the economy of the island directly Comments noted JIL25 not sure If this figure has been reached following local professional research then it is correct.

If this figure has been brought over from a local authority in the UK then it will not be applicable to Jersey, prices and wages are higher and community aspirations different. In the absence of a States Social Policy we are all working independantly to help integrate the community, we have to ensure anything we do is relevant to our community. Erecting a sculpture in business developments doesnt add much to peoples lives, living art does. Areas for families to meet at lunch time, areas for parents to feed and care for children, areas for outdoor meetings, play areas to allow

The viability assessment for review of developer contributions report was an extensive and soundly evidenced piece of work undertaken by both UK and local consultants using Jersey costs and values. Should the levy be adopted, it will deliver public realm improvements for the benefit of the wider community. The percent for art scheme is voluntary and will still run alongside any new JIL policy.









17


business areas to be part of community space, all these forms of art add quality to peoples working days.

JIL29 Not sure Insufficient information available to make comment. The rates are based upon recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report published with the survey

JIL35 Not Sure Residential, retail and office developments are two very different things so it's unusual that you would charge the same rate?

The viability assessment for review of developer contributions report concluded that the potential rates that could be applied varied from between £80/Sqm- £150/Sqm depending upon the development types. However, the Minister has decided that for the levy to be simple to use, equitable and fair a lower standard rate should be applied to all development types.

JIL2 No Once again this care will be passed on and fails to address business which operate in jersey but which pay no corporation tax who should pay more

The levy is not expected to increase rental prices. The levy will be a small part of the overall cost of development, and it is expected that developers will either negotiate to pay less for land they buy in time, or absorb some of the cost.

JIL1 No Jersey business inflated rents here we go The levy represents a small percentage of GDV (2.5%) and is designed to be taken off the land. End rental values should not be significantly impacted by the levy. The levy is not expected to increase rental prices. The levy will be a small part of the overall cost of development, and it is expected that developers will either negotiate to pay less for land they buy in time, or absorb some of the cost. Developers set asking prices for new developments, but values are set by the market and this is usually based on what similar houses in the area sell for, as well as the formal valuation carried out by a bank’s appointed valuer, if the buyer is applying for a mortgage for the property. A buyer or renter of a new property will only pay a premium for a new property if it is more attractive than those in the wider market. In the long-run, a fixed levy will provide certainty about the level of charge that a developer must pay and they will be able to factor this in to the price that they pay for land. Through the informal consultation with the development industry that was carried out to inform the Viability Assessment, comments were received raising the concern that the levy would be added to the sale prices of developments thus increasing already high house prices in Jersey. The department has had initial discussions with the Economics Unit and their view is that charges like the Jersey Infrastructure Levy (JIL) that intend to capture a small fraction of the uplift in land values that arise when a site gets permission for development would normally be expected to impact on land values. In a competitive market developers would have a strong incentive to make sure the charge leads to lower land values because if not new built properties would become relatively more expensive than similar properties that have already been developed and were not subject to the levy. New developments only add a marginal increase to the existing stock each year and in a competitive market prices will be determined by the interaction of overall supply and demand for properties and therefore general conditions in the market. This conclusion is supported by recent work to review the operation of the Community Infrastructure Levy in the UK together with earlier work undertaken by Oxera in 2008 on land development taxes.

JIL30 No In the same way as residential property prices will be inflated, so office rental costs will spiral. It is not my purpose to be rude or offensive, but the public sector appears to have no regard for the long term effect on the economy of measures like this. One of Jersey's few USPs is its quality, but quality has a price ceiling too and this proposed tax will be another nail in the coffin of Jersey's competitiveness. Continue like this and our government will invoke a negative spiral of diminishing activity and further increases in taxes.

JIL5 No Increases rentals, in order to get a viable return.

JIL4 No This should be at least £200 per metre The rates are based upon recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report, which was an extensive and soundly evidenced piece of work and has recommended rates that would be viable.







18


JIL8 No As above, I do not agree with the levy on principle. Either an office development is approved in accordance with the Island Plan because it is required (in which case no levy should be charged) or it is rejected, in which case such a levy is irrelevant.

The levy is separate to current planning policies and the principle is based upon using the profit from awarding planning permission to pay for community improvements for the benefit of all Islanders.

JIL9 No It is a stealth tax and should not be charged. JIL11 No This just increases the general costs of development that are already excessive and

have driven out the chance of any smaller developer. The island is now so expensive that only companies with huge financial resources can operate.

Larger companies are likely to have a more competitive edge on certain types of developments, particularly where economy of scales exist, however the levy is considered to be a marginal cost which should be negotiated from the land value and allow forms of all sizes to operate as normal on the island.

JIL13 No Business arguably produce more CO2 emissions, with that reasoning they should pay more.

The levy is not targeted to directly reduce the output of Co2. The Energy Plan for Jersey is the policy vehicle for Co2 reduction on Jersey.

JIL15 No The states have already put off investors building offices by having the states underwrite the IFC now they want to tax new developments perhaps to help ensure thier IFC built before they bring in the new tax has another advantage. Please stop this mad tax or I will look to invest elsewhere.

The levy will be applied to all developers of offices, including the Jersey Development company. The levy represents a small percentage of GDV (2.5%) and is designed to be taken off the land. JIL24 No The cost to a business of moving premises is already far too high and much more

expensive in Jersey than elsewhere. Businesses may move from the Island if the cost of doing business in Jersey is too high.

JIL31 No You have used incorrect build costs, the difference of which is roughly equivalent to the proposed levy, so it doesn't work.





19

4. Proposed levy Retail Rates A levy rate of £85 per square metre of development has been proposed for retail developments. Do you think that this is a viable rate?


% Total Count

Yes 33% 11

No 52% 17

Not Sure 15% 5

Total 100% 33


Although this question provided a more negative view (52%) from

33 respondents, some of those supporting the levy opposed the

levy rate as they considered it too low (without evidence), which

does not depict a true picture of the overall view of the imposition of

retail rates.

With regards to those comments who were opposed to the levy, a

number of valid points were made but no new or alternative direct

local evidence is produced to support the comments made.

Many of the comments received were repeated from the previous

question on residential and office rates.


20



JIL3 Yes This should probably be higher.

The rates are based upon recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report which was an extensive and soundly evidenced piece of work and has recommended rates that would be viable.

JIL6 Yes for non-resident companies double it JIL7 Yes We need simple and clear charging structure. Yes it could be higher or lower, but we

have to start somewhere and this can then be reassessed with time/ experience JIL22 Yes I think it should be £100 JIL10 Yes Agree as many businesses get away with not paying the portion of costs that

residents pay JIL14 Yes It may be a case to exempt some development or to charge upon a variable scale

depending on the nature and scale of development (if it is the re-development of an existing structure, building on an existing footprint then perhaps to be treated differently to a green-site development)

Following recommendations made in viability assessment for review of developer contributions report, the levy is applied only to certain development types (Residential, office and retail) and then only for net new development. A conversion of an office use to residential for example would not be charged the levy unless a new floor was added to the building.

JIL16 Yes No comment Noted JIL20 Yes I agree with this, as retail developments incur an enormous amount of revenue. The rates are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for

review of developer contributions report. JIL23 Yes In line with UK, and we have to start somewhere Comments noted JIL27 Yes This needs to be measured though against the planning gain The contributions made by developers through the current planning obligation

agreement (POA) policy is included and is part of the modelling undertaken in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report. It is considered that the levy is viable and will be delivered through the awarding of planning permission. Should the levy be adopted POA’s will be reviewed and some dropped. However some will still be in place to capture specific planning gain from developments that have a significant local impact (e.g. drainage commination, road junction improvements, etc.

JIL12 not sure Creation of retail development contributes to the economy of the island directly Comments noted JIL25 not sure Retail developments should have quiet areas for people to sit, areas for children to

play and for families to be together. Spaces for performing arts should be available, small spaces for individual performers are as valuable as larger spaces for group performance. Again, this sum must be as a result of local research

Comments noted, the rate is based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report, which was undertaken using local relevant data.

JIL29 not sure Insufficient information available to make comment. The rates are based upon recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report published with the survey

JIL35 not sure Residential, retail and office developments are two very different things so it's unusual that you would charge the same rate?

The modelling undertaken in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report recommended a range of viable levy rates, with residential rates being able to be charged of up to £125/Sqm and retail up to £150/Sqm. The Minister has decided to have a single lower rate across all developments types in order to keep the levy simple to use, fair and equitable.

JIL4 No This should be £50 The rate is based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report.

JIL17 not sure Retail is suffering because of on line competition. If the £85 adds to retail overheads this may not be a good idea

JIL1 No Jersey retail inflated rents here we go

















21


JIL11 No This just increases the general costs of development that are already excessive and have driven out the chance of any smaller developer. The island is now so expensive that only companies with huge financial resources can operate.

The levy is not expected to increase rental prices. The levy will be a small part of the overall cost of development, and it is expected that developers will either negotiate to pay less for land they buy in time, or absorb some of the cost.


A buyer or renter of a new property will only pay a premium for a new property if it is more attractive than those in the wider market.


Through the informal consultation with the development industry that was carried out to inform the Viability Assessment, comments were received raising the concern that the levy would be added to the sale prices of developments thus increasing already high house prices in Jersey. The department has had initial discussions with the Economics Unit and their view is that charges like the Jersey Infrastructure Levy (JIL) that intend to capture a small fraction of the uplift in land values that arise when a site gets permission for development would normally be expected to impact on land values. In a competitive market developers would have a strong incentive to make sure the charge leads to lower land values because if not new built properties would become relatively more expensive than similar properties that have already been developed and were not subject to the levy. New developments only add a marginal increase to the existing stock each year and in a competitive market prices will be determined by the interaction of overall supply and demand for properties and therefore general conditions in the market.

JIL30 No In the same way as residential property prices will be inflated, so retail rental costs will spiral. It is not my purpose to be rude or offensive, but the public sector appears to have no regard for the long term effect on the economy of measures like this. One of Jersey's few USPs is its quality, but quality has a price ceiling too and this proposed tax will be another nail in the coffin of Jersey's competitiveness. Continue like this and our government will invoke a negative spiral of diminishing activity and further increases in taxes.

JIL24 No Retailers won't come to the Island. The High Street will start to see vacant shops. This will impact on the whole economy.

JIL2 No As this charge will be passed on it is merely going to hike jersey prices in a period of uncertainty and make jersey shops even less competent I've.

JIL5 No The extra rental costs will need higher prices, which drives business to the internet.

JIL8 No I do not agree with the levy on principle. Either a retail development is approved in accordance with the Island Plan because it is required (in which case no levy should be charged) or it is rejected, in which case such a levy is irrelevant.


JIL9 No It is a stealth tax and should not be charged. The introduction of a levy is in line with practice elsewhere and is a way of ensuring that through the planning process, a small percentage of the profit from land development is allocated to improving or providing new community infrastructure to improve the quality of life for people living, working and visiting that area. The levy represents a small fraction of increase in land value taken from the awarding of planning permission and it is considered appropriate to use this to mitigate against the wider impact that development has on the local community

JIL13 No Business arguably produce more CO2 emissions, with that reasoning they should pay more.


JIL15 No The states have already put off investors building offices by having the states underwrite the IFC now they want to tax new developments perhaps to help ensure thier IFC built before they bring in the new tax has another advantage. Please stop this mad tax or I will look to invest elsewhere. it is wrong in principle ill thought out and will only damage the economy

The levy will be applied to all developers of offices, including the Jersey Development company. The levy represents a small percentage of GDV (2.5%) and is designed to be taken off the land.




22


JIL18 No I don't think the retail sector could afford this charge, and Jersey needs the retail sector.

The levy is not expected to increase rental prices. The levy will be a small part of the overall cost of development, and it is expected that developers will either negotiate to pay less for land they buy in time, or absorb some of the cost. The rates are well evidenced and based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report.

JIL19 No We pay GST why more levys, get rid of some of the surplus useless civil servants who work for planning and environment, I am clueless as to what they are doing to improve either.

GST was introduced to pay for a specific budget gap in Jersey finances following the introduction of zero-ten. The civil Service seeks to provide an excellent cost effective service to Jersey citizens, including the delivery of planned and future infrastructure community projects should the levy be adopted.

JIL21 No I think there's a reasonable expectation that a shop keeper would be managing their shop front and surrounding area for their own best interests, and that the taxpayer would commit to funding the upkeep of the shared spaces (eg King Street). Why put another barrier in front of the retail sector?

It is considered right for a small proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and visit. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that all such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community which granted it, to help fund the infrastructure needed to make development acceptable and sustainable. General income tax receipts will remain to fund other public services. The Government is currently undertaking a major reform/efficiency programme aimed at improving Public Services which is not the appropriate route to fund public realm improvement plans from development related activities.

JIL26 No Community infrastructure should be paid for out of income tax - this is the existing position and seems to have worked for decades. Commercial development of real estate is already taxed at 20%.

JIL28 No The states already collect a levy from citizens, its called income tax. Adding further cost simply pushes up the cost of living in Jersey which is to no bodies advantage. The argument that there is a budget shortfall is not acceptable. The States should learn to manage within its means and not fund further spending through a range of stealth taxes.

JIL31 No You have used incorrect build costs, the difference of which is roughly equivalent to the proposed levy, so it doesn't work.




23

5. Exemptions It is proposed that developments undertaken by the following would be exempt from paying the levy: •Developments for charitable purposes •Affordable housing providers •Public developments (e.g. schools & hospitals)


% Total Count

Agree 42% 14

Neither 10% 3

Disagree 48% 16

Total 100% 33


Although this question provided a slightly more negative view (48%)

from 33 respondents, some of those supporting the principle of the

levy opposed the proposed levy exemptions as they considered

them to be too generous (without evidence), which does not reflect

the overall statistical outcome of this question.

Comments about proposed exemptions were mixed suggesting that

exemptions were too narrow or that there should be no exemptions

at all. None of the alternative suggestions received were evidenced

and were based on speculation or unsupported assertions.


24

Please give reasons for your answer and if appropriate provide evidence for alternatives to those listed.


JIL4 Agree As many of these are used by the public (hospital, schools and affordable housing) this should be exempt Comments noted

JIL10 Agree Lifts the burden from the public who would most likely have to pay through taxes or direct donations for these. Comments noted

JIL22 Agree Seems fair Comments noted JIL23 Agree Those who are pocketing the highest unearned profits should contribute

the most The exceptions have been considered based upon evidence from the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report, which tested the levels of contribution a development could viably make. The minimum profit level assumed for all forms of development was 20% and so contributions could only be made above this level.

JIL27 Agree This needs to be measured though against the planning gain The contributions made by developers through the current planning obligation agreement (POA) policy is included and is part of the modelling undertaken in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report. It is considered that the levy is viable and will be delivered through the awarding of planning permission. Should the levy be adopted POA’s will be reviewed and some dropped. However some will still be in place to capture specific planning gain from developments that have a significant local impact (e.g. drainage commination, road junction improvements, etc.

JIL29 Agree This proposal would seem appropriate given that providers are community focused. However, it could be that although there is exemption from payment of the levy and proposed development has to include information relating to how it will engage with the community and support its development.

Comment noted

JIL30 Agree And I'd go much further and exempt all development. In other words, scrap this plan. Comment noted

JIL35 Agree Totally agree, smart move. Comment noted JIL1 Disagree It just proves that the charge will be a burden on normal buildings if you are

already considering a reduction ion these areas It is unclear what is meant by ‘normal buildings’. The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report.

JIL2 Disagree How can you ensure charity status for a building. It may become retail at end of first lease. Unworkable

Detailed policy guidance will be developed to cover all administrative sides of the policy, including the exceptions made such as to charitable development, which will likely be linked to the new Charities (Jersey) Law 2014 for example.

JIL7 Disagree If one area has more public building development because of its preferred location then the locals should see an upside. Comment noted

JIL8 Disagree I do not agree with the levy on principle. Either a residential development is approved in accordance with the Island Plan because it is required (in which case no levy should be charged) or it is rejected, in which case such a levy is irrelevant.


JIL11 Disagree I do not agree with exemptions because I do not agree with a levy period. Comment noted JIL12 Disagree But also where the owner is retaining ownership after development in

whatever capacity. Public developments also create pressure on infrastructure without necessarily contributing anything to the economy

The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report. Public buildings are by definition benefiting the Island community and often are developed to include additional public spaces which ordinarily a commercial development would not include.

JIL13 Disagree We have a responsibility to reducing the burden of climate change to our children, no one should be exempt. Comment noted






https://www.jerseylaw.je/laws/revised/Pages/15.070.aspx




25


JIL14 Disagree If the building is potentially causing net harm to the environment then a levy would be reasonable


JIL15 Disagree This tax will make slow development and hence cause more need for thing slink states provided social housing. Dropping this tax is the only sensible course if you have any wish to see investment and growth buildings in Jersey undertaken by the private sector.

The introduction of a levy is in line with practice elsewhere and the recent report A new approach to developer contributions from the CIL review group has not indicated any issues with reducing investment or growth in the construction sector. The levy represents a small fraction of increase in land value taken from the awarding of planning permission and it is considered appropriate to use this to mitigate against the wider impact that development has on the local community which will not have an appreciative effect on slowing or hindering the development process.

JIL18 Disagree I agree that Charities and Public developments should be exempt, however the public developments must be for the use of the general public or for the benefit of the general public. I think affordable housing developments could have a sliding attached to them as some developers would massage the criteria to enable their development to be exempt. What is the definition of "affordable housing" has this been agreed or debated?

Comments noted. Affordable housing is currently defined in the States approved Revised 2011 Island Plan as: Affordable (Category A) housing includes homes for social rent and purchase, provided to specified eligible households whose needs are not met by the commercial housing market. Affordable housing should meet the needs of persons on median incomes or below, who would otherwise have financial difficulties renting or purchasing residential accommodation in the general residential market, determined with regard to income levels and house prices prevailing in Jersey; and Affordable housing may be owned and managed by a housing trust or association which provides homes to eligible families or individuals by means of sale or lease or by any other means on conditions that will ensure that the home will remain available for eligible families in the future. In order to ensure that the benefit of and access to affordable housing provided under this policy is not lost to future eligible households, conditions or restrictions may be imposed to ensure that the benefit may be recycled or retained in order to ensure the provision of affordable housing meets the needs of this and future generations. The eligibility of households to access affordable housing shall be determined by their assessment through the Affordable Housing Gateway. The Minister is committed to good quality design in housing and, in particular, will require that affordable homes be built to meet or exceed the standards for homes set out in supplementary planning guidance. To ensure that homes are truly affordable the Minister will encourage innovation in construction methods and alternative methods of home ownership and housing delivery. The clear relationship between affordable housing and the Affordable Housing Gateway means that housing that is developed for sale on the open market (Category B) is excluded from the definition of affordable housing whatever price it is sold at.

JIL19 Disagree Stop cherry picking. If its not needed then why all this cost in a consultation.

The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report

JIL21 Disagree Single use homes, the 75 sq. metre is too small - if a person is investing heavily in their own 3 bed house for example, why charge them again. Affordable housing needs to be treated the same as any other development, communal space is communal space.

The 75 Sqm is only applicable on net new development. Charging the levy on affordable housing developments would be unviable and significantly impact the supply of new Homes planned by the affordable housing providers. The same residential standards are applied to all housing development, regardless if it is affordable or not.

JIL25 Disagree There should be no exemptions, this makes for a very clear situation. Keep it simple. Charities should be allowed to claim this levy back from the Tax Dept. All charities are registered with the Tax Dept in order to obtain charitable status so claiming this levy back will ensure only registered charities can do this. Public developments and affordable housing

The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/589637/CIL_REPORT_2016.pdf


http://consult.gov.je/portal/policy/pd/ip2011?pointId=1405696217900#section-1405696217900







26


providers have a responsibility to the community to provide something in exchange for the space they need

JIL31 Disagree This is discriminatory and the landowners would be the ones who benefitted, not the developing parties.

JIL34 Disagree I disagree that buildings for charitable purposes should be exempt for two reasons. Firstly as harsh as it sounds charities are effectively businesses. Their product is 'for good intention' but they operate with income,costs and profit. Jersey hospice are a rich local charity. They build new wings as it stimulates donations, enables them to treat more people and receive more income. Charities struggle to fundraise for operating costs, but capital builds have substance and are easily funded. Les ormes for example is a charity, yet it's becoming one of the largest tourist accommodation sites in the island, competing with all the commercial operators, to somes detriment. The staff get paid, it has a well paid Managing director, it's just the profit goes back in to continue its growth. Secondly housing trusts are in a similar vein. They run commercially save for their profits not being distributed they are just reinvested. The staff of the trusts and directors are all well paid.. and they compete with other providers. It is not inconceivable for large developers or wealthy individuals to setup a charity in which to provide a home and charge rent to bypass the fees.. there is an esplanade of lawyers who exist solely to find loopholes. Given there is actually no charity board here and thousands of charitable trusts etc this will soon be exploited.

Comments noted and will be reviewed further. Should the policy be adopted as published then the exceptions made such as to charitable development will likely be linked to the new Charities (Jersey) Law 2014 to ensure compliance.

JIL3 Neither You haven't defined these. If I build a block of flats and say one flat is affordable housing whatever that means then will I be exempt? Developers will utilise these loop holes and I bet planning who are all their mates will do nothing about it.

Detailed policy guidance will be developed to cover all administrative sides of the policy, including the exceptions made such as to affordable housing. Under the example provided, the single flat in the block of flats built for affordable housing would be exempt. The remaining floor space in the block of flats would not.

JIL24 Neither I don't support the Levy at all. Comment noted JIL26 Neither Community infrastructure should be paid for out of income tax - this is the

existing position and seems to have worked for decades. Commercial development of real estate is already taxed at 20%.





27

6. Proposed types of development to be subject to the levy Viability testing demonstrated that only Residential, Office and Retail developments would be applicable for the new levy.


% Total Count

Agree 33% 11

Neither 15% 5

Disagree 52% 17

Total 100% 33


Although this question provided a more negative view (52%) from

33 respondents, some of those supporting the levy opposed the

levy rate as they considered more developments types should be

charged the levy (without evidence), which does not give a true

picture of the overall negative view to this question.

Equally, none of the alternative suggestions received were

evidenced, rather being based on speculation or unsupported

assertions.


28

Please give reasons for your answer.

Ref Supporting/

Objecting Reasons for answer Minister’s Response

JIL4 Agree I think that this is a very good idea as many offices can afford to pay and possibility of residential and retail which make plenty of money to pay these fees Comment noted

JIL10 Agree Lifts the burden from the public who would most likely have to pay through taxes or direct donations for these. Comment noted

JIL16 Agree No comment No Comment noted JIL17 Agree I accept recommendation Comment noted JIL22 Agree Yes, think the viability range showed it could be a bit higher though. The viability assessment for review of developer contributions report recommended an

overall lower figure, although for residential developments it could be as high as £125/Sqm. The Minister has kept the rates the same in order to provide a simple, equitable and fair policy framework.

JIL23 Agree These are the developments that make the most profit, therefore they should be in the first tranche to have to pay the JIL Comment noted


JIL29 Agree This is supported on the basis that there is evidence from the viability testing. Comment noted JIL19 Agree Cherry picking is not normally acceptable by your department, so why now? The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability

assessment for review of developer contributions report JIL3 Disagree Surely all commercial developments. Again another loophole. JIL6 Disagree all should pay Comment noted JIL8 Disagree As above, I do not agree with the levy on principle. Comment noted JIL12 Disagree Not residential The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability

assessment for review of developer contributions report, no evidence is offered by the commentator to test removal of residential.

JIL9 Disagree Residential should definitely be exempt.

JIL13 Disagree We have a responsibility to reducing the burden of climate change to our children, no one should be exempt.

The levy is not targeted to directly reduce the output of Co2. The Energy Plan for Jersey is the policy vehicle for Co2 reduction on Jersey. The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report

JIL18 Disagree See previous: I agree that Charities and Public developments should be exempt, however the public developments must be for the use of the general public or for the benefit of the general public. I think affordable housing developments could have a sliding attached to them as some developers would massage the criteria to enable their development to be exempt. What is the definition of "affordable housing" has this been agreed or debated?

Comments noted. Affordable housing is currently defined in the Revised 2011 Island Plan – full definition is outlined response to Question 5.

JIL21 Disagree 'Residential use' too broad, specify the number of units and above before levy is applied. Exclude retail for the timebeing.

Residential will exclude affordable housing - defined in the Revised 2011 Island Plan and any development under 75Sqm. The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report, no evidence is offered by the commentator to test removal of retail.















29

Ref Supporting/ Objecting Reasons for answer Minister’s Response

JIL25 Disagree All development should be liable for the new levy. Exempting States funded development is not a balanced position.

The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report, Commercial states developments (e.g. Esplanade Quarter) will not be exempt from the levy. it is right that Public buildings are exempt as they benefit the Island community and often include additional public spaces which ordinarily a commercial development would not.

JIL20 Disagree I do not agree that this "tax" should be included in residential developments (see my comments above).



JIL28 Disagree The states already collect a levy from citizens, its called income tax. Adding further cost simply pushes up the cost of living in Jersey which is to no bodies advantage. The argument that there is a budget shortfall is not acceptable. The States should learn to manage within its means and not fund further spending through a range of stealth taxes.

JIL30 Disagree How many more times do I need to write this. This is a BAD idea - period! Comment noted JIL31 Disagree The viability is flawed, because the build costs are incorrect. No evidence has been provided for alternative costs and so this statement cannot be

tested. JIL5 Disagree The extra rental costs will need higher prices, which drives business to the internet. The levy is not expected to increase rental prices. The levy will be a small part of the

overall cost of development, and it is expected that developers will either negotiate to pay less for land they buy in time, or absorb some of the cost. Developers set asking prices for new developments, but values are set by the market and this is usually based on what similar houses in the area sell for, as well as the formal valuation carried out by a bank’s appointed valuer, if the buyer is applying for a mortgage for the property. A buyer or renter of a new property will only pay a premium for a new property if it is more attractive than those in the wider market. In the long-run, a fixed levy will provide certainty about the level of charge that a developer must pay and they will be able to factor this in to the price that they pay for land. Through the informal consultation with the development industry that was carried out to inform the Viability Assessment, comments were received raising the concern that the levy would be added to the sale prices of developments thus increasing already high house prices in Jersey. The department has had initial discussions with the Economics Unit and their view is that charges like the Jersey Infrastructure Levy (JIL) that intend to capture a small fraction of the uplift in land values that arise when a site gets permission for development would normally be expected to impact on land values. In a competitive market developers would have a strong incentive to make sure the charge leads to lower land values because if not new built properties would become relatively more expensive than similar properties that have already been developed and were not subject to the levy. New developments only add a marginal increase to the existing

JIL11 Disagree It is already far to costly JIL1 Disagree Another tax that will have to be passed on, with a small group of "committee"

members deciding how and where it is spent JIL15 Neither Viability testing? Any fool with simple economics know this will simply put up end use

cost and in an island with very high build costs already this is mad. You want new buildings that are fit for purpose so the people can work and live and great economic growth. This tax will simple slow down growth and keep Jersey lagging behind other jurisdictions that aren't so stupid.




30


stock each year and in a competitive market prices will be determined by the interaction of overall supply and demand for properties and therefore general conditions in the market.

JIL2 Neither I don't agree that any levy is appropriate or workable Comment noted JIL7 Neither No comment No Comment noted JIL14 Neither If that is what the viability testing suggests then I cannot comment! No Comment noted JIL24 Neither I don't agree with this levy at all. Comment noted


31

7. Proposed levy thresholds It proposed that the levy will only apply to developments 75 square metres or more in size or where there is the creation of an additional residential unit.


% Total Count

Agree 36% 12

Neither 18% 15

Disagree 46% 6

Total 100% 33


There were some mixed comments that either suggested the 75

Sqm threshold is too high or that there should be no or a reduced

threshold to increase those developments liable to pay the levy.

None of the alternative suggestions received were evidenced,

rather being based on speculation or unsupported assertions.


32



JIL3 Agree This shouldn't penalise people simply wanting to improve their homes. It should be solely for developers drawing in this income from development. So this on initial consideration looks feasible

Comment noted – the minimum size is aimed at reducing the levy impact for those simply wishing to improve the family home for example.

JIL6 Agree for small extension don’t see why they should pay. Comment noted JIL7 Agree There does need to be some de-minimus Comment noted JIL10 Agree A reasonable starting point which would allow smaller extensions but catch the larger

site where the development would most likely be made for enhanced income. Comment noted

JIL16 Agree No comment No Comment noted JIL17 Agree This seems reasonable Comment noted JIL18 Agree Perhaps this question should have come earlier Comment noted JIL22 Agree Seems fair Comment noted JIL23 Agree Small developments do not make such a profit; those making the most profit should

pay Comment noted

JIL25 Agree This amount of space would allow the building on of accommodation for an elderly relative or a child with special needs. The community is being encouraged to care for themselves as far as possible so this would fit with the Social Care initiatives.

Comment noted


JIL2 Disagree If it is intended to encourage undersize and inappropriate hutches for working people then this is the way to go!

The levy will be applied to all developments over 75Sqm and represents a small percentage (2.5%) of Gross Development Value (GDV) which is designed to be taken off the value of the land. Other planning measures to control the size of dwellings will not be affected by the introduction of the levy and which are currently being reviewed with a view to increase minimum sizes.

JIL4 Disagree This should be for 60 square metres or more The 75 Sqm is equivalent to a 2 bedroom flat in size and was chosen because of the view that it was reasonable to allow families to develop their homes to create more family space for immediate or dependent relatives for example. Equally statistics from the planning register indicated that the 75 Sqm was the upper boundary of what is seen as more domestic scale developments.

JIL5 Disagree The extra rental costs will need higher prices, which drives business to the internet. The levy is not expected to increase rental prices. The levy will be a small part of the overall cost of development, and it is expected that developers will either negotiate to pay less for land they buy in time, or absorb some of the cost. Developers set asking prices for new developments, but values are set by the market and this is usually based on what similar houses in the area sell for, as well as the formal valuation carried out by a bank’s appointed valuer, if the buyer is applying for a mortgage for the property. A buyer or renter of a new property will only pay a premium for a new property if it is more attractive than those in the wider market.



33


In the long-run, a fixed levy will provide certainty about the level of charge that a developer must pay and they will be able to factor this in to the price that they pay for land. Through the informal consultation with the development industry that was carried out to inform the Viability Assessment, comments were received raising the concern that the levy would be added to the sale prices of developments thus increasing already high house prices in Jersey. The department has had initial discussions with the Economics Unit and their view is that charges like the Jersey Infrastructure Levy (JIL) that intend to capture a small fraction of the uplift in land values that arise when a site gets permission for development would normally be expected to impact on land values. In a competitive market developers would have a strong incentive to make sure the charge leads to lower land values because if not new built properties would become relatively more expensive than similar properties that have already been developed and were not subject to the levy. New developments only add a marginal increase to the existing stock each year and in a competitive market prices will be determined by the interaction of overall supply and demand for properties and therefore general conditions in the market.

JIL8 Disagree I do not agree with the levy on principle. Either a residential development is approved in accordance with the Island Plan because it is required (in which case no levy should be charged) or it is rejected, in which case such a levy is irrelevant.


JIL9 Disagree Residential units of any kind should be exempt. Comment noted but reasons not provided and so cannot be tested. JIL11 Disagree I disagree with the levy Comment noted JIL12 Disagree Not residential Comment noted but not evidenced or reasoned and so unable to consider change JIL13 Disagree We have a responsibility to reducing the burden of climate change to our children, no

one should be exempt. The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report

JIL14 Disagree Creation of an additional office space or retail unit show also apply here? Any floor space for retail or office over 74Sqm wold be charged the levy. JIL19 Disagree Sort this mess out, some single sites are more obnoxious and imposing on the

community than larger sites, the building at La Coupe is one such site. This did nothing for the Coastal National Park farce.

Comment noted but does not directly relate to the levy.

JIL20 Disagree This is just another "tax" on the end user. It is a "tax" which appears to be only based on the square metre-age of the site, therefore, if the development is a block of flats, it will only be based on the ground floor area? Every new development already includes, at the planning application stage, landscaping (trees, gardens, environment) and a play area (if appropriate). It also includes access and pathways.

The proposal is for the levy to be applied to all new net floor areas only and will only apply to the buildings and not landscaping or footpaths.

JIL21 Disagree Definition is too small. An additional residential unit for a children or elderly relative should be supported without this additional charge applied to it. The premise is to take a fraction from the profits of the larger commercial developers as a public social responsibility, squeezing small amounts from individuals, families or smaller investors isn't right and unlikely to add any great value and therefore becomes a stealth tax.Define the purpose of the levy more clearly then implement and regulate it.

Developments of less than 75Sqm which are likely able to accommodate an elderly relative or children will not be charged the levy. Detailed policy guidance will be developed to cover all administrative sides of the policy once it has been approved in principle.


It is considered right for a small proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the community, rather than going solely to the landowner. JIL15 Neither We must not bring this mad tax in at all for all the above reasons.




34


JIL28 Disagree The states already collect a levy from citizens, its called income tax. Adding further cost simply pushes up the cost of living in Jersey which is to no bodies advantage. The argument that there is a budget shortfall is not acceptable. The States should learn to manage within its means and not fund further spending through a range of stealth taxes.

It is also considered right that funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and visit. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that all such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community which granted it, to help fund the infrastructure needed to make development acceptable and sustainable. General income tax receipts will remain to fund other public services. The Government is currently undertaking a major reform/efficiency programme aimed at improving Public Services which is not the appropriate route to fund public realm improvement plans from development related activities.

JIL31 Disagree This is so small, it should start at zero The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report

JIL1 Neither Another tax that will have to be passed on, with a small group of "committee" members deciding how and where it is spent The levy will be spent according to publically agreed priorities.

JIL24 Neither I don't agree with this levy at all. Comment noted JIL29 Neither Insufficient information The exceptions are based upon the detailed recommendations in the viability

assessment for review of developer contributions report published with the survey JIL30 Neither If we do not have this levy the question is redundant. Comment noted JIL34 Neither How would this be policed. Could a large scale development of a lot of units of less

than 75m be setup as individual developments. If you build 150 units of 74m you would face a fee of almost £1m for £30,000 you could setup 150 different development companies developing a single unit of less than 75m and save almost £950,000, and yes people,would do it. It would also stagnate houses at a size of 75m or under as single builds, which is not necessarily beneficial.

Detailed policy guidance will be developed to cover all administrative sides of the policy once it has been approved in principle. The guidance will cover all of the points raised by this comment to ensure that such situations do not materialise and the levy is applied fairly and evenly across all developments.




35

8. Reduced Planning Obligation Agreements

Introducing the levy will mean reviewing and reducing the current requirements for certain planning obligation agreements (e.g. bus and eastern cycle route contributions)


% Total Count

Agree 25% 8

Neither 25% 8

Disagree 50% 16

Total 100% 32


From the written responses it is clear that there is some misperception over the use and recent changes made to the POA policy. The significant number of respondents who disagreed (50%) did not want a reduction in the contributions made by developers with the introduction of the levy. This is not the intention but rather some items from the POA policy will be moved to be paid for from the levy. The development industry expressed some concerns about being asked to contribute for the same infrastructure through the levy and through the POA system. This is also not the intention and will be considered in more detail should the principle of the levy be adopted.


36



JIL13 Agree Planning must review all applications on their impact on climate change, Likewise all proven drawdown methods including Regenerative Agriculture should have all restrictions taken away, we must draw down atmospheric CO2, CO2 reduction is not going to be enough. Please look up www.drawdown.com


JIL17 Agree It replaces the current arrangements Comment noted. Although the levy work alongside a reduced POA policy JIL22 Agree YEs, seems an excellent idea designed to allow better and more strategic planning of

spending for the public good. Comment noted

JIL23 Agree They shouldn't pay twice for the same thing, but the £85/m2 figure can always be revised upwards in the future as demands increase (climate change, carbon taxes, sea level rises, international commitments, etc will require more focussed thinking in this area in the years and decades to come)

The levy regulations and changes to the POA policy will ensure that there will be no ‘double dipping’. The rate of the levy will always be based upon the most current evidence of viability


JIL30 Agree In principle, much more development that is presently controlled should be deregulated.

Comment noted, the Minister has recently issued new guidance that extends the permitted development rights.

JIL31 Agree But this won't happen, because government is trying to squeeze every last £ from wherever it can. Cynical, but true.

Comment noted, but the levy rate has been conservatively proposed from viability evidence that suggested higher rates could be applied.

JIL35 Agree As long as though sort of things are not disregarded. It must be ensured that levy funds are put back into planning projects that better the community, The ring fencing of funds is a key principle of the proposal

JIL1 Disagree The tax is already a burden and two cycle paths (St Peters Valley and Airport) are not used by cyclists as it is, so are a gross waste of money

It is considered right for a small proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and visit. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that all such development pays a share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community which granted it, to help fund the infrastructure needed to make development acceptable and sustainable. General income tax receipts will remain to fund other public services. Cycle paths are an important alternative safe travel option and are increasingly being used as cycle tracks become more accessible.

JIL3 Disagree There should be no reduction in the requirement for developers to not improve the area for the community.

Comment noted, the proposed levy will not replace but work alongside a reduced POA policy

JIL4 Disagree As there is so much traffic in the east the levy should be free The level of traffic in an area will not impact upon the levy rate. JIL6 Disagree Additional funding from this should not go towards existing obligations but new.

perhaps consider solar power on all developments, and where charitable social Comments noted and will be considered should the levy be adopted.





37


housing etc use yhese new funds to provide that. After all it's these homes that have the least wealthy residents and it would help cut their living costs.

JIL7 Disagree We have to ensure we end up with more funds being allocated into cycle routes/ public transport solutions, not less.

Comments noted. The levy would provide more funding for transport as well as other important community initiatives.

JIL8 Disagree As above, I do not agree with the levy on principle. Comment noted JIL9 Disagree 'Agree', 'Neither', 'Disagree': The wording of this survey omits the glaringly obvious

3rd answer option: 'This proposed Levy is morally wrong and should be withdrawn!' Disagree comment noted.

JIL11 Disagree Government taxes enough already it needs to cut its cloth accordingly The levy represents a small fraction of increase in land value taken from the awarding of planning permission and it is considered appropriate to use this to mitigate against the wider impact that development has on the local community and not related to the general income tax policy which funds essential services

JIL12 Disagree If there was a reason for the obligations they should remain POA’s will remain in place for site specific matters such as drainage or junction/access improvements for example.

JIL20 Disagree I think that the current system works well. The recently published POA guidance has made the policy clearer but POA’s are limited to site specific matters and would not be able to provide the area wide benefits envisaged by the levy.

JIL24 Disagree The POA obligations are appropriate JIL16 Disagree I feel there is no real justification for a reduction in current requirements JIL19 Disagree The government should be sorting out cycle routes in an economical way, use

cheaper and more rider friendly asphalt. The avenuse cycle trak is not straight, has a porr quality and uneven surface, this route should be a priority. Also try cycling down Mont Felard between 7 and 9 am.

The levy will be able to improve and extend cycle areas, using the most cost effective delivery method but engineered to modern safe standards.

JIL21 Disagree An Island the size of Jersey surely only needs a single form of development levy!? This Jersey Infrastructure Levy should seek to replace all others entirely or should be shelved until a better solution is available, eg putting up Income Tax instead of these additional charges.

Comments noted but the existing POA’s system is required to ensure site specific matters are mitigated through a formal agreement to ensure their delivery as part of a planning application.

JIL25 Disagree Do not open the system to interpretation by reducing the requirements, this will lead to a reduction in the quality of the environment, green backdrops etc

This is not the intention and both the levy and POA’s will provide an effective and simpler policy regime to deliver public benefit.

JIL28 Disagree The whole levy is ill conceved and I cannot accept that it should substitute current practice Comments noted JIL2 Neither As I disagree with the levy no change is needed

JIL5 Neither I don't think there should be a levy, so the question is redundant, as my answer JIL10 Neither Cycle routes are expensive and usually go through the green belt which if done

correctly as St Peters can be a major funding issue and best provided through direct taxation and allow this proposal to target more urban environmental improvements

Comment noted and in some cases large infrastructure projects could be delivered in this way.

JIL14 Neither As long as other obligations laid out within a planning decision (EIA, scoping etc) are not bypassed then this is acceptable and if other obligations can be put upon the developers (such as inclusion of enforced mitigation within the schemes) then that would be useful.

This is the intention as both the levy and a reduced POA policy will be required.

JIL15 Neither As above every tax on investment is madness we want investment and new buildings that help our economy grow and provide good housing for our population why would you tax investment. This is also encourage making buildings inc houses as small as possible to reduce the level per sq metre.

The levy will provide significant benefits to the community whilst still enabling investment to be made in the built environment as evidenced in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report and the introduction of a levy is in line with practice elsewhere and the recent report A new approach to developer contributions from the CIL review group has not indicated any issues with reducing investment or growth in the construction sector. The size of units are controlled by existing planning guidance and which are currently being reviewed with a view to increase minimum sizes.






38


JIL18 Neither I don't have sufficient knowledge or information to make an informed decision Comment noted JIL26 Neither No view noted JIL29 Neither It would appear sensible to review any other relevant policies and obligations prior to

introducing the levy Noted


39

9. Community share

It is proposed that Parishes and local communities where development occurs will receive 10% of the levy to pay for local community improvements. Questionnaire Consultation results

% Total Count

Agree 36% 12

Neither 9% 3

Disagree 55% 18

Total 100% 33


The proposed 10% split of the levy for exclusive Parish use also generated

mixed views with some of those who supported it some suggesting a higher

share. This will be something for future consideration.

Many comments identified the need for an audited and managed process to

spending the levy and this will be part of future regulations should the levy be

adopted.


40


Ref Supporting/

Objecting Reasons for answer Minister’s Response

JIL3 Agree Yes. Comment noted JIL10 Agree They may have a better insight on the local views and needs of their community Comments noted, engaging with the local community is key to delivering successful JIL

projects JIL13 Agree Any decentralization is a good thing, this will encourage Constables to do the right

thing to reduce the burden for you younger generation. Comment noted

JIL29 Agree Whilst this is agreed it is vital to recognise that there are different types of communities in addition to Parish and local (geographical) communities. There are communities of practice e.g. groups of interested parties focused on improving their practice, such as early years workers. There are community groups who come together for specific purposes or around specific interests e.g. special needs and disabilities. There are communities who may be defined by particular characteristics e.g. ethnicity. There are communities of people who come together around shared values to work together with a particular focus e.g. the Early Years and Childhood Partnership. It would be important in considering distribution of the levy to have regard for the different types of communities.

The levy would encourage local community groups to come forward and support projects that are specific to them and the local area, regardless of the parish boundaries. The levy could also for example act as seed capital for crowd funded projects and this has proven success elsewhere such as in Plymouth for example. www.crowdfunder.co.uk/funds/crowdfund-plymouth

JIL27 Agree I would though restrict this for schemes that demonstrably improve either pedestrian or cycle access.

The spending of the levy will be controlled through regulations limiting it to delivering agreed high priority community infrastructure projects.

JIL24 Disagree This is a "random" amount. How can it be guaranteed the parishes will properly spend the money. Where has the need for these "community infrastructure improvements" been identified? Each parish's needs will be different- what if a parish has a "need" but no developments? This is a random further tax and has no logic to it.

JIL26 Disagree Local community improvements should not be considered separately. There should be a holistic approach to infrastructure provision to prevent inefficiency and waste through excessive administration.

JIL14 Disagree Given the perhaps unwise use of money seen (for example in St Mary) for road improvements when money is given to Parishes then I do not feel that this would necessarily be the best use of the money. For Parishes to apply for money from the scheme for well thought out plans would be better.

JIL18 Agree With criteria imposed for the spending of this windfall i.e. for families and communities

JIL25 Agree This % should be given with a caveat that there is local consultation for the use of this money. Community improvements is open to interpretation by the Constables, the parishioners should have an opportunity to determin their environment.

JIL22 Agree Its a figure that allows some small scale local projects to also be delivered. For info I would like to see a likely sum/split to the parishes (based on hindcasting over a few years if the data is available?) just for info.

The 10% would represent an approximate annual income to parishes of around £150-£200k

JIL23 Agree Why not. We'll see what happens to it. Comment noted JIL30 Agree Of course. Because the parishes are much better at managing resources than central

government. That said, my argument is that this proposal should be dropped, in which circumstance there will be not new tax revenue to share.

Comment noted

JIL34 Agree Sadly the island does not have a good track record in community development. We are building parks which are badly designed with shared spaces, which have proven the have killed. Yet other core public areas such as liberation square are in a shambolic state. I think the funds should generate need to be reviews and not wasted

Comment noted, the levy will

http://www.crowdfunder.co.uk/funds/crowdfund-plymouth


41


on overly designed or ambitious ill conceived plans, likemcycle tracks that have a surface that can't be cycled on.

JIL21 Disagree 10% means 90% could go to another part of the Island entirely, this is wrong, the area where development occurs needs to receive the lion's share of investment.

The intention is that the areas that accept new development will benefit from receiving levy funds and so given that St Helier has the largest share of new developments it is going to receive the greatest proportion of levy funding

JIL9 Disagree Unless the States' 'user pays' policy has been scrapped, at least 50% should benefit local community improvements so that the 'users' (eg. new residents) in an area might enjoy some of the benefits of their ill-gotten levy.

JIL20 Disagree I believe that the levy should be used within the development area only. JIL2 Disagree Why should country parish benefit from a scheme designed to enhance town

primarily. JIL35 Disagree Disagree, 10% is too low a figure it should me much higher. The funds are not to be

taken to "balance the books" the whole point of the levy is to benefit the community. When you only use 10% it basically just becomes a tax and makes the government look bad.

These comments are noted and will be considered when taking forward any proposal for adoption.

JIL16 Disagree I think this could be higher in the present economic climate, say 15 to 20% JIL4 Disagree There should be more paid to the parishes (like 20%) as 10% is too small JIL7 Disagree Whilst I agree the funds raised should be used to fund projects in that parish, I'm not

satisfied that the parish authorities have the skills/ controls to manage this in order to deliver maximum value for £ spent. Given we are only a small island, this should be one body with clear strategy set at Govt level

The mechanism for managing and delivering the parish share has not been detailed and so these points will be considered when developing the regulations on this part of the levy. JIL1 Disagree Another tax that will have to be passed on, with a small group of "committee"

members deciding how and where it is spent JIL8 Disagree As above, I do not agree with the levy on principle. Furthermore, the parishes are

perfectly capable of putting any improvements to their parishioners and agreeing to set rates appropriately if such improvements are democratically approved at a parish assembly.

Comments noted

JIL11 Disagree Developers are providing this island with a service by building what accommodation we need they should not be taxed further .Developers build the accommodation government through general taxation pay for the improvements.


JIL15 Neither We don't need extra tax and not on investment in our housing and office stock which need investment

JIL28 Disagree Parishes should be paying for local community improvements out of rates as they do at the moment. Major improvements should be decided on and funded by the states as at present.

JIL31 Disagree I disagree with the whole principle of a J.I.L. Also the parishes are functioning quite fine through their rates system. Comment noted

JIL12 Neither Irrelevant Comment noted


42

10. Spending the Levy It has been estimated that based upon past conservative build rates and the final rate chosen that the levy could yield up to £1.5 and £2.5 million per year. Please rank the following items in order of preference you would like the levy to be spent on

Survey consultation results

Rank Preference % Total 1 New and improved streets, play spaces, community

gardens & parks 18%

2 Improved public open spaces 17% 3 safer pedestrian/cycle routes 14% 4 Climate change resilience- e.g Sustainable urban

drainage, tree planting, etc. 13%

5 none of these options 11% 6 improvements to public transport 10% 7 community facility/projects 11% 8 public art 6% Total 100%

new and improved streets, play spaces,

commmunity gardens & parks

18%

Improved public open spaces

17%

safer pedestrian/cycle

routes14%

Climate change resilience- e.g

Sustainable urban drainage, tree planting, etc.

13%

none of these options

11%

improvements to public transport

10%

community facility/projects

11%

public art6%

10. Spending the Levy


There was a fairly even spread of priorities for spending the levy, although the most popular - new and improved streets, play spaces, community gardens & parks (18%) was 3 times more popular than the least – public art (6%). These views will be considered in more detail should the principle of the levy be adopted.


43

11. General Comments

Please provide any other general comments.

Ref Reasons for answer Minister’s Response JIL1 Tax is tax, revenue should be collected and spending decided upon in a whole budget, not spread

by the back door to try and keep Jersey's headline tax at the famous 20%


JIL8 This is a surrogate tax and goes beyond the remit of government. The £2.5m that could be raised is extremely small compared with the overall SOJ budget. It will introduce another layer of bureaucracy and has no real justification.

JIL15 I hope the island does not bring this mad tax on investment in housing and our working environments ie offices two areas we need investment if we are to keep top people in the island living and working which creates the main tax for our government ie income tax. This tax will reduce investment and over time lead to a working and living environment far below other countries.

JIL7 Jersey is falling well behind the UK in developing a cycle and pedestrian infrastructure in its built up environment. Given the UK is way behind European cities that is very embarrassing in deed. Our ration of cars per individual is equally shocking. We desperately need to plan long term infrastructure to move from car use to cycle/ walking and public transport through carrot and stick initiatives. All £ raised by any levy should directly go into initiatives to improve the living and working environment, focussed primarily on St Helier. Allowing development but ensuring that there is net more green space is delivered in that area can be done by i) being prepared to build higher and ii) reinvesting levies such as is now being proposed back into the locality- just look at the long term planning in Vancouver, where the foreshore has remained public access, more green space than virtually any other city yet a bustling and thriving local population (voted no2 best city to live in the world)

JIL11 Government through general taxation should pay for the improvements to the civic realm. JIL4 should be more open spaces in the smaller parishes i.e. St Clement as there are too many

buildings going up. The larger parishes should have more buildings made in their parish I.e St Mary , St John, St Ouen, St Peter

JIL30 This is a new tax. Instead of introducing new taxes government should be learning how to manage the economy more effectively. When (if) it does it will discover there is no need for new taxes. I am happy for my survey responses to be published.

JIL20 Ref: 10. above: surely our rates are for some of these things. Re the Viability Study: public opinion is that the States spend far too much money on "Consultants" to provide "reports" - the hospital is a prime example. It appears to me that The States waste so much money.

JIL31 It is about time that States departments learnt to live within their means and stopped dreaming up new taxes.

JIL32 Thank you for the opportunity to comment upon the above mentioned. This email is provided with the full knowledge and total backing of our entire client base. We are completed opposed to any further tax increases in Jersey, particularly during this period of global/European uncertainty. In December, 2016 the Island had just under 59,000 people working and 1/6 of retired also working, all paying tax (albeit some not paying Income Tax/Social Security). The general view is that the overall tax take when considering the above should be more than adequate to enable the island to meet all of its various public sector commitments. The wish to improve/upgrade the islands infrastructure, services and facilities is very laudable and supported but should be done from the Treasury using existing resources. This kind of tax has been in operation in the UK for some time and has been found to be very 'resource hungry' to operate, provocative leading to substantial delays and litigation, which all has a trickle down inflationary affect upon the market. There is also considerable concern that this particular tax would be very discriminatory and once outside of the


44

Ref Reasons for answer Minister’s Response control of The States Chamber, liable to be increased ahead of the rate of inflation as indeed has been the case with several similar taxes locally now in operation. We would with the greatest respect urge you to impress upon the minister the depth and breath of these concerns.

JIL28 The States already collect a levy from citizens, its called income tax. Adding further cost simply pushes up the cost of living in Jersey which is to no bodies advantage. The agument that there is a budget shortfall is not acceptable. The States should learn to manage within its means and not fund further spending through a range of stealth taxes.

JIL9 As I said, the entire Island will benefit from improved roads and public transport, parks and open spaces, public art and cycle paths so funding for this should come from Island taxes and parish rates. It is yet another stealth tax, it is wrong and it should be withdrawn.

JIL13 What is Regenerative Agriculture and why a CO2 levy would be the right thing to do to encourage landowners to cultivate a new crop CO2 Conventional wisdom has long held that the world cannot be fed without chemicals and synthetic fertilizers. Evidence points to a new wisdom: The world cannot be fed unless the soil is fed. Regenerative agriculture enhances and sustains the health of the soil by restoring its carbon content, which in turn improves productivity—just the opposite of conventional agriculture. Regenerative agricultural practices include: no tillage, diverse cover crops, in-farm fertility (no external nutrients), no pesticides or synthetic fertilizers, and multiple crop rotations. Together, these practices increase carbon-rich soil organic matter. The result: vital microbes proliferate, roots go deeper, nutrient uptake improves, water retention increases, plants are more pest resistant, and soil fertility compounds. Farms are seeing soil carbon levels rise from a baseline of 1 to 2 percent up to 5 to 8 percent over ten or more years, which can add up to 25 to 60 tons of carbon per acre. It is estimated that at least 50 percent of the carbon in the earth’s soils has been released into the atmosphere over the past centuries. Bringing that carbon back home through regenerative agriculture is one of the greatest opportunities to address human and climate health, along with the financial well-being of farmers.

Noted, but carbon reduction has no direct relevance to the proposed introduction of the infrastructure levy. The Energy Plan for Jersey is the policy vehicle for Co2 reduction on Jersey.

JIL14 Provision of money to local NPO/Charities (such as the Jersey Bat Group - of which I am the chair) to enable us to effectively screen the developments, advise on best-practice (such as not using BRM in developments), suggest mitigation, monitor and educate about bats would be useful. Currently both planning decisions and building control 'requirements' are coming into conflict with bats. These are a protected species both locally and across the EU and Jersey is party to a number of MEAs to protect these animals.

Comments noted – such use of the levy will be subject to future discussion but it should be noted that the existing planning process makes provision for the mitigation, monitoring and protection of bats.

JIL16 There is a growing demand for motorcycle/scooter/moped parking as more and more motorists move away from commuting to work by car (single occupant) Too much on road parking is prioritised towards four-wheeled vehicles, and at a time when we need to reduced congestion and pollution caused by that congestion more could be done to encourage the use of two-wheeled vehicles whether motorised/electric or manually propelled. Perhaps new developments in partnership with Infrastructure could be made to provide allocated parking for motorcyclists and cyclists too.

The provision of parking for all forms of vehicles is provided by the planning parking guidance, which is currently being reviewed and updated to account for modern parking requirements.

JIL26 In my view, the questions to this consultation have been drafted so as to bias responses as they presuppose the introduction of the levy and highlight the 'selling points' to those who will not bear the cost of implementation. They do not even attempt to identify whether the respondent will actually be likely to pay the levy or whether it would affect the intentions or otherwise have consequences for developers. For the avoidance of doubt, I am neither a developer nor do I act for developers.

The levy is not expected to increase rental prices. The levy will be a small part of the overall cost of development, and it is expected that developers will either negotiate to pay less for land they buy in time, or absorb some of the cost. Developers set asking prices for new developments, but values are set by the market and this is usually based on what similar houses in the area sell for, as well as the formal valuation carried out by a bank’s appointed valuer, if the buyer is applying for a mortgage for the property. A buyer or renter of a new property will only pay a premium for a new property if it is more attractive than those in the wider market.

JIL12 If implemented such a levy may prevent private/individual developments that would benefit the community whilst major developments will only pass on the charge directly to the occupants thereby potentially raising costs across the whole spectrum.

JIL24 I think this levy is completely wrong. Where has the need been identified? The need may not be in the parish where development is being undertaken. It is a tax on business (another one) and will



45

Ref Reasons for answer Minister’s Response be passed on to the end-consumer. The cost of "doing business in Jersey" is becoming far too high. Govt should manage its finances properly and stop taxing business when it fails to do so.

In the long-run, a fixed levy will provide certainty about the level of charge that a developer must pay and they will be able to factor this in to the price that they pay for land. Through the informal consultation with the development industry that was carried out to inform the Viability Assessment, comments were received raising the concern that the levy would be added to the sale prices of developments thus increasing already high house prices in Jersey. The department has had initial discussions with the Economics Unit and their view is that charges like the Jersey Infrastructure Levy (JIL) that intend to capture a small fraction of the uplift in land values that arise when a site gets permission for development would normally be expected to impact on land values. In a competitive market developers would have a strong incentive to make sure the charge leads to lower land values because if not new built properties would become relatively more expensive than similar properties that have already been developed and were not subject to the levy. New developments only add a marginal increase to the existing stock each year and in a competitive market prices will be determined by the interaction of overall supply and demand for properties and therefore general conditions in the market.

JIL35 You must try and ensure two things, that the levy isn't just passed on to the consumer and that the the majority, if not all, of the funds are used to better the community.

JIL17 I am in favour of this levy so long as the cost ultimately falls on the person making the development gain. I am not in favour of it increases the cost of housing and retail

JIL19 Get a Minister and executive who are not sucking up to major developers and have some environmental understanding and have the will to undertake some meaningful environmental and historical conservation rather than the corrupt bunch we have had to date.

The Minister and the executive have an excellent track record in improving and applying an effective policy framework that to deliver significant historic and environmental conservation benefits for the Island. The development of a levy will enable further conservation efforts to be made, which in turn requires a strong development sector to be in place.

JIL21 Agree with the principle of a development charge, disagree with the 'small and broad-based' nature of it. Needs to target multi-unit developments that will significantly increase footfall, traffic, parking etc and not include the addition of a bedroom to an existing property etc.

The levy will only be applied to residential units over 75 Sqm in size and so single bedrooms, unless over 75 Sqm would not be included.

JIL18 There are many sources of research available that show our children are not having enough time outdoors. Many of our children exhibit weight problems brought about in some cases by poor diet and not enough exercise. Parents state that working life inhibits their ability to provide healthy food and opportunities for exercise in the outdoors, they also state that stranger danger and traffic stop them allowing their children to play out. The Dutch Woonerf concept allows for childrens play https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/woonerf_concept_collarte.pdf Developers who followed this design could be exempt from the Levy


JIL29 There are many sources of research available that show our children are not having enough time outdoors. Many Jersey children have weight problems brought about, in some cases by poor diet and not enough exercises. Parents state that working life inhibits their ability to provide healthy food and opportunities for exercise in the outdoors. They also state that stranger danger and traffic stop them allowing their children to play out. The Dutch Woonerf concept allows for children's play in residential areas. Information can be assessed at https://nacto.org/docs/usdg/woonerf_concept_collarte.pdf It is proposed that developed who followed this design could be exempt from the levy. Many parts of the UK are now developing "play streets" e.g. http://www.leeds.gov.uk/residents/Pages/Play-Streets.aspx This would be a useful concept to consider in relation to the levy. Similarly if play rangers were to be considered in the distribution of the levy, this could provide support for children and help parents feel more secure. Information is available at: https://playgloucestershire.org.uk/ There is an area of discussed land adjacent to derelict greenhouses in St Clement. This has the potential to be developed for families and the elderly. If land like this were to be developed, there must be provision for outdoor play for children. This should allow for free play on natural surfaces as well as the usual static equipment. The development, delivery and sustainability of such proposals would be significantly supported by the creation of a "play team" that encouraged resourceful play, resilience and holistic appropriate social/emotional development. Historically, there has been agreement Play is of fundamental importance to the general health, well-being and overall development of all children and young people. Play has also been recognised as providing positive outcomes for children in terms of their journey into adulthood. Whilst many adults


46

Ref Reasons for answer Minister’s Response possess memories of being free to roam and experience their local environment and all the excitement and dangers that it held, children of today are protect to the point of stifling their natural ability to develop their own resilience, common sense and self-regulation skills. Jersey's children and young people are not always able to access the same range of services, facilities or opportunities that others have in the UK, mainland Europe or elsewhere although what we do have in abundance are beautiful beaches, some lovely parks and open spaces just waiting for children and families to claim them. What is clear is that all children, regardless of their socio-economic background, should have access to good quality play opportunities that hey can access safely on their own and with their friends. These play opportunities should provide physical and mental challenge for our children, who are then ready to test and grow their resilience, self-esteem and social development. Good play provision in Jersey should provide the following: * Extends the choice and control that children have over their play, the freedom they enjoy, and the satisfaction they gain from it * Recognises that children need to test boundaries, and responds positively to that need * Recognises that children have a voice and gives them the opportunity to be involved in the planning of play spaces * Manages the balance between the need to offer risk and the need to keep children safe from harm * Maximises the range of play opportunities * Promotes independence and healthy self esteem * Encourages the child's respect for others and offers opportunities for social interaction * Supports the child's well-being, healthy growth and development, knowledge and understanding, creativity and capacity to elarn It may come as a surprise to learn that "play" benefits the Community by involving children and their families in positive activities. This is turn helps to reduce anti-social behaviour and the risk of crime. Having play opportunities at the hub of a community helps to create a focal point. Families are encouraged to be social, building enhanced support networks and children are guided towards their adults lives by a range of significant experienced and unrelated people. "We don't stop playing because we grow old; we grow old because we stop playing." George Bernard Shaw, 1856 - 1950 Jersey's children are our future. The levy provides a brilliant opportunity to invest in the future through our children.

JIL25 In the absence of a States Social Policy all fight their own corners. We want children and families to be supported by all people in power being aware of the way they work impacts on this group. Building pushes play spaces further away from where children live. Facilities that allow children to "play out" independently, without adult supervision in a safe area near to their home. Traffic is the greatest danger to childrens safety, by removing traffic you provide children with the space to play out. Bristol University have recently published findings on this and Bristol Council have been working to provide for children for many years. No traffic zones benefit all the community, they dont have to be permanent, electric bollards in use twice a week is enough to start regular patterns for play and leisure. Cul de sacs, grassy banks, back to back housing with a lane between the gardens that can be blocked off and used by people from the houses for their own public space, the list of opportunities to develop the community is endless. Play England has research and ideas for community development as does a blog "Playing Out". These types of initiatives support educational development in children, provide healthy exercise and community integration. Jersey Early Years Association is a registered charity, we hold expertise on childrens play and work voluntarily to promote the well being of young children and their families.


47

12. Individually submitted responses

A number of individual responses were also received by post or email outside of the online consultation. These are listed below together with responses to specific points where appropriate.

12.1 States of Jersey Environment Minister - Addendum

1. During the consultation it was pointed out that there was a tying error on page 65 of the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report. This is acknowledged and table 7.2 should have been published with the figures in bold (the published incorrect figures are bracketed below the correct figures). The error did not affect the overall final total build costs figures or any of the subsequent conclusions reached in the viability modelling which used the correct total figure.

Table 7.2 Summary of Costs for Housing Only Schemes Cost Adjustment For Appraisal £/m2

Construction Costs – BICIS 2017 £1,067.00 1.2 £1,280.40

(£1380.40)

Site Costs 15% £192.06 (£92.06)

Brownfield 10% £128.04 £1600.50 Contingency 5% £80.03 Total £1,680.53 £1,680.53

Source: HDH March 2017

2. For the purposes of demonstrating that the principle of introducing an infrastructure levy in Jersey is viable, the Minister has set out a notional levy rate of £80 per Sqm (amended from the published £85 per sqm) to ensure an even rate is applied across all proposed developments on the Island. This is because although the maximum rates of £125 per Sqm for residential and £150 per Sqm for retail were suggested by the consultant (HDH) in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report, the maximum rate for offices was £80 per sqm and this should have been reflected in the flat rate published in the consultation by the Minister. Should the principle of the levy be approved then all the recommendations will be revised and updated based upon any new evidence at that time. This will then lead to final rates being proposed which are then be subject to further public consultation and review by an independent planning inspector before final adoption.

12.2 States of Jersey Minister for Housing – key points from letter dated 7th August 2017

Ref Comment States of Jersey Para

3 I am also pleased to note that registered affordable housing providers will be exempt from the levy. Affordable housing providers make a significant contribution towards meeting the housing needs of the community – such as first-time buyers and households who are unable to access suitable housing in the private sector – so it is right to exempt them from the levy. I agree with the consultation document that there is potential for the exemption to encourage the provision of more affordable housing.

Comments noted

Para 4

I recognise concern about the impact that the proposed levy might have on the price of housing in Jersey. Clearly, it is important that the levy does not have an adverse effect on the feasibility of new housing development, and it is reassuring to note that the viability study confirms there is scope to introduce a levy on larger-scale developments. I further note that the States of Jersey Economics Unit has concluded that a levy would be unlikely to affect land values because, in a competitive market like Jersey, developers have a strong incentive to factor in a levy and press for a drop in the price of the land.

Comments noted

Para 5

Moreover, I agree with the assessment that the proposed levy will not increase house prices, which are determined by the market and the interaction between the supply and demand of housing. Comments noted




48

12.3 Association of Jersey Architects – key points from letter dated 6th September 2017

Ref Comment States of Jersey Response 1 We agree with the sentiment expressed by the Minister and his opening statement within the JIL

consultation document in that 'the spaces around and between buildings including parks, squares and streets, has a major part to play in the character, attractiveness and success of places' we also recognise the Ministers view that the 'delivery of a successful place requires strong partnership between government, land owners, developers and the public'.

Comment noted.

2 As architects we have required skills and knowledge to advise and deliver these places and our profession should be at the forefront of these types of regeneration projects / improvement schemes which aim to enhance the public realm and we believe that consultation and engagement with our association members should be at the forefront of any proposed public realm improvement proposals.

Comment noted.

3 Our Association fully understands the Planning Ministers desire to enhance and improve the public realm within St. Helier but we do not accept that the proposed Jersey Infrastructure levy (JIL) is a fair or reasonable method of delivering these improvements.

Comment noted.

4 The improvements proposed which will benefit from the introduction of this Levy are not clearly defined and are merely representative and they lack clarity and focus. The concept of introducing this levy (development tax) without the presentation of a coherent plan showing the public realm improvements is not acceptable.

The Minister is at this stage only trying to establish the principle of introducing a levy. Developing detailed plans of schemes without any levy (budget) in place is a bit ‘cart before the horse’ and not the best use of internal resources. The consultation document does however very clearly set out those broad areas that would benefit from using the levy, namely;

• New and improved streets, play spaces, community gardens & parks • Improved public open spaces • safer pedestrian/cycle routes • Climate change resilience- e.g. sustainable urban drainage, tree planting, etc. • improvements to public transport • community facility/projects • public art

5 If adopted we do not accept that this fund / pot as it is defined in the executive summary should be managed only by the Minister for the Environment.

Noted but reasons not given and so unable to comment. Ring fencing the money received from the levy will be established though regulation and directed by an executive to meet clear community benefits. Views on who the chair of the executive is have not been decided and further opportunity to discuss these points will be available should the principle of introducing a levy be adopted.

6 We have grave concerns regarding the use of the term 'infrastructure' and the wide definition of this term and the types of projects that could be deemed as infrastructure projects which could then seek funding from this income source / levy (if adopted).

Agreed, the term can be confusing and an alternative may emerge over time to provide a clearer understanding of the policy.

7 We do not accept that construction projects are singularilary responsible for the Islands infrastructure requirements and it is therefore fundamentally unacceptable for the construction industry to be individually targeted and subjected to an additional taxation to fund infrastructure projects.

It is considered right for a small proportion of the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning consent to be shared with the community, rather than going solely to the landowner. It is also considered right that funds derived from the development of land are used to offset some of the impact of that development upon the community, to make them better places to live, work and visit. Almost all development has some impact on the need for infrastructure, services and amenities - or benefits from it - so it is only fair that all such development pays a


49

Ref Comment States of Jersey Response share of the cost. It is also right that those who benefit financially when planning permission is given should share some of that gain with the community which granted it, to help fund the infrastructure needed to make development acceptable and sustainable. General income tax receipts will remain to fund other public services.

8 We do not accept that the proposed infrastructure levy will not be passed on in some way either in full or partially from the landowner to the developer and then onto the purchaser and it is naive of the Planning Department to suggest otherwise.

This statement is difficult to comment upon as no evidence that it will has been provided. Advice has been taken from the economics department that is contrary to this. The Economics Unit view is that charges like the Jersey Infrastructure Levy (JIL), would normally be expected to impact land values. In a competitive market, developers would have a strong incentive to make sure the charge leads to lower land values because if not, new built properties would become relatively more expensive than similar properties that have already been developed and were not subject to the levy. Earlier work undertaken here in Jersey by Oxera, and more recent work undertaken in the UK to assess the impact of the Community Infrastructure there, has concluded that the introduction of a levy has little long-term economic impact on the supply of development land. This backs up the view expressed by Oxera’s report Further analysis of land/development-based environmental taxes: what is the impact on Jersey? (January 2008), which concluded that: Assuming that the proportion of the increase in value to be taken in tax would be relatively small, even if the full incidence of the tax fell on owners, it is likely that there would be little effect on the overall supply of land made available for development. Recent research from the UK (The value, impact and delivery of the Community Infrastructure Levy: Report of Study (Feb 2017) DCLG ) demonstrates that the introduction of CIL has not adversely affected the overall supply of developable land. Further economic advice will be sought from the Economics Unit to test and amend if necessary, a more detailed levy proposal, should there be any likelihood that the levy could lead to higher prices and/or reduced supply.

9 We do not believe that any levy or tax applied to any planning approval should be used for matters such as improved transport services, drainage systems or flood defences as noted in the infrastructure levy consultation document. We also note that within the ARUP report infrastructure is defined as: (a) roads and other transport facilities, (b) flood defences, (c) schools and other educational facilities, (d) medical facilities, (e) sporting and recreational facilities (f) open spaces and (g) affordable housing (although it's accepted that affordable housing will not be funded by this tax). These simple definitions clearly show how the funds generated from this levy (if introduced) could be used or miss-appropriated. All of the above should be funded through general taxation.

The consultation makes it clear what could be funded by the levy and what should not. The Arup definition is based upon UK policy and background information as part of the viability study which is not directly applied to Jersey.

10 We are concerned that the control of these funds could be passed to another States department or Minister simply be Ministerial order without any consultation with industry

Concern noted. Should the principle of the levy be adopted then regulations will be written which will ensure that the levy is managed in the most appropriate way to meet the anticipated community benefits.. These regulations will be fully consulted upon.

11 We are concerned that the current infrastructure budgets / income raised from general taxation will be reduced on the basis of this new income stream. This is not the intention of the new levy as existing budgets will not be replaced with the levy.

12 We are concerned that the levy rate as proposed has not been based on a considered view of what projects will be undertaken or funded through the levy. In its current form it is simply an additional tax (fund generator) that will then be spent

See point 4 above.

13 If adopted we have concerns as to how the payment system will be implemented. We have been advised that this may be administered through the building control work stage notification process, so could this mean that if payment is not made building control would not visit the development.

See point 10 above.


50

Ref Comment States of Jersey Response 14 It is unclear from the proposal document how the charges and the threshold levels will be

assessed. If the threshold is 75m2 and a development proposal for a net gain of 85m2 is granted approval, is the charge applied to 10m2 or to the whole 85m

The charge will be for the whole net increase of 85 Sqm, as discussed in our meeting during the consultation period.

15 Within the Levy proposals, reference is made to the current Planning Obligation Agreements (POA's) being significantly reduced and simplified, but there is no reference or detail of these proposals and we do not accept that the introduction of any additional charge should be proposed without the proposed reductions in the POA’s being clearly defined.

The Minister is currently establishing the principle of the levy and one of the clear intentions is that there will be no “double dipping”, in other words POA’s and the levy will not be imposed on developments to pay for the same item. Should the principle of the levy be approved then a review will be undertaken of the current POA guidance alongside the development of the levy policy and be subject to full public and direct industry consultation

16 There is no acknowledgement within the proposal that other Island industries / sectors will benefit from the improvements to the public realm and improved public spaces, alfresco opportunities, tourism benefits. We would use the example of the benefits to Bellagio’s at Charing Cross, which now benefits from alfresco tables adjacent to the new pedestrian improvement scheme. This is clearly a direct benefit to a private enterprise that in the future would be funded by the proposed Jersey Infrastructure Levy.

Al fresco is important and welcome street life activity derived from new developments and benefits the commercial operators/land owners and of course the wider public. The levy alongside other delivery mechanisms will continue to provide these opportunities. The Charing Cross scheme was a publically funded scheme.

17 Before the introduction of any Levy or additional taxation we would expect the Department of the Environment to provide evidence of the States of Jersey Development Companies payments (both forecast and actual payments) which are due to be paid under P.60/2008, which were to be ring fenced for the regeneration of St. Helier. We also expect the Planning Minister to provide a coherent plan for how these monies are spent and on what regeneration projects they are to be used on.

The use of the one –off monies to be generated from the development of the Waterfront/Esplanade Quarter under P.60/2008 would be clearly welcome in helping the regeneration of the town of St. Helier. The Minister for the Environment is currently reviewing and will be updating the Waterfront master plan and so details of future plans will be available once they are adopted. This is likely to be undertaken prior to the final adoption of a levy and so can provide further input into the meeting the objectives of the levy policy at that time.

18 We are concerned that there is no acknowledgement or recognition of the Islands immigration policy and the impact that this has on the Islands infrastructure needs

This is an important area but one which does not directly impact upon the viability assessment work carried out to determine if a levy would be viable in Jersey.

19 Before the adoption or introduction of any proposal which has the potential to place an additional taxation on the construction industry / landowners we would expect the States assembly to demand a fully detailed proposal for debate. In conclusion, the AJA do not consider that it is appropriate for the Jersey Infrastructure Levy Proposal to be taken forward by the Planning Minister in its current form for debate in the States. It does not provide the reassurances that development in the Island will not be adversely affected by this additional taxation. It individually targets the construction industry with an additional tax burden that does not accord with the long term tax policy principles agreed to by the States as part of the Strategic Plan 2015-2018, namely that: • Taxation must be necessary, justifiable and sustainable • Taxes should be low, broad, simple and fair • Everyone should make an appropriate contribution to the cost of providing services, while those on the lowest incomes are protected • Taxes must be internationally competitive • Taxation should support economic, environmental and social policy The use of the term ‘Infrastructure’ and the lack of definition of this term, leaves the proposed levy open to interpretation and miss-use, which is further compounded by the omission of any detailed proposals of what improvements are proposed. There is no recognition of any other factors which impact on the Islands Infrastructure and the proposed Levy charges have not been justified on the basis of any specific requirements. The levy has clearly been set as a tax generator which is exemplified within the viability study (item 3.4) which states ‘the purpose of this study is to quantify the costs of the various policies in the Island Plan, and to assess the effect of these and of developer contributions and then to make a judgement as to whether or not land prices may be squeezed to such an extent that the Island Plan is threatened.’ The proposal does not recognise that property ownership does not directly equate to income or that an increase in property value equates to the owner having the means to pay an additional property tax.

The levy is going through an extensive consultation process and this will include: • Two States debates, one on the principle and if approved, one on the detailed planning

law and regulations. • There will then be further independent planning inspector review of the levy rates

before final adoption. The principle points raised about the long term purpose of tax policies are sound and the levy as applied to developments through the planning system will pick up on these principles. The consultation document made it very clear as to what infrastructure the levy would be spent on – see comment made to point 4 above. The levy is a small proportion of overall development value to be secured from the uplift in the value of land from the awarding of significant planning permissions, often led by developers or landowner/developers. It is not going to impact typical homeowners, as the threshold for the levy will exempt most domestic level extensions.


51

12.4 States of Jersey Cultural Development Officer, EDTS – key points from email/letter dated 8th September 2017

Ref Comment States of Jersey Surprisingly, given the importance of percentage for art, the consultative document on the

Infrastructure Levy does not mention the enhancement of the public realm through public art; nor does it consider the implications of introducing the Levy on existing policy. Neither public art nor a percentage for art scheme are mentioned among the examples of potential beneficiaries. It is true that public art contributes to improved streets and public spaces but there appears to be no specific intention to use the Levy to support the States policy on public art, nor percentage for art as a prime delivery mechanism. This raises the question of whether the existing percentage for art policy would continue to be advocated and encouraged alongside the Levy; it is not clear from the document that this is the case. On the contrary, the assurances given about the commercial impact of the Levy do not address the simultaneous application of the percentage for art policy, so that the implication is that it would not be advocated. Even if it were, given that it is a voluntary policy, the likelihood that it would continue to deliver benefit must be minimal. Officer discussion preceding the development of the consultation paper broached the issue of the importance of percentage for art within the policy development around the proposed Levy. This appears to be outstanding. In the context of strengthening the percentage for art scheme and enhancing the public realm through public art of all kinds, it is important that the benefits of this States policy continue to be delivered. Under the Infrastructure Levy proposal it is not clear how this would be achieved.

Public art is one of the areas that is specifically listed in the consultation document as part of the potential beneficiaries of having an established levy in place. Discussions have taken place with the Cultural Development Officer on the specific issue of the future operation of the Percent for Art policy in the Island Plan. The Minister will continue to encourage developers to use this policy on schemes and does not at this time intend to amend the Island Plan.

12.5 Jersey Chamber of Commerce – key points from letter dated 8th September 2017

Ref Comment States of Jersey 1 Critical JIL questions have not been addressed or responded to now or previously

The Minister has been very open about his views on why the levy should be introduced and that it must be viable. The Minister announced his intention to introduce a land development charge in January 2016, and the Department of the Environment has been listening to industry views on the principle of a charge since then. We have held numerous meetings and discussions, individually and collectively, to gather feedback. After a stakeholder consultation in the autumn of 2016, we took on board many of the points made by industry, and adjusted our assumptions. These were included in the formal study we commissioned from independent UK and local consultants with considerable experience, and which was published in the spring of this year.

2 Scrutiny have not carried out a review of the proposed levy, with regards the impact it may have on development and the islands economy

Departmental officers have been in touch with Scrutiny officers throughout the consultation process and kept them fully informed. Further meetings will take place over the next few weeks to discuss the outcome of the consultation. A public scrutiny meeting is scheduled with the construction industry and then separately with the Minister in November 2017 and this will further scrutinise all of the issues raised on the in principle introduction of a levy.


52

Ref Comment States of Jersey If the States agree an in-principle proposal to introduce a Jersey Infrastructure Levy then we will develop a more detailed policy and carry out another round of viability testing and impact assessment before developing detailed policy proposals. The States will be asked to consider detailed policy proposals again before formal adoption. We welcome the critical challenge provided by Scrutiny if they choose to assess and ‘call in’ a fully formed and more detailed policy prior to final consideration. The policy proposals will be subject to a comprehensive and in-depth independent examination in public led by an independent planning inspector to ensure that the detail of the policy works for Jersey.

3 In light of Brexit, the fall in the value of sterling and the impact it is having on the cost of goods and a reduced migrant workforce, commerce is looking to Jersey’s government to implement measures that boost confidence and grow the economy, not increase the tax burden and costs associated with doing business in the island

Brexit will affect many aspects of Island life and we have ensured that the viability study on the Jersey Infrastructure Levy includes a significant contingency for the potential cost of Brexit. We’ve looked at the potential impact to development viability under Brexit and thought about how it would affect the introduction of the levy and, given the cautious approach used in the viability work, JIL is still considered a viable policy which will benefit Jersey in the future.

12.6 Jersey Construction Council – key points from Lichfields letter & report dated 8th September 2017

Ref Summary of Comment States of Jersey Response Letter

Page 6

Percentage for Art We note that the Viability Study excludes the 0.75% of construction costs which developers are encouraged to make as a contribution to Art in Jersey. This represents another existing cost which is currently already being absorbed by developers. The Viability Study states that this contribution is assumed to be assimilated into any new levy. However, there is no mention of this and any potential changes to do so within the Proposal. This represents just one element of the calculation which undermines the proposed £85/sqm JIL charge proposed.

The percent for art is a voluntary policy and the minister will continue to encourage developers to provide art with their schemes where appropriate.

Page 6

With regard to the relationship between existing POAs and JIL, we note that the JeCC has already highlighted some of these issues within its letter to the Planning Policy and Projects Team, dated 22 May 2017. The most recent review of POAs has been adopted via the SPG advice note. The JeCC’s main concerns relate to the fact that the proposed introduction of JIL has not been considered in conjunction with reviews to POAs. As we set out below, it appears POAs and JIL are expected to fund similar infrastructure, and there is a lack of clarity as to exactly what each is expected to fund. This gives rises to a concern that is described in England and Wales as “double dipping” and something that the PPG in England specifically seeks to avoid, where it states4: “There should be not actual or perceived ‘double dipping’ with developers paying twice for the same item of infrastructure.” (our emphasis).

Should the levy be adopted it is important the POA system is rationalised and the relationship between POA and JIL is really clear to avoid double dipping. To do this some form of assessment of the infrastructure requirements to support new development (an IDP) would be undertaken to produce the equivalent of a CIL Regulation 123 list.

Page 7

Under the Proposal, affordable housing schemes will be exempt from JIL. Unlike in the UK, affordable housing is not required on market-led developments, instead being provided directly through 100% affordable housing schemes. At present Andium Homes (the former States of Jersey Housing Department, which is now an arms-length corporatised state-owned housing company) is the only development body with access to Government funding to provide such affordable homes. The assumption in the Viability Study (and the entire premise of the JIL charge)

Policy H3 (to provide affordable housing through market led schemes) was dropped following pressure from the construction industry and so the model is now for affordable housing to be generated through Affordable Housing Providers (AHP), including Andium homes, Christians Together in Jersey (CTJ) and Jersey Homes Trust (JHT) and le Vaux.


53

Ref Summary of Comment States of Jersey Response is that the costs of a JIL will come off the land value (as opposed to, for example, being a cost fronted by the home-buyer, which in the case of affordable housing would benefit first time buyers). JeCC has real concern that this effectively makes the introduction of a JIL an anti-competitive policy which, in terms of accessing land for development in the market, disbenefits private developers on the Island in favour of, what is effectively, a State body.

Although Andium have been the principal beneficiaries of the housing bond this has been used to bring the existing housing stock up to decent homes standards and the construction industry have benefited from this as they have been the recipients of procuring this work. Where existing affordable housing providers are seeking to develop additional private brown field sites (e.g. CTJ development for affordable housing on the Scope Furnishing site), they are competing in the open market. Their acquisition is based upon a long term rental model at affordable housing levels (90% market rents) and so this is a difficult area to compete in when set against alternative open market value opportunities. Applying a levy to affordable housing developments would not be viable and so has not been applied. From the comment made it is not clear how this open mechanism is anti-competitive or whether the suggestion is that a levy should be applied to affordable housing.

Page 8

1. The evidence in the Viability Study shows significant variations in the cost of residential land, and there is little available evidence on the cost of other types of land due to the limited number of transactions that take place. Given the difficulty in determining a single charge across all development which would not undermine the viability of a significant number of sites, the States of Jersey should not seek to implement a JIL. It should instead continue with the existing POA system.

The levy rate has been set based upon the best available evidence in Jersey (including a review of land transactions based on the Royal Courts data) and follows best practice guidelines. It is recognised that more data would be beneficial but the information gathered is considered appropriate to support the conclusions reached in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report undertaken by the consultants and local surveyors.

In the event that the States of Jersey decides nonetheless to continue with preparation of a JIL charge, we have identified a number of significant flaws within the Viability Study which should be corrected. These are essential in order for the States to demonstrates that any proposed JIL charge is underpinned by suitable and robust evidence (which, at present, we believe it is not) The flaws should be remedied by the following:

2. Test brownfield sites based on a range of existing uses, including office, retail and hotel uses, which are more reflective of the site typologies likely to come forward in the Plan period;

It is recognised that more data would be beneficial but the information gathered is considered appropriate to support the conclusions reached in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report undertaken by the consultants and local, surveyors. Hotel sites are not considered viable and wold not require further testing

3. Sensitivity test these values to allow for higher viability thresholds and a more diverse range of potential values, reflecting the greater incentive often needed to make a sale and the taxes which apply to profits, as well as better reflecting the diverse range of outcomes experienced in previous transactions;

The viability assessment included sensitivity testing in relation to changes in values and build costs. A wide range of data has been considered and it is accepted that land trades at above the thresholds used it also trades at less. The purpose of the viability testing is to assess the generality of the market rather than specific sites and the requirements of particular land owners.

4. Consult with stakeholders and local quantity surveyor firms to reach an agreed consensus over build costs on the Island, including sensitivity testing of this; and

Extensive consultation was undertaken with the industry prior to the formal consultation phase and costs have been cross checked by a local surveyor against Jersey specific construction costs. The cost information evidenced in the Lichfield’s report are not helpful or testable as they are not broken down and it is not clear what assumptions are made about them – see comments made against paragraph 3.29.

5. Provide significantly greater clarity over the relationship of JIL with POAs and the infrastructure to be funded by each to avoid potential for actual or perceived ‘double dipping’.

See comment made above ref page 6.

Report 2.4 The principles set out in the NPPF are supplemented by guidance on viability and CIL within

England’s Planning Practice Guidance (PPG), which reiterates the need for planning authorities to set the scale of obligations such that the Local Plan is not undermined. Against, the below is not set out because it is the relevant guidance for Jersey, but because it sets out some useful

It is important to note that whilst much of the process and practice in planning is very similar on Jersey when compared to England, there are very few allocations. Most






54

Ref Summary of Comment States of Jersey Response principles to which the design of a JIL might usefully subscribe. The PPG clarifies, amongst other things, that: “Charging authorities should set a rate which does not threaten the ability to develop viably the sites and scale of development identified in the relevant Plan” (ID 25-008) The levy is expected to have a positive economic effect on development across a local plan area. When deciding the levy rates, an appropriate balance must be struck between additional investment to support development and the potential effect on the viability of developments…. Jersey Infrastructure Levy Proposal : Review of Viability Assessment Pg 3 This balance is at the centre of the charge-setting process. In meeting the regulatory requirements (see regulation 14(1), as amended by the 2014 Regulations), charging authorities should be able to show and explain how their proposed levy rate (or rates) will contribute towards the implementation of their relevant plan and support development across their area….(ID 25-009) (our emphasis)

development comes forward on brownfiled sites that are being redeveloped from an existing use.

The English equivalent would be ‘windfall sites’. There are no remaining development sites identified in the Plan, which in any event would principally be developed as affordable housing and be exempt from the elvy.

2.5 When setting out how development should be valued for the purposes of CIL, the PPG states; “A charging authority should use an area-based approach, involving a broad test of viability across their area, as the evidence base to underpin their charge. The authority will need to be able to show why they consider that the proposed levy rate or rates set an appropriate balance between the need to fund infrastructure and the potential implications for the economic viability of development across their area. There are a number of valuation models and methodologies available to charging authorities to help them in preparing this evidence. There is no requirement to use one of these models, but charging authorities may find it helpful in defending their levy rates if they do. A charging authority must use ‘appropriate available evidence’ (as defined in the section 211(7A) of the Planning Act 2008) to inform their draft charging schedule. The government recognises that the available data is unlikely to be fully comprehensive. Charging authorities need to demonstrate that their proposed levy rate or rates are informed by ‘appropriate available’ evidence and consistent with that evidence across their area as a whole. A charging authority should draw on existing data wherever it is available. They may consider a range of data, including values of land in both existing and planned uses, and property prices – for example, house price indices and rateable values for commercial property. They may also want to build on work undertaken to inform their assessments of land availability. In addition, a charging authority should directly sample an appropriate range of types of sites across its area, in order to supplement existing data. This will require support from local developers. The exercise should focus on strategic sites on which the relevant Plan (the Local Plan in England, Local Development Plan in Wales, and the London Plan in London) relies, and those sites where the impact of the levy on economic viability is likely to be most significant (such as brownfield sites). A charging authority’s proposed rate or rates should be reasonable, given the available evidence, but there is no requirement for a proposed rate to exactly mirror the evidence. For example, this might not be appropriate if the evidence pointed to setting a charge right at the margins of viability. There is room for some pragmatism. It would be appropriate to ensure that a ‘buffer’ or margin is included, so that the levy rate is able to support development when economic circumstances adjust. In all cases, the charging authority should be able to explain its approach clearly. (ID 25-019) (our emphasis)

Lichfields underline three sections in the quotes. Charging authorities need to demonstrate that their proposed levy rate or rates are informed by ‘appropriate available’ evidence and consistent with that evidence across their area as a whole. This is exactly what has been done – drawing on all the accessible data. consider a range of data This has been done, considering the widest range of data available – including the records of all property sales. Overall our approach is consistent with the principles set out.

No alternative or extra data is suggested or provided.

3.1 The Study’s conclusions, and the conclusions on the level of JIL that development in Jersey could bear, are ultimately drawn from a number of viability appraisals for different types of development which each embed a series of assumptions around the values and costs of development on the island. The robustness of the Study’s conclusions is therefore directly related to the

The viability study is based on the ‘Existing Use Value (EUV) plus’ method. This does not seem to be contested and no alternative approach is put forward. Much of the criticism is about the lack of evidence. We (the Department, officers and HDH) were very aware of this as we were developing the report. This lead to us


55

Ref Summary of Comment States of Jersey Response reasonableness of those individual assumptions. Lichfields and the JeCC have considerable concerns with the assumptions and approaches adopted within the Study and these are set out as follows.

reviewing all the relevant transactions recorded in the Royal Court data. It would have been preferable to have more data – but there is not more data to be had. This is not a reason not to proceed by itself.

3.4 In addition, not all brownfield sites will have been previously in industrial use, and these may have a much higher value than assumed in the Study (which, as noted, does not appear itself to be based on any evidence). Within its assessment of viability, the Study assumes (with the exception of small paddock site developments, one residential conversion scheme and two office conversions) that all brownfield sites are in industrial use and therefore have industrial land value (of £1.9m/ha). The Study itself accepts this limitation, but it is not then reflected within the viability modelling, meaning one should be very cautious indeed about basing conclusions upon it: “It is important to note that much of the development that does come forward in St Helier in particular is on previously developed land that has a value that is greater than an industrial value.” (para 6.61)

The criticism that we have relied on industrial values is one that came up through the informal consultation so was one that we addressed from 10.14 of the Viability Assessment.

3.5 Brownfield land located in built-up areas - which is where the Council intends to concentrate most development - may have different alternative use values higher than industrial. These brownfield sites may have been in a number of previous uses including hotels or offices, and one member of the JeCC gave examples of brownfield sites which were currently in use as car parking/retail, and another in use as a bank. We note that while the Study has modelled office conversion schemes, it has not modelled any brownfield developments in other previous uses either as conversions or redevelopments. These sites could have a substantially higher alternative use value to the £1.9m/ha assumed (again, noting that this figure is not evidence based).

We agree industrial land could have a higher value – but there is no evidence tabled to support the contention.

Many of the sites for conversions were not considered as they would no attract the levy.

3.7 The Study’s existing figures (for residual value vs existing value and viability threshold) for the brownfield sites, based on an industrial value, are shown graphically in Figure 3.1 below. It is clear that for these sites, the residual value would appear to exceed existing use value (EUV) and viability threshold comfortably.

The graph that included at Figure 3.1 is useful as it clearly shows the scale of the gap between the Residual Value and Viability Threshold. This further supports that taken in the viability study is a very cautious view. HDH recommended a rate of JIL in the broad band of £50/m2 and £150/m2 and a rate of £85/m2 was settled on by the Government. From Table 10.5 of the Viability Assessment it can be seen that at £100/m2 most sites have a Residual Value of over £6,000,000/ha. It is therefore misleading for to imply that industrial plus 20% is applied in a dogmatic way – it has not been.

3.9 3.10

Despite the Study accepting that brownfield land values in the built-up areas are likely to be higher than industrial values, which has been supported by information provided to Lichfields by members of the JeCC and their experiences in developing brownfield sites, this is unfortunately not reflected in the Study’s assessment. The sensitivities undertaken for alternative viability thresholds (see Table 10.3 of the Study) are tested up to a threshold of £6.5m/ha (at which six of the total sites become unviable), however this is still below the upper end of the range for secondary retail space. Secondary retail space is a likely future contributor to housing development in Jersey and the Study is flawed by failing to adequate assess these scenarios. By way of further illustration, Figure 3.3 shows the residual values compared with primary retail land values. Again, while these could be slightly over-estimates of land value, they nonetheless demonstrate that many sites would be at the margins of viability. Development of primary retail space may be a realistic source of brownfield land for housing; the Study states that there is little demand for additional retail units, with even the primary areas seeing some long term vacancy across several units (para 6.32 onwards).

Similar points with regard to primary and secondary retail – what that don’t go on to acknowledge is that the proposed rates of JIL only relate to net new development – in part as the conversion of retail (and office) as tested in the viability study are not likely to be viable.


56

Ref Summary of Comment States of Jersey Response 3.11 In addition to retail sites, there are also examples of brownfield sites which are conversions from

hotel to residential uses. The Study cites examples of the Metropole Hotel (sold for £9.5m/ha), Shakespeare Hotel (£14.6m/ha) and Old Court House Hotel (£3.9m/ha). With the exception of the Old Court House Hotel, the sales values of these sites exceed almost all the residual values of the brownfield sites, as shown in Figure 3.4. It is possible that the value of such sites will increase in the future as the supply of vacant hotels available for residential conversion diminishes.

It is not practical to test every possible scenario – but JIL is only applicable to net new development so conversion or redevelopment would not be subject to the charge.

3.14 As set out above, the Study has assessed the majority of its brownfield sites against an industrial land value of £1.9m/ha, which equates to a value of £320/sqm (assuming 60% coverage on a site). On a per sqm comparison basis, the value of secondary office space is therefore over seven times the industrial figure used for most brownfield site assessments. The absence of any further testing of office sites (either as conversions or complete redevelopments) is yet another significant flaw of the Study. The concentration of development in built-up areas means redevelopment of office space is likely to contribute to future housing supply and it is imperative these typologies are properly assessed for viability.

These have been specifically tested in typologies 9 and 10 in the viability study – and that analysis lead to the conclusion there should be a zero rate of JIL so it is unclear what the criticism is here.

Summary on

Page 10

The Study has not provided any evidence for the industrial values assumed in its modelling and it even appears to accept these are “low”. There are clearly other site typologies likely to come forward for development in Jersey where the alternative use value is higher than industrial, including retail, office and hotel uses. The Study ultimately fails to adequately test the range of developments likely to come forward in Jersey, reflecting the fact that development is mostly concentrated within built-up areas which contain a range of uses. Comparing the Study’s residual values to other alternative land value estimates and viability benchmarks shows significant variation in viability with many sites at the margins of viability or unviable altogether. This is also likely to be the case when assessing sites in secondary office use, given values of these sites are substantially higher than the industrial value per sqm currently used.

We would accept the criticism there is not extensive evidence to support the industrial values as transactions are not as frequent – but when it comes to making recommendations we have given much greater weight to residential values in the market. Equally, we could have tested more conversions (from retail), although as there will be little conversion of retail to residential, and further, due to the EUV assumptions it is unlikely that JIL would be applicable. We accept there is a variation – hence the cautious approach. Should the principle of the levy be adopted then we will in any event revisit all of the assumptions and gather new evidence where available from either further research or new evidence presented.

From 3.17

These sites may appear outliers in the view of the Study’s authors, however, given that even once they are removed values still range from £1m-£14m/ha, and that these represent two of the 17 sites, they should arguably not be removed from the sample. Indeed, 22 La Colomberie represents a conversion scheme in St Helier built-up area; this is precisely the type of development which is encouraged within the Island Plan, which severely restricts development in the countryside.

This section deals with Residential Values. With regards to the discounting of outliers, at the start of the rep they include various quotes from the English Planning Guidance (whilst acknowledging Jersey is not England). One part they do not quote says: In all cases, estimated land or site value should … be informed by comparable, market-based evidence wherever possible. Where transacted bids are significantly above the market norm, they should not be used as part of this exercise. (ID: 10-014-20140306) These two transactions are over 50% higher than the next highest amount paid – it is therefore is reasonable to discount them.

3.18 Having removed the purported ‘outliers’ the Study has considered the average of these values (median and mean) before reaching a judgment value of £6m/ha which it takes forward in the Viability modelling. Whilst taking the average land value may not be an unreasonable approach, this is only likely to be an appropriate representation of average land values where:

• The overall sample size is large; • There is a clear clustering of values around the average, which is the value that could be

expected for most sites; and • There are few instances of severe values at the extremes, above or below the average.

We accept the sample size is small and less than ideal – ideally there would have been numerous transactions. We have included all the available evidence in an open and transparent way. Accepting the evidence is thin we consulted with the industry and there was a consensus that the £6,000,000 assumption was about right – one (at 6.22) consulted they has paid £4.65m per hectare on average. No alternative evidence is provided and we have used the available data. It is of course possible to present the data in a number of ways – our use of a straight forward average avoids the misleading use of statistics. Should the principle of the levy be adopted then we will in any event revisit all of the assumptions and gather new evidence where available from either further research or new evidence presented.


57

Ref Summary of Comment States of Jersey Response 3.22 Shown in this context, it would clearly be extremely difficult to set a CIL rate for an area where

some land values were as low as in Coventry, while in other areas as high as in Central London. It is highly questionable how it would be possible to set a CIL rate in such an area which would not undermine viability across some sites. This demonstrates that the use of an average residential land value in Jersey is not appropriate given the wide range of values seen. There is a real and significant risk that the introduction of an infrastructure levy, based on the viability study would undermine viability of a significant proportion of sites. This further lends support to the existing POA system whereby infrastructure contributions are considered on a site-by-site basis.

The implication here is that land priced don’t vary elsewhere – they do. Just because it is difficult does not mean the average is not an appropriate figure to use.

3.23 Notwithstanding our criticisms of the approach taken to land values, it would appear that the Study has not taken forward its £6m/ha valuation when assessing the viability of Site 16. This site is an example of 3 larger detached dwellings, modelled as the redevelopment of an existing residential site. The Study assesses this site as ‘marginal’ on the basis that its residual value exceeds the EUV, but not the viability threshold (EUV + 20%).

The value in this site was based on a small site being redevelopment from 1 to 3 houses. The results informed the recommendation not to apply JIL to conversions for new development so the use of a higher figure would not result in a change in the recommendations.

3.26 Section 7.0 of the Viability Study sets out the assumed development costs which have been used in assessing viability. The Development costs set out in paras 7.2-24 cover baseline construction costs, other normal development costs, abnormal development/brownfield costs, fees and contingencies. We have looked at each in turn to assess the reasonableness of these assumptions.

The review moves on to Build Costs. The assumptions were not just based on the BCIS costs as implied by the comments – if they were an index of 1.12 would have been used. We relied on John Poole from CSP who advised 1.2 would be more appropriate.

3.29 Dandara has provided Lichfields with additional information on build costs in Jersey which suggests that the Viability Study significantly under-estimates this. Dandara is the biggest property developer in Jersey, focusing on new homes, homes for the elderly and commercial premises. This build cost information provided by a local quantity surveyor firm, and verified by Dandara against their own experience, estimates build costs of a residential-led mixed used scheme c.25% higher than those assumed in the Study, at £2,368/sqm. This equates to an under-estimate of build costs of £450/sqm. This estimate would appear to be in line with comments received from stakeholders during consultation, which suggested a higher index (of 1.4-1.56) should be used, and reflect other factors such as the weaker pound.

When we engaged with Dandara it was clear that they were including more than the pure construction cost of the units so the prices were not comparable to those we had used. We used £1,938/m2 for higher format flats, £1,430/m2 for lower format flats and £1,280/m2 for housing. The local surveyors used to inform the viability work, Colin Smith and Partners, have made the following recent comments to support this assumption:

1) We state that we have used BCIS as a recognisable base and during our consultation. There was some consensus reached in this although there were some more extreme views on costs up to 56% more I noted.

2) Lichfield are incorrect in stating that the index is distorted by other Islands. The BCIS location study which shows Jersey on the last line of the last page. This is the latest study based on analysis of 46 projects (BCIS state that anything less than 20 is more unreliable) and gives an index range of 91 to 138. Note that in March 2017 we were not using the BCIS index but our own higher figure of indexed at 120 which equated to Central London, a reasonable point to be considering the latest survey.

3) It is important to relate the costs to a date, in March this year we were beginning to see build cost inflation and this has accelerated through the year. This will be kept under review if JIL is progressed and may have an impact on the results.

4) In terms of the cost per m2 quoted, it is important to understand the basis of these costs given to JeCC, historically we have been often told “I can build for £100 per sq ft” but the question is what! Does it have foundations, drainage, roads etc in the cost and often we get the reverse where a developer says the build cost is £3,000/m2 and then find that this is total cost divided by sales area, not gross floor area. We would need evidence of detailed costs to substantiate the figures quoted.

It is also worth noting that on the other side of the equation, Sqm sales values have also been recently seen to have risen in some cases by 10-15% compared to the original values used in the viability appraisal.


58

Ref Summary of Comment States of Jersey Response 3.32 As part of developments in Jersey, developers are encouraged to make a public art contribution

equivalent to 0.75% of construction costs on sites. Whilst the Study states at para 7.31 that this will be assimilated into any new levy, the Jersey Infrastructure Levy Proposal consultation document makes no reference to the contribution for the Arts, and whether this will change following introduction of a new levy. Until is it clear that such a cost would be assimilated into any other charge, this should be included within current development costs. This represents a further development cost for which the Study has failed to account.

The percent for art is a voluntary policy and the minister will continue to encourage developers to provide art with their schemes where appropriate.

3.33 The Study states that although it was suggested during consultation with stakeholders, an allowance for 20% ‘income tax’ was not accepted. However, shareholders of development companies in Jersey are liable to pay tax at 20% (which is generally paid out of the funds of the company). The effect of a company tax on development in Jersey is an important consideration for two reasons: 1 It is likely to affect the level of developer profit required; and 2 It is likely to affect the viability thresholds (which we return to later in this report), since the scale of uplift on existing use will need to be high enough to incentivise a sale, taking account of profit, taxes and other factors (such as no inheritance taxes). One member of the JeCC stated that it has sold land for a “significant” premium above EUV to allow for profits and taxes.

This is the personal taxation point – it is unclear how this would be applied in the appraisals. How you would deal with personal allowances etc.? It will depend on the individual shareholders, the specific thresholds, whether they are a partnership, high value residents etc. etc.

The consultant is not aware of a single viability study that tries to consider personal taxation.

3.35 Le Masurier is an example of a commercial property company in Jersey which has held land on the Island for long periods, in some cases since 1835. Members of the JeCC give examples of sites which were sold at “significant premiums” to residential developers to ensure a profit and tax free disposal. This demonstrates another fundamental difference between the property markets in England and in Jersey which means it is not possible to appropriately and robustly assess viability based on the identical approach as in England, then set a proposed infrastructure levy on development.

This is not unusual. In England The Northumberland Estates have a 500 year business plan, the Church Commissioners, the Crown Estates, many Oxford Colleges etc. are long term land owners.

3.36 The existence of tax on land sales combined with the absence of inheritance tax means that the viability thresholds are likely to be in excess of those assumed within the Study. This is in addition to our previous criticisms raised about the value of brownfield land assumed, which, even under the Study’s current assumption (of 20%) would undermine viability when comparing residual land values.

This is conjecture – no evidence is provided that could test this.

3.38 When applied to the alternative use value on paddock land (£150,000/ha) the Study’s viability threshold amounts to £180,000/ha (see Table 10.2). The Study itself accepts that paddock land already attracts a premium (around 4-5 times the value) over agricultural land (valued at £36,000/ha) due to being of amenity value, for use as pony paddocks or to provide protection/privacy. Therefore, it is questionable whether a landowner would accept an uplift of just 20% on a sites in EUV as a paddock (equivalent to an additional £30,000/ha) if there were a possibility of the land being developed for residential uses.

This is accepted – but we have relied on the £6,000,000/ha value rather the EUV Plus in the end.

3.41 As a result of the degree to which the Viability Study has under-estimated the EUV of brownfield sites:

– our analysis above shows that when comparing against more likely land values the residual land value does not exceed to viability threshold (even at 20%) for most sites;

developer contributions is flawed and incorrect;

This point is not clear – is there an error or it is wrong as the assumptions are wrong? These are two very different things.


59

Ref Summary of Comment States of Jersey Response 3.50

The above highlights two fundamental issues with determining viability in Jersey; 1 The scale of viability has been significantly over-estimated in the Study, leading the authors to incorrectly conclude there is sufficient scope to introduce a JIL; and 2 The inherent difficulty in determining land values on the Island means that viability is nearly impossible to determine altogether. The sensitivity of viability to land values is clearly demonstrated above and earlier in this Section.

Lichfields analysis shows that most development is not viable if their assumptions are used. This can’t be right as development is coming forward across the Island and particularly in St Helier now so in the view of the HDH consultant this undermines their case. A range of different views were also expressed through the consultation, however the Viability Assessment takes a generally cautious approach and produces results that are broadly reflective of the current market in terms of values being paid for land. The point at 3.50(2) is not in line with what consultees said earlier in the process with regard to levels of return and does not seem to be in line with their own analysis which shows that with a £6,000,000 land value 3 of the first 4 sites (in table 3.1) make a loss.

3.52 Under the heading ‘Sensitivity Testing’ the Viability Study references concerns raised during stakeholder consultation about the impact of the weak pound following the EU referendum.

Care needs to be taken not to make any predictions as to how the market and inflation may change as a result of Brexit – rather just setting out various scenarios. No alternative approach is suggested that could be used.

3.54 As set out in the main representations and above, we consider that the differences in the Jersey housing market compared to those in the UK make it difficult to assess viability and implement a CIL charge altogether. However, the Viability Study provides some comparisons of CIL rates set in local authority areas in England, which appear to support the Study’s conclusion.

In this section all the points they make are fair – the point ignored is that all the other places referred to require affordable housing (up to 50% of developments), unlike Jersey.

4 Regrettably, the Viability Study is not a robust assessment of viability in Jersey upon which to set a JIL charge. Notwithstanding that the JeCC considers the principle of a JIL on the Island itself to be not possible, we have identified a number of flaws within the Study. Most of these criticisms alone would undermine the proposed JIL; however, when considered in combination, they demonstrate the degree to which viability has been overstated for the Island.

HDH are very comfortable with the work undertaken and consider that is provides a robust evidence base for taking forward the principle of adopting a levy. We do recognise however that it would be worthwhile giving further consideration to industrial and retail land values should further data be made available over the coming months.

With regards to cost, these have been cross checked once more using direct independent professional advice and we are also comfortable with the approach taken on build costs

Should the principle of the levy be adopted then we will in any event revisit all of the assumptions and gather new evidence where available from either further research or new evidence presented.


60

12.7 Ports of Jersey – key points from letter dated 11th September 2017

Note: Many of the issues and direct questions raised by this submission were addressed in the published consultation document and so have been re-used in the States response.

Ref Comment States of Jersey 1

The recently published POA guidance has made the policy clearer but POA’s are limited to site specific matters and would not be able to provide the area wide benefits envisaged by the levy. Further information is found in the Jersey infrastructure levy proposal consultation document pages 10 & 20

2

The consultation is clear that the levy will only be applied to Residential office and retail developments

3

All costs, including planning fees were included in the viability testing on the levy and there are no plans to reduce or cap fees if a levy in introduced.

4

The mechanism for paying the levy has not been detailed, although the Jersey infrastructure levy proposal consultation document makes it clear that only a percentage of the levy will be paid at the start of the construction phases (page 16) and the majority at the end in line with the English system. The payment schedule will be detailed when developing the regulations on this part of the levy and be subject to further consultation.

5

This figure is based upon a levy rate of £85 applied to the typical rate of development built over the past 5 years.

6

The viability modelling is a high level generalised study using industry standard methodologies across a wide range of developments by type and size. Some sites even without a levy will not generate sufficient profit and some will generate profits far in excess of 20%. The 20% profit level was used as part of the generalised modelling to demonstrate general viability rather than to be used for future specific testing of sites.

7

Improving and reducing the POA process with a levy will streamline this part of the planning application process and will give developers certainty and quicker planning decisions. There are no plans to introduce a statutory time limit on determining planning applications as this would not be practical given the complexity of some schemes.

8

Only public services based developments will be exempt. Any commercial residential, office or retail developments would have to pay the levy.

9 The Jersey infrastructure levy proposal consultation document makes it clear that the following

exemptions will be made (page 14): • Development resulting in the creation of less than 75 sqm of net floorspace, unless it

involves the creation of a new residential unit. • Dwellings constructed by Registered Affordable Housing providers • Developments constructed by Registered Charitable Trusts • Refurbishment of existing floorspace unless it results in a net increase of floorspace over 75

sqm






61

Ref Comment States of Jersey 10

Yes

11

Yes

12

The definition of a building used in the viability work was based upon total net floor area. The definitions will be detailed when developing the regulations on this part of the levy and be subject to further consultation.

13

The Jersey infrastructure levy proposal consultation document makes it clear that the following exemptions will be made (page 14):

• Refurbishment of existing floorspace unless it results in a net increase of floorspace over 75 sqm

14

See response to 2 and 13.

15

The intention is that the areas that accept new development will benefit from receiving levy funds Given that St Helier has the largest share of new developments it is going to receive the greatest proportion of levy funding, which is the current focus of improvement. Priorities may change over time.

16

This has not stopped the widespread adoption of CIL in the UK and given the low levy rate when compared to GDV it is considered to be viable in Jersey as presented in the viability assessment for review of developer contributions report

17

Jersey has very similar limitations relative to its size as many other areas in the UK where strong green belt and other policies restrict the development opportunities. The cross rail is a major infrastructure development and Jersey clearly does not operate on this scale.

18

This is not planned and no evidence has been presented to do so.

19

We are not and are not required to follow a UK policy

20

See response to 13.

21

The UK policy has become an unwieldy and over complicated policy, which was recently reviewed and recommendations made to streamline it. Jersey is seeking to develop a simple, fair and equitable policy proposal. Should the principle of the levy be approved, there will then follow detailed discussions and consultation on the exemptions as part of the detailed policy proposal and accompanying regulations.

22

There needed to be a balance between allowing for incremental development improvements and capturing a reasonable levy to pay for community improvements. The 75 Sqm is equivalent to a 2





62

Ref Comment States of Jersey bedroom flat in size and was chosen because of the view that it was reasonable to allow families to develop their homes to create more family space for immediate or dependent relatives for example. Equally statistics from the planning register indicated that the 75 Sqm was the upper boundary of what is seen as more domestic scale developments.

23

See response to 13.

Final para

Ports of Jersey are liable to pay the levy if they are developing commercial office, residential or retail space that do not meet the exemptions listed.

12.8 States of Jersey Development Company – key points from letter dated 11th September 2017

Ref Comment States of Jersey i There should be a comparison between green field/windfall sites and brown field sites as the

latter carries significantly higher costs Green fields were omitted as they would not normally get permission for anything other than affordable housing or agricultural related developments.

ii There should be a differential in the residential levy between houses and flats as the latter carries additional costs; for example basement parking (which costs more than the end value) and the building fabric for example lifts and sound proofing.

There was no evidence found to indicate difference between the two types. Parking was included in the costs for the viability appraisals.

iii The calculations should be based on saleable/lettable areas. Apartment developments for example contain circulation space of around 15% to 20% of the gross internal area that costs the developer to build and is not saleable. To be charged a levy on this space would not seem equitable.

A 15% communal space figure for flats was netted off and is included as part of the viability modelling.

iv Retail values vary significantly and are driven by location. The existing retail core is already fully developed and regeneration of other parts of St. Helier should encourage active uses on the ground floor however, these end value of any retail in these areas will not match the value of units in the established retail core. In our opinion the level of the CIL for retail would appear to be a disincentive for developers to produce new retail spaces.

Table 5.1 breaks down retail into two distinct values - primary shops (£500/Sqm) and secondary (£375/Sqm) areas were reviewed and included in the overall modelling. Retail demonstrated a high viability rate of up to 150/Sqm and so given the proposed lower rates it is not considered that there will be any significant disincentive.

v There should be no charge for non-habitable basements There was no evidence and the modelled the cost in the appraisals vi Developer’s contributions to public realm and public infrastructure should be taken into account

and JIL contributions reduced accordingly. For example, JDC spent £1m on public realm around IFC 1 and will be spending more on IFC 5. Looking to the future, JDC will be delivering a new underground public car park at the IFC. This is a significant piece of public infrastructure that will have a net cost of c.£20.

The Minister is currently establishing the principle of the levy and one of the clear intentions is that there will be no “double dipping”, in other words POA’s and the levy will not be imposed on developments to pay for the same item. Should the principle of the levy be approved then a review will be undertaken of the current POA guidance alongside the development of the levy policy and be subject to full public and direct industry consultation


63

13. Comment.gov.je Responses

A number of comments were received through the consult.gov.je web site (https://comment.gov.je/jersey-infrastructure-levy) in response to a blog set up to ask what the levy should be spent on. These will be considered as part of the development of a more detailed policy should the levy be adopted

Date Comment 2017-07-05

Trees improve health and well-being, and provide habitats for wildlife. Too often I see trees being cut down and not replaced - including listed trees, which people seem to be able to get de-listed at the drop of a hat!

2017-07-05

There seem to be a lot of trees being cut down at the moment eg SW airport, around Le Squez which are not seeming being replaced. We should always replace any trees that are cut down and maybe should not cut down the trees in the first place. Trees are beneficial to us as well as to the many species that rely on them for habitat, food, shelter.

2017-07-05

The parks should no so much be re-furbished as re-wilded. Plant wildflower meadows and make the parks bigger. The Millennium Park should be extended. More trees should be planted in other public spaces.

2017-07-17

Both Minden place and Green street are overflowing for bike parking in the summer There is a seasonal need for more motorcycle and bicycle parking and undercover parking in winter at more locations around town

2017-07-17

I think better cycling paths are definitely a great idea, could also be used to attract more tourists.....

https://comment.gov.je/jersey-infrastructure-levy


64

Appendices – Individual submissions in full

PA

TRO

N: C

olin

Pe

rch

ard

, CV

O O

BE

PRES

IDEN

T: C

olin

Bu

esn

el B

A (

Ho

ns)

Dip

Arc

h (

Ho

ns)

RIB

A

Da

te: 6th Se

ptemb

er 20

17

Mr Ra

lph Bu

chho

lz De

partm

ent o

f the

Envir

onme

nt So

uth H

ill St.

Heli

er JE

2 4US

By

Post

& Em

ail

Dear

Ralph

The J

ersey

Infra

struc

ture L

evy

The

view

s of t

he As

socia

tion o

f Jers

ey Ar

chite

cts

Havin

g rev

iewed

the p

ropo

sed J

ersey

Infra

struc

ture L

evy (

JIL) p

ropo

sals

the As

socia

tion o

f Jers

ey Ar

chite

cts (A

JA) a

re un

able

to su

ppor

t this

prop

osal

in its

curre

nt for

m. W

e que

stion

the p

racti

caliti

es of

takin

g suc

h a pr

opos

al to

the m

ain bo

dy of

the

States

for d

ebate

in th

is pr

elimi

nary

form

to es

tablis

h the

princ

iple w

hen m

uch m

ore c

larity

, deta

il and

certa

inty i

s req

uired

as

to ho

w it w

ill be

imple

mente

d and

enfor

ced.

Ou

tlined

below

are a

selec

tion o

f our

spec

ific co

ncern

s, ob

serva

tions

and c

omme

nts, w

hich h

ave b

een r

aised

by ou

r Asso

ciatio

n me

mbers

hip an

d we t

rust

that t

hese

matt

ers w

ill be

fully

revie

wed a

nd co

nside

red by

the D

epar

tmen

t of t

he En

viron

ment,

the

Depa

rtmen

tal ad

visor

s and

perso

nally

the M

iniste

r, be

fore a

ny su

ch pr

opos

al is

taken

forw

ard.

1. We

agree

with

the s

entim

ent e

xpres

sed b

y the

Mini

ster a

nd hi

s ope

ning s

tatem

ent w

ithin

the JI

L con

sulta

tion d

ocum

ent in

tha

t 'the

spac

es ar

ound

and b

etwee

n buil

dings

inclu

ding p

arks

, squ

ares

and s

treets

, has

a ma

jor pa

rt to

play i

n the

char

acter

, att

racti

vene

ss an

d suc

cess

of pla

ces'

we al

so re

cogn

ise th

e Mini

sters

view

that t

he 'd

elive

ry of

a suc

cessf

ul pla

ce re

quire

s str

ong p

artne

rship

betw

een g

overn

ment,

land

owne

rs, de

velop

ers an

d the

publi

c'.

2. As

arch

itects

we h

ave r

equir

ed sk

ills an

d kno

wled

ge to

advis

e and

deliv

er the

se pl

aces

and o

ur pr

ofessi

on sh

ould

be at

the

forefr

ont o

f the

se ty

pes o

f reg

enera

tion p

rojec

ts /

impr

ovem

ent s

chem

es w

hich a

im to

enha

nce t

he pu

blic r

ealm

and w

e be

lieve

that

cons

ultati

on an

d eng

agem

ent w

ith ou

r asso

ciatio

n mem

bers

shou

ld be

at th

e for

efron

t of a

ny pr

opos

ed pu

blic

realm

impr

ovem

ent p

ropo

sals.

3.

Our A

ssocia

tion f

ully u

nders

tands

the P

lannin

g Mini

sters

desir

e to e

nhan

ce an

d imp

rove

the p

ublic

realm

with

in St.

Heli

er bu

t we d

o not

acce

pt tha

t the

prop

osed

Jerse

y Inf

rastr

uctur

e lev

y (JIL

) is a

fair

or re

ason

able

metho

d of d

elive

ring t

hese

im

prov

emen

ts.

4. Th

e imp

rove

ments

prop

osed

whic

h will

bene

fit fr

om th

e intr

oduc

tion o

f this

Levy

are n

ot cle

arly

defin

ed an

d are

merel

y rep

resen

tative

and t

hey l

ack c

larity

and f

ocus

. The

conc

ept o

f intr

oduc

ing th

is lev

y (de

velop

ment

tax) w

ithou

t the

pres

entat

ion

of a c

ohere

nt pla

n sho

wing

the p

ublic

realm

impr

ovem

ents

is no

t acce

ptable

. 5.

If ad

opted

we d

o not

acce

pt tha

t this

fund

/ po

t as i

t is de

fined

in th

e exe

cutiv

e sum

mary

shou

ld be

man

aged

only

by th

e Mi

nister

for t

he En

viron

ment.

6.

We ha

ve gr

ave c

once

rns r

egar

ding t

he us

e of t

he te

rm 'in

frastr

uctur

e' an

d the

wide

defin

ition o

f this

term

and t

he ty

pes o

f pr

ojects

that

could

be de

emed

as in

frastr

uctur

e pro

jects

which

could

then

seek

fund

ing fr

om th

is inc

ome s

ource

/ le

vy (i

f ad

opted

).

7. We

do no

t acce

pt tha

t con

struc

tion p

rojec

ts ar

e sing

ularil

ary r

espo

nsibl

e for

the I

sland

s inf

rastr

uctur

e req

uirem

ents

and i

t is

theref

ore f

unda

menta

lly un

acce

ptable

for t

he co

nstru

ction

indu

stry t

o be i

ndivi

duall

y tar

geted

and s

ubjec

ted to

an ad

dition

al tax

ation

to fu

nd in

frastr

uctur

e pro

jects.

8.

We do

not a

ccept

that t

he pr

opos

ed in

frastr

uctur

e lev

y will

not b

e pas

sed o

n in s

ome w

ay ei

ther i

n full

or pa

rtiall

y fro

m the

lan

down

er to

the de

velop

er an

d the

n onto

the p

urch

aser

and i

t is na

ive of

the P

lannin

g Dep

artm

ent t

o sug

gest

otherw

ise.

9. We

do no

t beli

eve t

hat a

ny le

vy or

tax a

pplie

d to a

ny pl

annin

g app

rova

l sho

uld be

used

for m

atters

such

as im

prov

ed

trans

port

servi

ces,

drain

age s

ystem

s or f

lood d

efenc

es as

noted

in th

e inf

rastr

uctur

e lev

y con

sulta

tion d

ocum

ent. W

e also

note

that w

ithin

the AR

UP re

port

infra

struc

ture i

s defi

ned a

s: (a

) roa

ds an

d othe

r tra

nspo

rt fac

ilities

, (b)

floo

d defe

nces

, (c)

schoo

ls an

d othe

r edu

catio

nal f

acilit

ies, (

d) m

edica

l fac

ilities

, (e)

spor

ting a

nd re

creati

onal

facilit

ies (f

) ope

n spa

ces a

nd (g

) aff

orda

ble ho

using

(alth

ough

it's a

ccepte

d tha

t affo

rdab

le ho

using

will

not b

e fun

ded b

y this

tax)

. The

se si

mple

defin

itions

cle

arly

show

how

the fu

nds g

enera

ted fr

om th

is lev

y (if

intro

duce

d) co

uld be

used

or m

iss-ap

prop

riated

. All o

f the

abov

e sh

ould

be fu

nded

thro

ugh g

enera

l taxa

tion.

10. W

e are

conc

erned

that

the co

ntrol

of the

se fu

nds c

ould

be pa

ssed t

o ano

ther S

tates

depa

rtmen

t or M

iniste

r sim

ply be

Mi

nister

ial or

der w

ithou

t any

cons

ultati

on w

ith in

dustr

y. 11

. We a

re co

ncern

ed th

at the

curre

nt inf

rastr

uctur

e bud

gets

/ inc

ome r

aised

from

gene

ral ta

xatio

n will

be re

duce

d on t

he

basis

of th

is ne

w inc

ome s

tream

. 12

. We a

re co

ncern

ed th

at the

levy

rate

as pr

opos

ed ha

s not

been

base

d on a

cons

idered

view

of w

hat p

rojec

ts wi

ll be

unde

rtake

n or f

unde

d thr

ough

the l

evy.

In its

curre

nt for

m it i

s sim

ply an

addit

ional

tax (f

und g

enera

tor) t

hat w

ill the

n be

spen

t. 13

. If ad

opted

we h

ave c

once

rns a

s to h

ow th

e pay

ment

syste

m wi

ll be i

mplem

ented

. We h

ave b

een a

dvise

d tha

t this

may

be

admi

nister

ed th

roug

h the

build

ing co

ntrol

work

stag

e noti

ficati

on pr

oces

s, so

could

this

mean

that

if pa

ymen

t is no

t mad

e bu

ilding

contr

ol wo

uld no

t visi

t the

deve

lopme

nt.

14. I

t is un

clear

from

the p

ropo

sal d

ocum

ent h

ow th

e cha

rges

and t

he th

resho

ld lev

els w

ill be

asse

ssed.

If the

thres

hold

is 75

m2 and a

deve

lopme

nt pr

opos

al for

a ne

t gain

of 85

m2 is gr

anted

appr

oval,

is th

e cha

rge a

pplie

d to 1

0m2 or

to th

e who

le 85

m2 15

. With

in the

Levy

prop

osals

, refe

rence

is m

ade t

o the

curre

nt Pla

nning

Obli

gatio

n Agr

eeme

nts (P

OA's)

being

sign

ifican

tly

reduc

ed an

d sim

plifie

d, bu

t the

re is

no re

feren

ce or

detai

l of t

hese

prop

osals

and w

e do n

ot ac

cept

that t

he in

trodu

ction

of an

y ad

dition

al ch

arge

shou

ld be

prop

osed

with

out t

he pr

opos

ed re

ducti

ons i

n the

POA’s

being

clea

rly de

fined

. 16

. The

re is

no ac

know

ledge

ment

withi

n the

prop

osal

that o

ther I

sland

indu

stries

/ se

ctors

will b

enefi

t fro

m the

impr

ovem

ents

to the

publi

c rea

lm an

d imp

rove

d pub

lic sp

aces

, alfr

esco

oppo

rtunit

ies, to

urism

bene

fits.

We w

ould

use t

he ex

ample

of th

e be

nefit

s to B

ellag

io’s a

t Cha

ring C

ross,

whic

h now

bene

fits f

rom

alfres

co ta

bles a

djace

nt to

the ne

w pe

destr

ian im

prov

emen

t sch

eme.

This

is cle

arly

a dire

ct be

nefit

to a

priva

te en

terpr

ise th

at in

the fu

ture w

ould

be fu

nded

by th

e pro

pose

d Jers

ey

Infra

struc

ture L

evy.

17. B

efore

the in

trodu

ction

of an

y Lev

y or a

dditio

nal ta

xatio

n we w

ould

expe

ct the

Dep

artm

ent o

f the

Envir

onme

nt to

prov

ide

evide

nce o

f the

State

s of J

ersey

Dev

elopm

ent C

ompa

nies p

ayme

nts (b

oth fo

recas

t and

actua

l pay

ments

) whic

h are

due t

o be

paid

unde

r P.60

/200

8, wh

ich w

ere to

be ri

ng fe

nced

for t

he re

gene

ratio

n of S

t. Heli

er. W

e also

expe

ct the

Plan

ning M

iniste

r to

prov

ide a

cohe

rent p

lan fo

r how

thes

e mon

ies ar

e spe

nt an

d on w

hat r

egen

eratio

n pro

jects

they a

re to

be us

ed on

.

18. W

e are

conc

erned

that

there

is no

ackn

owled

geme

nt or

reco

gnitio

n of t

he Is

lands

immi

grati

on po

licy a

nd th

e imp

act t

hat

this h

as on

the I

sland

s inf

rastr

uctur

e nee

ds.

19. B

efore

the ad

optio

n or i

ntrod

uctio

n of a

ny pr

opos

al wh

ich ha

s the

poten

tial to

plac

e an a

dditio

nal ta

xatio

n on t

he

cons

tructi

on in

dustr

y / la

ndow

ners

we w

ould

expe

ct the

State

s asse

mbly

to de

mand

a fu

lly de

tailed

prop

osal

for de

bate.

In

conc

lusion

, the A

JA do

not c

onsid

er tha

t it is

appr

opria

te for

the J

ersey

Infra

struc

ture L

evy P

ropo

sal to

be ta

ken f

orwa

rd by

the

Plan

ning M

iniste

r in i

ts cu

rrent

form

for de

bate

in the

State

s. It

does

not p

rovid

e the

reas

sura

nces

that

deve

lopme

nt in

the

Islan

d will

not b

e adv

ersely

affec

ted by

this

addit

ional

taxati

on.

It ind

ividu

ally t

arge

ts the

cons

tructi

on in

dustr

y with

an ad

dition

al tax

burd

en th

at do

es no

t acco

rd w

ith th

e lon

g term

tax

polic

y prin

ciples

agree

d to b

y the

State

s as p

art o

f the

Stra

tegic

Plan 2

015-2

018,

name

ly tha

t:

• Ta

xatio

n mus

t be n

eces

sary,

justi

fiable

and s

ustai

nable

•

Taxe

s sho

uld be

low,

broa

d, sim

ple an

d fair

•

Every

one s

hould

mak

e an a

ppro

priat

e con

tribu

tion t

o the

cost

of pr

ovidi

ng se

rvice

s, wh

ile th

ose o

n the

lowe

st inc

omes

are p

rotec

ted

• Ta

xes m

ust b

e inte

rnati

onall

y com

petiti

ve

• Ta

xatio

n sho

uld su

ppor

t eco

nomi

c, en

viron

menta

l and

socia

l poli

cy

The u

se of

the t

erm ‘I

nfra

struc

ture’

and t

he la

ck of

defin

ition o

f this

term

, leav

es th

e pro

pose

d lev

y ope

n to i

nterp

retati

on an

d mi

ss-us

e, wh

ich is

furth

er co

mpou

nded

by th

e omi

ssion

of an

y deta

iled p

ropo

sals

of wh

at im

prov

emen

ts ar

e pro

pose

d. Th

ere

is no

reco

gnitio

n of a

ny ot

her f

actor

s whic

h imp

act o

n the

Islan

ds In

frastr

uctur

e and

the p

ropo

sed L

evy c

harg

es ha

ve no

t bee

n jus

tified

on th

e bas

is of

any s

pecif

ic req

uirem

ents.

Th

e lev

y has

clea

rly be

en se

t as a

tax g

enera

tor w

hich i

s exe

mplifi

ed w

ithin

the vi

abilit

y stud

y (it

em 3.

4) w

hich s

tates

‘the

pu

rpose

of thi

s stud

y is t

o qua

ntify

the co

sts of

the v

ariou

s poli

cies i

n the

Islan

d Plan

, and

to as

sess t

he ef

fect o

f the

se an

d of

deve

loper

contr

ibutio

ns an

d the

n to m

ake a

judg

emen

t as t

o whe

ther o

r not

land p

rices

may b

e squ

eeze

d to s

uch a

n exte

nt tha

t the I

sland

Plan

is th

reaten

ed.’

The p

ropo

sal d

oes n

ot rec

ognis

e tha

t pro

perty

owne

rship

does

not d

irectl

y equ

ate to

inco

me or

that

an in

creas

e in p

rope

rty

value

equa

tes to

the o

wner

havin

g the

mea

ns to

pay a

n add

itiona

l pro

perty

tax.

We lo

ok fo

rwar

d to r

eceiv

ing th

e Mini

ster’s

view

s and

comm

ents

in res

pons

e to t

hese

issu

es.

Your

s Sinc

erely

For a

nd on

beha

lf of

the As

socia

tion o

f Jers

ey Ar

chite

cts

Colin

Bues

nel

BA

(Hon

s), D

ip Ar

ch (H

ons),

RIBA

AJ

A Pres

ident

2016

– 20

18

cc. AJ

A Mem

bersh

ip /

Jerse

y Cha

mber

of Co

mmerc

e / Is

land P

ress

PR

ESID

ENT:

Co

lin B

ue

sne

l c

/o D

yso

n a

nd

Bu

esn

el A

rch

itec

ts, 1

08 H

alk

ett

Pla

ce

, St.

He

lier,

Je

rse

y JE

2 4W

H

Tel:

(015

34)

8808

61

M: 0

7797

725

656

E: c

oiin

.b@

db

arc

hite

cts

.co

.je

Jers

ey

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Lev

y an

d P

ub

lic A

rt

Co

nte

xt

Jers

ey’s

pu

blic

rea

lm c

on

tain

s m

any

exa

mp

les

of

pu

blic

art

wh

ich

giv

e in

tere

st, a

tmo

sph

ere

and

a

stro

ng

sen

se o

f p

lace

to

th

eir

imm

edia

te e

nvi

ron

men

t.

The

bes

t e

xam

ple

s ill

um

inat

e J

erse

y’s

un

iqu

e cu

ltu

ral h

isto

ry.

The

Ro

yal S

qu

are

wo

uld

no

t b

e th

e sa

me

wit

ho

ut

the

stat

ue

of

Kin

g G

eorg

e II

dat

ing

bac

k to

th

e m

id

C1

8th

; nei

ther

wo

uld

oth

er m

ore

co

nte

mp

ora

ry s

pac

es h

ave

the

sam

e p

ub

lic a

pp

eal w

ith

ou

t eq

ual

ly

stri

kin

g e

xam

ple

s o

f p

ub

lic a

rt.

Wes

t’s

Ce

ntr

e b

enef

its

fro

m s

tro

ng

pu

blic

en

gage

men

t w

ith

La

Vaq

ue

dé

Jèrr

i, th

e gr

ou

pin

g o

f Je

rsey

co

ws

wh

ich

mar

k th

e 5

0th

an

niv

ers

ary

of

the

Wo

rld

Jer

sey

Cat

tle

Bu

reau

an

d t

he

pro

xim

ity

of

the

old

cat

tle

mar

ket;

th

e sa

me

is t

rue

in L

iber

atio

n S

qu

are

wit

h

the

Ph

ilip

Jac

kso

n s

culp

ture

ere

cte

d o

n 9

May

19

95

wh

ich

inva

riab

ly a

ttra

cts

visi

tors

kee

n t

o

un

der

stan

d t

he

sign

ific

ance

of

the

cele

bra

tory

fig

ure

s.

Ho

wev

er, t

he

con

trib

uti

on

is f

ar g

reat

er t

han

mig

ht

be

assu

med

fro

m t

hes

e m

ore

ob

vio

us

exam

ple

s.

The

full

exte

nt

of

pu

blic

art

(to

20

10)

in a

nd

aro

un

d S

t H

elie

r is

set

ou

t in

a le

afle

t p

ub

lish

ed b

y th

e

Jers

ey

Pu

blic

Scu

lptu

re T

rust

‘Pu

blic

Art

in S

t H

elie

r’.

Stat

es

Po

licy

Mu

ch o

f th

e re

cen

t w

ork

was

cre

ate

d a

s a

con

seq

ue

nce

of

the

ener

gy o

f th

e Je

rsey

Pu

blic

Scu

lptu

re

Tru

st d

uri

ng

the

199

0s; t

he

Tru

st w

as r

esp

on

sib

le f

or

– o

r p

laye

d a

sig

nif

ican

t p

art

in -

th

e d

eliv

ery

of

the

Lib

erat

ion

Scu

lptu

re a

nd

wo

rks

in Q

uee

n S

tree

t, C

olo

mb

erie

, th

e A

lber

t P

ier

and

Jar

din

s d

e la

Mer

, to

giv

e o

nly

a f

ew e

xam

ple

s. I

t ca

mp

aign

ed f

or

the

intr

od

uct

ion

of

the

per

cen

tage

fo

r ar

t p

olic

y

as a

mea

ns

to in

crea

se t

he

qu

alit

y o

f th

e p

ub

lic r

ealm

th

rou

gh p

rovi

sio

n o

f w

ork

s o

f ar

t.

Stat

es P

olic

y o

n p

ub

lic a

rt in

th

e en

viro

nm

ent

and

th

e b

road

er p

ub

lic r

ealm

was

info

rmed

by

thes

e

init

iati

ves

and

is s

et o

ut

in t

he

Stat

es C

ult

ura

l Str

ate

gy (

20

05

):

ww

w.g

ov.

je/g

ove

rnm

ent/

pag

es/s

tate

srep

ort

s.as

px?

rep

ort

id=7

14

;

Two

ob

ject

ives

in t

he

Cu

ltu

ral S

trat

egy

re

late

sp

ecif

ical

ly t

o a

rt in

th

e p

ub

lic r

ealm

:

To im

pro

ve t

he

pu

blic

do

mai

n b

y d

evel

op

ing

and

ext

end

ing

the

curr

ent

Pu

blic

Art

Po

licy

and

by

dev

elo

pin

g p

ub

lic a

rt s

trat

egie

s fo

r d

iffe

ren

t lo

cati

on

s. (

4.1

)

To s

tren

gth

en t

he

exis

tin

g P

erce

nt

for

Art

po

licy

for

all f

utu

re d

evel

op

men

ts, b

oth

pu

blic

an

d

pri

vate

. (4

.2)

The

Do

E fo

llow

ed o

ne

of

the

spec

ific

re

com

men

dat

ion

s o

f th

e St

rate

gy, i

n r

elat

ion

to

str

engt

hen

ing

po

licy,

by

issu

ing

the

Sup

ple

men

tary

Pla

nn

ing

Gu

idan

ce t

hat

en

cou

rage

s th

e P

erce

nt

for

Art

po

licy:

ww

w.g

ov.

je/p

lan

nin

gbu

ildin

g/la

wsr

egs/

spg/

advi

cen

ote

s/p

ages

/per

cen

tage

art.

asp

x

The

po

licy

has

re

sult

ed in

a n

um

ber

of

imp

ort

ant

pu

blic

art

co

mm

issi

on

s w

hic

h h

ave

no

t o

nly

se

rved

to e

nh

ance

th

e p

ub

lic r

ealm

bu

t al

so t

o c

on

solid

ate

a d

isti

nct

ive

sen

se o

f p

lace

. In

ad

dit

ion

, so

me

hav

e re

sult

ed in

tal

ks a

nd

wo

rksh

op

s fo

r th

e lo

cal c

om

mu

nit

y an

d o

ther

s in

co

mm

issi

on

s fo

r lo

cal

arti

sts.

Th

ere

are,

th

eref

ore

, ed

uca

tio

nal

an

d e

con

om

ic o

utc

om

es a

lon

gsid

e th

e p

rin

cip

al o

bje

ctiv

e

of

en

han

cin

g th

e p

ub

lic r

ealm

.

The

imp

ort

ance

of

the

per

cen

tage

fo

r ar

t p

olic

y as

a m

ech

anis

m t

o d

eliv

er a

rt in

th

e p

ub

lic r

ealm

is

con

solid

ated

in t

he

Isla

nd

Pla

n (

Po

licy

GD

8).

http://www.gov.je/government/pages/statesreports.aspx?reportid=714

http://www.gov.je/planningbuilding/lawsregs/spg/advicenotes/pages/percentageart.aspx

The

Imp

licat

ion

s o

f th

e In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Surp

risi

ngl

y, g

ive

n t

he

imp

ort

ance

of

per

cen

tage

fo

r ar

t, t

he

con

sult

ativ

e d

ocu

men

t o

n t

he

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Lev

y d

oes

no

t m

enti

on

th

e en

han

cem

ent

of

the

pu

blic

rea

lm t

hro

ugh

pu

blic

art

; no

r

do

es it

co

nsi

der

th

e im

plic

atio

ns

of

intr

od

uci

ng

the

Levy

on

exi

stin

g p

olic

y.

Nei

ther

pu

blic

art

no

r a

per

cen

tage

fo

r ar

t sc

hem

e ar

e m

enti

on

ed a

mo

ng

the

exam

ple

s o

f p

ote

nti

al

ben

efic

iari

es.

It is

tru

e th

at p

ub

lic a

rt c

on

trib

ute

s to

imp

rove

d s

tree

ts a

nd

pu

blic

sp

aces

bu

t th

ere

app

ears

to

be

no

sp

ecif

ic in

ten

tio

n t

o u

se t

he

Levy

to

su

pp

ort

th

e St

ates

po

licy

on

pu

blic

art

, no

r

per

cen

tage

fo

r ar

t as

a p

rim

e d

eliv

ery

mec

han

ism

.

This

rai

ses

the

qu

esti

on

of

wh

eth

er t

he

exis

tin

g p

erce

nta

ge f

or

art

po

licy

wo

uld

co

nti

nu

e to

be

advo

cate

d a

nd

en

cou

rage

d a

lon

gsid

e th

e Le

vy; i

t is

no

t cl

ear

fro

m t

he

do

cum

ent

that

th

is is

th

e ca

se.

On

th

e co

ntr

ary,

th

e as

sura

nce

s gi

ven

ab

ou

t th

e co

mm

erci

al im

pac

t o

f th

e Le

vy d

o n

ot

add

ress

th

e

sim

ult

aneo

us

app

licat

ion

of

the

per

cen

tage

fo

r ar

t p

olic

y, s

o t

hat

th

e im

plic

atio

n is

th

at it

wo

uld

no

t

be

advo

cate

d.

Even

if it

wer

e, g

iven

th

at it

is a

vo

lun

tary

po

licy,

th

e lik

elih

oo

d t

hat

it w

ou

ld c

on

tin

ue

to d

eliv

er b

enef

it m

ust

be

min

imal

.

Off

icer

dis

cuss

ion

pre

ced

ing

the

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

the

con

sult

atio

n p

aper

bro

ach

ed t

he

issu

e o

f th

e

imp

ort

ance

of

per

cen

tage

fo

r ar

t w

ith

in t

he

po

licy

dev

elo

pm

ent

aro

un

d t

he

pro

po

sed

Lev

y. T

his

app

ears

to

be

ou

tsta

nd

ing.

In t

he

con

text

of

stre

ngt

hen

ing

the

per

cen

tage

fo

r ar

t sc

hem

e an

d e

nh

anci

ng

the

pu

blic

re

alm

thro

ugh

pu

blic

art

of

all k

ind

s, it

is im

po

rtan

t th

at t

he

ben

efit

s o

f th

is S

tate

s p

olic

y co

nti

nu

e to

be

del

iver

ed.

Un

der

th

e In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

pro

po

sal i

t is

no

t cl

ear

ho

w t

his

wo

uld

be

ach

ieve

d.

Ro

d M

cLo

ugh

lin

Cu

ltu

ral D

evel

op

men

t O

ffic

er, E

DTS

C

The

Jers

ey C

ham

ber

of C

omm

erce

C

ham

ber

Ho

use

, 25

Pie

r R

oad

, St

Hel

ier

Jers

ey, C

han

nel

Isla

nd

s, J

E2 4

XW

Te

l: 0

15

34 7

24

536

E-

mai

l: ad

min

@je

rsey

cham

ber

.co

m

Web

site

: ww

w.je

rsey

cham

ber

.co

m

8th

Sep

tem

ber

20

17

R

esp

ons

e to

th

e P

lan

nin

g M

inis

ter,

reg

ard

ing

the

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Co

nsu

ltat

ion

Jo

int

lett

er f

rom

: Je

rsey

Cha

mb

er o

f C

omm

erce

Je

rsey

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Cou

ncil

The

Jers

ey H

osp

ital

ity

Ass

ocia

tio

n

Jers

ey F

arm

ers

Un

ion

Port

s o

f Je

rsey

Th

e A

sso

ciat

ion

of

Jers

ey A

rch

itec

ts

CC

A

ll St

ates

Mem

ber

s

Loca

l Med

ia

Dea

r M

inis

ter,

Th

is is

a j

oin

t, o

pen

lett

er o

n b

ehal

f o

f th

e J

erse

y C

ham

ber

of

Co

mm

erce

Bu

ildin

g an

d D

evel

op

men

t C

om

mit

tee

an

d a

ll o

f th

e ab

ove

lis

ted

bu

sin

ess

rep

rese

nta

tive

org

anis

atio

ns

in J

erse

y, i

n d

irec

t re

spo

nse

to

th

e p

rop

ose

d

Jers

ey

Infr

astr

uct

ure

Le

vy

(JIL

) C

on

sult

atio

n.

Each

o

f th

ese

org

anis

atio

ns

will

in

div

idu

ally

re

spo

nd

to

th

e co

nsu

ltat

ion

an

d w

e w

ou

ld v

ery

mu

ch e

nco

ura

ge y

ou

to

rea

d t

ho

se r

esp

on

ses,

in c

on

jun

ctio

n w

ith

th

is le

tter

. B

y vi

rtu

e o

f th

e fa

ct t

hat

all

ou

r o

rgan

isat

ion

s ar

e co

ntr

ibu

tin

g to

war

ds

and

in

agr

eem

ent

wit

h t

he

con

ten

ts o

f th

is r

esp

on

se, i

t sh

ou

ld il

lust

rate

th

e co

nsi

der

able

co

nce

rn f

elt

by

the

sect

or

rega

rdin

g JI

L.

Such

is

the

exte

nt

of

app

reh

ensi

on

fo

r JI

L, C

ham

ber

hel

d a

n e

mer

gen

cy m

eeti

ng

in A

ugu

st t

o d

iscu

ss t

he

levy

, w

hic

h c

an o

nly

be

view

ed a

s a

new

ad

dit

ion

al c

on

stru

ctio

n s

pec

ific

bu

sin

ess

tax.

As

you

will

see

fro

m t

his

re

spo

nse

, th

ere

is c

on

sid

erab

le c

on

cern

, co

nfu

sio

n a

nd

fru

stra

tio

n f

elt

by

the

sect

or

as t

o t

he

po

ten

tial

im

plic

atio

ns

for

loca

l d

evel

op

men

t, t

he

con

stru

ctio

n i

nd

ust

ry,

the

isla

nd

s ec

on

om

y an

d J

erse

y, a

ll o

f w

hic

h

sho

uld

no

t b

e u

nd

eres

tim

ated

. W

hile

co

mm

erce

is

app

reci

ativ

e o

f yo

ur

des

ire

to c

on

sult

, w

e w

ou

ld v

ery

mu

ch h

op

e th

at y

ou

, as

th

e P

lan

nin

g M

inis

ter,

alo

ng

wit

h t

he

Pla

nn

ing

Dep

artm

ent,

th

e C

ou

nci

l of

Min

iste

rs a

nd

fel

low

po

litic

ian

s, w

ill t

ake

seri

ou

sly

the

sen

tim

ent

exp

ress

ed in

th

is r

esp

on

se.

mailto:[email protected]

http://www.jerseychamber.com/

As

wo

uld

no

rmal

ly b

e th

e st

ruct

ure

of

each

of

ou

r o

rgan

isat

ion

s re

spo

nse

to

su

ch l

egis

lati

ve p

rop

osa

ls a

nd

co

nsu

ltat

ion

s, f

eed

bac

k w

ou

ld b

e p

rovi

ded

on

sp

ecif

ic e

lem

ents

th

at o

ur

mem

ber

s h

igh

ligh

ted

as

area

s o

f co

nce

rn.

Ho

wev

er,

hav

ing

read

th

rou

gh t

he

enti

re c

on

sult

atio

n d

ocu

men

t, w

e al

l fe

el t

hat

th

e p

rop

ose

d l

evy

is

fun

dam

enta

lly f

law

ed a

nd

des

pit

e h

avin

g p

revi

ou

sly

pro

vid

ed d

etai

led

, ta

rget

ed a

nd

cri

tica

l co

mm

ents

on

el

emen

ts o

f JI

L, t

hey

do

no

t ap

pea

r to

hav

e b

een

tak

en o

n b

oar

d o

r d

irec

tly

answ

ered

an

d t

her

e re

mai

ns

sign

ific

ant

ano

mal

ies,

gre

y ar

eas

and

fla

wed

info

rmat

ion

wit

hin

th

e c

on

sult

atio

n d

ocu

men

t.

Ther

efo

re, w

e h

ave

join

tly

reac

hed

th

e fo

llow

ing

con

clu

sio

ns:

1.

Cri

tica

l JI

L q

ues

tio

ns,

(lis

ted

in

th

e co

nsu

ltat

ion

res

po

nse

s fr

om

eac

h o

f th

e ab

ove

lis

ted

org

anis

atio

ns)

h

ave

no

t b

een

ad

dre

ssed

or

resp

on

ded

to

no

w o

r p

revi

ou

sly

2.

Scru

tin

y h

ave

no

t ca

rrie

d o

ut

a re

view

of

the

pro

po

sed

lev

y, w

ith

reg

ard

s th

e im

pac

t it

may

hav

e o

n

dev

elo

pm

ent

and

th

e is

lan

ds

eco

no

my

3

. In

lig

ht

of

Bre

xit,

th

e fa

ll in

th

e va

lue

of

ster

ling

and

th

e im

pac

t it

is

hav

ing

on

th

e co

st o

f go

od

s an

d a

re

du

ced

mig

ran

t w

ork

forc

e, c

om

mer

ce i

s lo

oki

ng

to Jersey’s

gove

rnm

ent

to i

mp

lem

ent

mea

sure

s th

at

bo

ost

co

nfi

den

ce a

nd

gro

w t

he

eco

no

my,

no

t in

crea

se t

he

tax

bu

rden

an

d c

ost

s as

soci

ated

wit

h d

oin

g b

usi

nes

s in

th

e is

lan

d

Ou

r jo

int

resp

on

se t

o t

he

JIL

con

sult

atio

n h

as d

elib

erat

ely

bee

n k

ept

bri

ef, a

s w

e fe

el t

he

sen

tim

ent

exp

ress

ed is

cl

ear,

th

at J

IL m

ust

no

t b

e im

ple

men

ted

.

If y

ou

req

uir

e fu

rth

er i

nfo

rmat

ion

in

res

pec

t o

f o

ur

join

t co

mm

ents

, o

r w

ou

ld l

ike

a jo

int

mee

tin

g w

ith

ou

r o

rgan

isat

ion

s to

dis

cuss

th

is f

urt

her

, we

wo

uld

be

hap

py

to f

acili

tate

.

You

rs S

ince

rely

,

Je

rsey

Cha

mbe

r o

f Com

mer

ce, B

uild

ing

& D

evel

op

men

t C

om

mit

tee

Jers

ey C

on

stru

ctio

n C

oun

cil

Jers

ey F

arm

ers

Un

ion

The

Ass

oci

atio

n o

f Je

rsey

Arc

hit

ects

The

Jers

ey H

osp

ital

ity

Ass

ocia

tion

Po

rts

of

Jers

ey

Registered in England No. 2778116

Regulated by the RICS

Ral

ph

Bu

chh

olz

Dep

artm

ent

of t

he

En

viro

nm

ent

Sou

th H

ill

St. H

elie

r JE

2 4U

S

Da

te:

8h S

epte

mbe

r 20

17

Ou

r re

f: 1

5974

/MS/

BH

y/14

7269

14v3

Y

ou

r re

f:

Dea

r M

r B

uch

hol

z

Je

rse

y In

fra

stru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal

Lic

hfi

eld

s h

as b

een

inst

ruct

ed b

y th

e Je

rsey

Con

stru

ctio

n C

oun

cil (

JeC

C)

and

ass

ocia

ted

mem

ber

com

pan

ies

(Dan

dar

a L

td, C

omp

rop

Ltd

, C L

e M

asu

rier

Ltd

, Gra

nge

Dev

elop

men

ts L

td a

nd

th

e Je

rsey

Far

mer

s U

nio

n)

to

revi

ew t

he

Jers

ey I

nfr

astr

uct

ure

Lev

y (J

IL)

Pro

pos

al (

Jun

e 20

17)

(“th

e JI

L P

rop

osal

”) a

nd

th

e V

iabi

lity

A

sses

smen

t fo

r R

evie

w o

f Dev

elop

er C

ontr

ibu

tion

s (M

ay 2

017

) (“

the

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y”)

wh

ich

un

der

pin

s th

e P

rop

osal

, in

res

pon

se t

o th

e co

nsu

ltat

ion

on

th

e p

rop

osed

intr

odu

ctio

n o

f a J

IL. T

his

lett

er a

nd

its

Ap

pen

dix

re

pre

sen

ts t

he

JeC

C’s

rep

rese

nta

tion

s to

th

e JI

L P

rop

osal

con

sult

atio

n.

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

We

reco

gnis

e th

at a

levy

for

Jers

ey n

eed

s to

res

pon

d t

o th

e St

ates

of J

erse

y’s

own

req

uir

emen

ts a

nd

le

gisl

ativ

e an

d p

olic

y co

nte

xt, b

ut

in fr

amin

g Je

CC

’s c

onsi

der

atio

n o

f th

e JI

L P

rop

osal

, use

ful r

efer

ence

can

be

mad

e to

cu

rren

t p

ract

ice

in E

ngl

and

as

a gu

ide

for

wh

at m

ay o

r m

ay n

ot b

e ef

fect

ive1 . T

he

pri

nci

ple

s fo

r co

nsi

der

atio

n o

f via

bili

ty w

ith

in a

levy

-bas

ed a

pp

roac

h a

re s

et o

ut

wit

hin

En

glan

d’s

Nat

ion

al P

lan

nin

g P

olic

y F

ram

ewor

k (N

PP

F)

and

acc

omp

anyi

ng

Pla

nn

ing

Pra

ctic

e G

uid

ance

(P

PG

) w

hic

h w

e co

nsi

der

in m

ore

det

ail

in t

he

Rev

iew

we

carr

y ou

t of

th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

wh

ich

is a

ttac

hed

as

Ap

pen

dix

1 t

o th

is r

epre

sen

tati

on. T

he

un

der

lyin

g m

essa

ge o

utl

ined

in t

he

NP

PF

an

d P

PG

is t

hat

via

bili

ty a

sses

smen

ts s

hou

ld b

e ev

iden

ce-b

ased

an

d a

ny

scal

e of

pla

nn

ing

obli

gati

ons

shou

ld n

ot b

e of

a s

cale

wh

ich

th

reat

ens

dev

elop

men

t an

d d

eliv

ery

of a

p

lan

.

Th

e Je

CC

rep

rese

nts

mem

bers

from

acr

oss

the

con

stru

ctio

n in

du

stry

in J

erse

y, in

clu

din

g th

e la

rges

t an

d

mos

t ac

tive

firm

s in

del

iver

ing

new

dev

elop

men

t. T

hey

th

eref

ore

hav

e u

np

aral

lele

d e

xper

ien

ce a

nd

kn

owle

dge

of t

he

pro

per

ty m

arke

t in

Jer

sey

and

we

hav

e so

ugh

t to

leve

rage

th

is e

xper

ien

ce a

nd

insi

ght

in

pre

par

ing

this

res

pon

se t

o th

e JI

L p

rop

osal

s.

1 W

e n

ote

that

th

e V

iabi

lity

Ass

essm

ent

for

revi

ew o

f Dev

elop

er C

ontr

ibu

tion

s u

sed

to

just

ify

the

Pro

pos

al m

akes

sim

ilar

ref

eren

ce t

o th

e

NP

PF

an

d P

PG

, as

wel

l as

to t

he

RIC

S G

uid

ance

an

d H

arm

an R

evie

w, t

o w

hic

h w

e h

ave

also

giv

en c

onsi

der

atio

n.

Pg 2/10

14726914v3

Lic

hfi

eld

s is

th

e p

re-e

min

ent

pla

nn

ing

and

dev

elop

men

t co

nsu

ltan

cy in

th

e U

K. T

hro

ugh

ou

r w

ork

in

En

glan

d a

nd

Wal

es, w

e h

ave

been

invo

lved

in t

he

dev

elop

men

t an

d a

pp

lica

tion

of t

he

Com

mu

nit

y In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

(CIL

), in

clu

din

g p

arti

cip

atin

g in

th

e ex

amin

atio

n o

f CIL

rat

es a

cros

s E

ngl

and

an

d W

ales

, p

rovi

din

g u

s th

e n

eces

sary

insi

ght

on t

he

pra

ctic

alit

ies

of a

n in

fras

tru

ctu

re le

vy-t

ype

of a

pp

roac

h. L

ich

fiel

ds

was

RT

PI

pla

nn

ing

con

sult

ancy

of t

he

year

for

thre

e su

cces

sive

yea

rs 2

012

-20

14 a

nd

we

advi

se c

entr

al

Gov

ern

men

t, lo

cal a

uth

orit

ies

and

pri

vate

dev

elop

ers

(in

clu

din

g th

e la

rges

t h

ouse

buil

der

s an

d d

evel

oper

s)

on p

roje

cts

thro

ugh

out

the

UK

.

Bas

ed u

pon

a r

evie

w o

f th

e ev

iden

ce, t

he

JeC

C h

as s

ign

ific

ant

con

cern

s an

d r

eser

vati

ons

abou

t th

e p

rop

osed

in

trod

uct

ion

of a

n in

fras

tru

ctu

re le

vy in

Jer

sey.

Th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

up

on w

hic

h t

he

pro

pos

ed J

IL is

bas

ed

con

tain

s a

nu

mbe

r of

flaw

s an

d s

ign

ific

antl

y ov

erst

ates

th

e vi

abil

ity

of d

evel

opm

ent

in J

erse

y, a

nd

fail

s to

re

cogn

ise

the

inh

eren

t d

iffi

cult

ies

in a

sses

sin

g vi

abil

ity

in J

erse

y al

toge

ther

. Th

e d

isti

nct

cir

cum

stan

ces

that

ex

ist

wit

hin

Jer

sey

mea

n t

hat

th

e in

fras

tru

ctu

re le

vy s

yste

m c

ann

ot s

imp

ly b

e tr

ansf

erre

d o

ver

from

En

glan

d

and

Wal

es, a

nd

in a

ny

case

th

e U

K G

over

nm

ent’

s re

cen

t in

dep

end

ent

CIL

rev

iew

has

dem

onst

rate

d t

hat

th

e sy

stem

ad

opte

d h

as n

ot m

et it

s ex

pec

tati

ons.

In

th

is c

onte

xt, t

he

JeC

C s

tron

gly

urg

es t

he

Stat

es o

f Jer

sey

to

reco

nsi

der

its

pro

pos

als

to in

trod

uce

JIL

, un

til a

t le

ast

the

issu

es id

enti

fied

wit

h t

he

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y ca

n b

e re

solv

ed.

Lic

hfi

eld

s’ r

ev

iew

of

the

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

(Ap

pe

nd

ix 1

)

Ap

pen

dix

1 o

f ou

r re

pre

sen

tati

on s

ets

out

a re

view

of

the

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y, w

hic

h u

nd

erp

ins

the

curr

ent

JIL

p

rop

osal

(an

d it

s ra

te o

f £8

5/sq

m).

Th

is s

how

s th

at L

ich

fiel

ds

has

a n

um

ber

of c

once

rns

abou

t th

is S

tud

y,

wh

ich

are

su

mm

aris

ed a

s fo

llow

s:

1 T

he

alte

rnat

ive

use

val

ue

of m

ost

of t

he

site

s as

sess

ed is

bas

ed o

n a

n a

ssu

mp

tion

of i

nd

ust

rial

val

ue;

h

owev

er, t

he

Stu

dy

has

no

evid

ence

to

sup

por

t th

is fi

gure

;

2 W

ith

th

e ex

cep

tion

of a

few

sch

emes

, th

e St

ud

y as

sess

es a

ll b

row

nfi

eld

sit

es a

s be

ing

in in

du

stri

al u

se,

des

pit

e th

e fa

ct t

hat

in J

erse

y re

lati

vely

few

bro

wn

fiel

d s

ites

are

act

ual

ly li

kely

to

be in

ind

ust

rial

use

, an

d a

re m

ore

like

ly t

o be

oth

er u

ses

wh

ich

hav

e h

igh

er v

alu

es (

e.g.

hot

els,

ret

ail s

pac

e an

d o

ffic

e sp

ace)

. O

ur

esti

mat

ion

of l

and

val

ues

of s

econ

dar

y re

tail

sp

ace

show

s th

at t

he

resi

du

al v

alu

es w

ould

not

su

ffic

ien

tly

exce

ed t

he

viab

ilit

y th

resh

old

acr

oss

mos

t d

evel

opm

ents

;

3 T

he

viab

ilit

y th

resh

old

use

d in

th

e St

ud

y as

sum

es a

20

% u

pli

ft o

n e

xist

ing

use

val

ue

(EU

V)

wou

ld

ince

nti

vise

a la

nd

own

er t

o se

ll. I

t is

qu

esti

onab

le h

ow, i

n t

he

case

of J

erse

y, it

is p

ossi

ble

to d

eter

min

e su

ch a

val

ue,

giv

en t

he

spec

ific

tax

an

d la

nd

ow

ner

ship

cir

cum

stan

ces

on t

he

Isla

nd

, wh

ich

var

y co

mp

ared

to

the

UK

. It

is o

f not

e th

at in

Lon

don

(w

ith

dif

fere

nt

tax

and

lan

d o

wn

ersh

ip c

ircu

mst

ance

s),

the

May

or o

f Lon

don

’s r

ecen

tly

pro

du

ced

Aff

ord

able

Hou

sin

g SP

D p

rop

oses

via

bili

ty a

pp

roac

hes

bas

ed

on a

n E

UV

+ w

ith

an

up

lift

of u

p t

o 30

%, a

t th

e sa

me

tim

e as

giv

ing

flex

ibil

ity

to u

se a

n a

lter

nat

ive

use

va

lue.

JeC

C m

embe

rs’ e

xper

ien

ce is

th

at a

sig

nif

ican

t p

rem

ium

is o

ften

req

uir

ed, t

o re

flec

t ta

xes

and

p

rofi

t m

argi

ns.

It

is a

lso

like

ly t

hat

th

e pr

emiu

m w

ill v

ary

dep

end

ing

on t

he

typ

e of

lan

d; f

or e

xam

ple

, ow

ner

s of

pad

doc

k la

nd

like

ly t

o d

eman

d a

mu

ch h

igh

er p

rem

ium

giv

en t

he

amen

ity

valu

e of

su

ch la

nd

; an

d

4 T

he

con

stru

ctio

n c

osts

are

like

ly t

o be

a s

ign

ific

ant

un

der

-est

imat

e, n

ot le

ast

beca

use

BC

IS d

ata

(on

w

hic

h t

he

Stu

dy

reli

es)

has

lim

ited

info

rmat

ion

wh

ich

dir

ectl

y re

late

s to

Jer

sey.

Sta

keh

old

ers

sugg

este

d

hig

her

cos

ts d

uri

ng

con

sult

atio

n, a

nd

figu

res

pu

t to

Lic

hfi

eld

s by

mem

bers

of t

he

JeC

C (

base

d o

n lo

cal

QS

surv

eys)

dem

onst

rate

th

at t

he

un

der

esti

mat

ion

in b

uil

d c

osts

alo

ne

wou

ld e

nti

rely

wip

e ou

t an

y p

oten

tial

JIL

con

trib

uti

on.

Pg 3/10

14726914v3

In a

dd

itio

n t

o ou

r co

nce

rns

abou

t th

e sp

ecif

ic a

pp

roac

h a

nd

ass

um

ptio

ns

in t

he

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y, t

he

JeC

C a

lso

hav

e a

nu

mbe

r of

con

cern

s ab

out

the

over

all p

rin

cip

le o

f ad

opti

ng

such

a le

vy in

Jer

sey.

We

turn

to

thes

e be

low

.

Th

e p

rin

cip

le o

f a

n I

nfr

ast

ruct

ure

Le

vy f

or

Je

rse

y

We

not

e th

at m

any

of t

he

un

der

lyin

g p

rin

cip

les

beh

ind

th

e sc

hem

e d

esig

n fo

r th

e C

IL in

En

glan

d a

nd

Wal

es

hav

e be

en c

arri

ed fo

rwar

d t

o Je

rsey

. How

ever

, th

ere

are

a n

um

ber

of fu

nd

amen

tal d

iffe

ren

ces

in t

he

pro

per

ty

mar

ket

wh

ich

mea

n t

hat

an

En

glan

d a

nd

Wal

es-s

tyle

infr

astr

uct

ure

levy

ch

arge

can

not

be

seen

to

dir

ectl

y tr

ansl

ate

into

th

e ci

rcu

mst

ance

s of

Jer

sey.

Mos

t si

gnif

ican

tly,

th

ere

are

fun

dam

enta

l dif

ficu

ltie

s in

ass

essi

ng

viab

ilit

y on

a c

onsi

sten

t ba

sis,

giv

en t

he

sign

ific

ant

vari

atio

ns

in r

esid

enti

al la

nd

val

ues

see

n o

n t

he

isla

nd

.

Acc

ura

tely

ass

ess

ing

via

bil

ity

Th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

not

ed t

hat

con

cern

s w

ere

rais

ed d

uri

ng

con

sult

atio

n a

bou

t th

e ov

eral

l abi

lity

to

asse

ss

viab

ilit

y in

Jer

sey,

bu

t th

e au

thor

s of

th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

reje

cted

th

em. H

owev

er, t

he

evid

ence

set

ou

t w

ith

in

the

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y it

self

see

ms

to s

up

por

t th

ose

con

cern

s ra

ther

th

an t

he

con

clu

sion

s of

th

e au

thor

s, i.

e. t

hat

vi

abil

ity

is t

oo d

iffi

cult

to

det

erm

ine

accu

rate

ly e

nou

gh t

o ju

stif

y im

pos

ing

a fi

xed

flat

-rat

e co

st o

n

dev

elop

men

t, i.

e. J

IL.

As

set

out

in p

aras

3.1

5-25

of o

ur

Rev

iew

of t

he

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y (A

pp

end

ix 1

), t

her

e ar

e re

lati

vely

few

sal

es o

f h

ousi

ng

lan

d in

Jer

sey,

ave

ragi

ng

arou

nd

1-2

sit

es p

er y

ear

over

th

e la

st 1

0 y

ears

wh

ich

itse

lf r

aise

s si

gnif

ican

t qu

esti

ons

abou

t sa

mp

le s

ize

and

wh

eth

er it

is a

su

ffic

ien

tly

stro

ng

evid

enti

al p

latf

orm

for

mak

ing

assu

mp

tion

s on

via

bili

ty. E

ven

acr

oss

this

sm

all s

amp

le, t

he

pri

ce p

aid

(p

er h

ecta

re)

on t

hes

e si

tes

ran

ges

sign

ific

antl

y, fr

om £

1.4m

2 per

hec

tare

(si

mil

ar t

o la

nd

val

ues

in C

oven

try3 )

to £

23m

/ha

(sim

ilar

to

lan

d

valu

es in

cen

tral

Lon

don

), a

s sh

own

bel

ow. P

lace

d in

th

is c

onte

xt, i

t w

ould

cle

arly

be

very

dif

ficu

lt t

o as

sess

vi

abil

ity

(an

d c

oncl

ud

e u

pon

a C

IL r

ate,

wh

ich

did

not

th

reat

en v

iabi

lity

) in

an

En

glis

h lo

cal a

uth

orit

y ar

ea

wh

ere

lan

d v

alu

es v

arie

d t

o th

is e

xten

t.

2 £

1.4m

/ha

is t

he

low

est

valu

e w

hic

h a

pp

ears

in T

able

6.1

of t

he

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y, h

owev

er p

ara

6.20

of

the

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y ci

tes

the

low

est

valu

e be

ing

£71

6,41

8/h

a. T

he

sou

rce

of t

he

£71

6,41

8 fi

gure

is n

ot k

now

n.

3 Sou

rce:

DC

LG

Lan

d V

alu

e E

stim

ates

for

Pol

icy

Ap

pra

isal

, 20

15

Pg 4/10

14726914v3

Figure 1 Range of Residen

tial Land Values in

Jersey ‐ 2006‐17

Source: Lichfields based

on Viability Study

Wh

ilst

th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

has

att

empt

ed t

o m

ake

a ju

dge

men

t ov

er t

he

app

roxi

mat

e av

erag

e of

th

ese

valu

es -

es

tim

atin

g £

6m/h

a –

it is

it e

vid

ent

that

sit

es a

ctu

ally

sel

l for

figu

res

wel

l abo

ve a

nd

bel

ow t

his

. Th

e u

se o

f an

av

erag

e la

nd

val

ue

in d

eter

min

ing

viab

ilit

y is

on

ly r

obu

st if

mos

t si

tes

hav

e a

valu

e w

hic

h is

th

e sa

me

or

clu

ster

s cl

osel

y ar

oun

d t

he

aver

age,

an

d w

her

e th

ere

are

few

if a

ny

valu

es w

hic

h d

evia

te s

ign

ific

antl

y fr

om it

. In

Jer

sey,

th

is is

cle

arly

not

th

e ca

se.

Th

e p

rin

cip

le o

f ass

essi

ng

viab

ilit

y ac

ross

all

res

iden

tial

dev

elop

men

t on

th

e is

lan

d is

th

eref

ore

un

der

min

ed

by t

he

fact

th

at la

nd

val

ues

var

y so

sig

nif

ican

tly

from

th

e av

erag

e, w

ith

no

clea

r p

atte

rn o

ver

loca

tion

, tim

e or

si

ze o

f eac

h s

ite.

Th

is w

ould

mak

e it

ext

rem

ely

dif

ficu

lt, i

f not

imp

ossi

ble,

to

det

erm

ine

a si

ngl

e in

fras

tru

ctu

re

levy

rat

e w

ith

an

y re

ason

able

or

just

ifie

d c

onfi

den

ce t

hat

it w

ould

not

un

der

min

e th

e vi

abil

ity

of a

sig

nif

ican

t n

um

ber

of s

ites

in J

erse

y.

Ince

nti

visi

ng

la

nd

sa

les

An

oth

er k

ey d

iffi

cult

y in

det

erm

inin

g vi

abil

ity

wit

hin

Jer

sey

rela

tes

to h

ow m

uch

up

lift

is r

equ

ired

on

lan

d

valu

es t

o in

cen

tivi

se la

nd

own

ers

to s

ell.

Th

e ab

sen

ce o

f in

her

itan

ce t

ax in

Jer

sey

mea

ns

that

lan

dow

ner

s ar

e n

ot s

ubj

ect

to t

he

sam

e fi

nan

cial

‘pen

alti

es’ a

s th

eir

En

glis

h c

oun

terp

arts

, sh

ould

th

ey w

ish

to

mai

nta

in

own

ersh

ip o

f th

eir

lan

d. I

n E

ngl

and

, th

e p

rosp

ect

of in

her

itan

ce t

ax is

like

ly t

o re

sult

in la

nd

own

ers

acce

pti

ng

a p

rice

wh

ich

is lo

wer

wer

e in

her

itan

ce t

ax n

ot a

pp

lica

ble,

th

us

mak

ing

it e

asie

r to

est

imat

e th

e sc

ale

of u

pli

ft

on e

xist

ing

valu

e re

quir

ed t

o in

cen

tivi

se a

sal

e. T

he

esti

mat

e of

th

e sc

ale

of u

pli

ft is

als

o u

nd

oubt

edly

ass

iste

d

by t

he

fact

th

at t

her

e ar

e si

mp

ly m

ore

lan

d t

ran

sact

ion

s.

In J

erse

y, t

he

abse

nce

of i

nh

erit

ance

tax

mea

ns

that

lan

dow

ner

s m

ay r

equ

ire

a gr

eate

r in

cen

tive

to

sell

th

an

in E

ngl

and

(if

at

all)

, an

d d

iffe

ren

t la

nd

own

ers

may

req

uir

e d

iffe

ren

t p

rem

ium

s d

epen

din

g on

ind

ivid

ual

an

d

wid

er c

ircu

mst

ance

s. T

his

mak

es it

inh

eren

tly

dif

ficu

lt t

o d

eter

min

e w

hat

sca

le o

f up

lift

is c

onsi

der

ed

nec

essa

ry t

o in

cen

tivi

se a

lan

dow

ner

to

sell

, ad

din

g ye

t m

ore

com

ple

xity

an

d u

nce

rtai

nty

to

the

viab

ilit

y

Viability Study

£0

£5

£10

£15

£20

£25 May‐05

Oct‐06

Feb‐08

Jul‐09

Nov‐10

Apr‐12

Aug‐13

Dec‐14

May‐16

Sep‐17

Price per hectare (£millions)

Sale date

Pg 5/10

14726914v3

asse

ssm

ent.

Th

e ex

iste

nce

of a

20

% t

ax (

via

shar

ehol

der

s) a

lso

pu

ts fu

rth

er u

pw

ard

pre

ssu

re o

n t

he

up

lift

re

quir

ed t

o in

cen

tivi

se s

ales

. Th

is m

ean

s th

e 20

% u

pli

ft t

o E

UV

on

wh

ich

th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

is b

ased

is li

kely

to

be

a si

gnif

ican

t u

nd

er-e

stim

ate

of w

hat

is r

equ

ired

. Th

ese

fact

ors

hav

e n

ot b

een

ad

equ

atel

y co

nsi

der

ed b

y th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy.

Reg

ener

ati

on a

rea

s

Th

e n

eed

to

ince

nti

vise

lan

d s

ales

(an

d s

ubs

equ

entl

y d

evel

op s

ites

) is

of p

arti

cula

r im

por

tan

ce fo

r si

tes

wit

hin

St

Hel

ier

(an

d o

ther

bu

ilt

up

are

as)

wh

ich

are

par

t of

reg

ener

atio

n a

reas

. Th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

acce

pts

th

at s

uch

sit

es t

ypic

ally

hav

e lo

wer

val

ues

du

e to

th

eir

sett

ing

(par

a 4.

33-4

) an

d t

he

cost

s ar

e li

kely

to

be h

igh

gi

ven

th

e m

ore

com

ple

x n

atu

re o

f th

ese

site

s (c

omp

ared

wit

h, f

or e

xam

ple

, pad

doc

k la

nd

on

th

e ed

ge o

f se

ttle

men

ts).

Th

is a

lrea

dy

mea

ns

such

sit

es a

re a

lrea

dy

like

ly t

o be

op

erat

ing

at t

he

mar

gin

s of

via

bili

ty.

Th

e Is

lan

d P

lan

’s p

olic

ies

(not

ably

Pol

icy

SP1)

see

ks t

o d

irec

t m

uch

of t

he

Isla

nd

’s d

evel

opm

ents

to

St H

elie

r (a

nd

oth

er b

uil

t-u

p a

reas

), w

ith

rel

ease

of g

reen

fiel

d la

nd

alm

ost

com

ple

tely

res

tric

ted

. Pol

icy

H1

of t

he

Isla

nd

Pla

n s

tate

s th

at le

adin

g th

e re

gen

erat

ion

of t

he

Isla

nd

’s u

rban

are

as t

hro

ugh

res

iden

tial

dev

elop

men

t is

on

e of

th

e h

ousi

ng

obje

ctiv

es. T

his

mea

ns

that

th

e G

over

nm

ent

wil

l nee

d t

o en

sure

th

ese

rege

ner

atio

n s

ites

re

mai

n v

iabl

e, s

o as

not

to

un

der

min

e th

e P

lan

ove

rall

. Th

e im

ple

men

tati

on o

f an

ad

dit

ion

al, f

lat-

rate

ch

arge

(i

.e. J

IL)

wh

ich

doe

s n

ot r

efle

ct t

he

nat

ure

of s

uch

dev

elop

men

ts is

like

ly t

o be

det

rim

enta

l to

(an

d u

ltim

atel

y u

nd

erm

ine)

th

e P

lan

’s a

mbi

tion

s fo

r re

gen

erat

ion

.

A p

oten

tial

sol

uti

on t

o th

is w

ould

be

to in

trod

uce

var

yin

g JI

L r

ates

or

exem

pti

ons

by a

rea

or fo

r ce

rtai

n t

ypes

of

dev

elop

men

t. H

owev

er, L

ich

fiel

ds

doe

s n

ot c

onsi

der

th

is t

o be

ap

pro

pri

ate

give

n o

ur

revi

ew o

f th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

has

ind

icat

ed t

hat

a J

IL c

har

ges

shou

ld n

ot b

e im

ple

men

ted

at

all o

n t

he

Isla

nd

(se

e ou

r re

com

men

dat

ion

s be

low

).

Ex

isti

ng

pla

nn

ing

co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

In d

ecid

ing

wh

eth

er o

r n

ot t

o in

trod

uce

an

infr

astr

uct

ure

levy

, it

wou

ld b

e h

elp

ful t

o n

ote

the

exis

tin

g co

ntr

ibu

tion

s th

e d

evel

opm

ent

ind

ust

ry a

lrea

dy

mak

es t

o in

fras

tru

ctu

re a

nd

th

e w

ider

eco

nom

y in

Jer

sey.

T

hes

e in

clu

de

(bu

t ar

e n

ot li

mit

ed t

o) b

us

stop

s, t

he

Eas

tern

Cyc

le R

oute

, per

cen

tage

for

Art

, car

ryin

g ou

t ba

t su

rvey

s (a

nd

ass

ocia

ted

mit

igat

ion

), s

tam

p d

uty

an

d p

lan

nin

g fe

es (

and

ass

ocia

ted

pro

fess

ion

al fe

es).

Th

e in

du

stry

has

rec

entl

y al

so s

een

incr

ease

s in

cos

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith

bu

ild

ing

regu

lati

ons,

incr

ease

s in

sta

mp

d

uty

an

d t

he

cost

s/re

quir

emen

ts a

ssoc

iate

d w

ith

sta

te-o

wn

ed u

tili

ties

. Th

e re

cen

tly

adop

ted

PO

A

Sup

ple

men

tary

Pla

nn

ing

Gu

idan

ce (

SPG

) (J

uly

20

17)

sets

ou

t in

dic

ativ

e co

sts

of P

OA

s fo

r tr

avel

an

d

tran

spor

t w

hic

h in

clu

des

, am

ongs

t ot

her

s:

1 £

1,35

0 p

er r

esid

enti

al u

nit

for

cycl

e an

d w

alki

ng

rou

tes;

2 £

1,35

0 p

er r

esid

enti

al u

nit

for

th

e E

aste

rn C

ycle

Rou

te;

3 £

240

-£8

00

per

un

it fo

r cy

cle

lock

ers

(aga

inst

a m

inim

um

req

uir

emen

t of

1 p

er b

edro

om fo

r re

sid

enti

al

un

its)

;

4 £

6,5

00

per

con

nec

ted

str

eet

lam

p, a

pp

lica

ble

on s

ites

of m

ore

than

20

un

its;

an

d

5 V

aryi

ng

con

trib

uti

ons

for

hig

hw

ay a

cces

s an

d ju

nct

ion

/car

riag

eway

alt

erat

ion

s (d

epen

din

g on

sit

e sp

ecif

ic is

sues

).

So, w

ith

out

a JI

L, d

evel

opm

ents

hav

e an

d w

ill c

onti

nu

e to

mak

e ap

pro

pri

ate

con

trib

uti

ons

for

infr

astr

uct

ure

th

at t

he

JIL

pro

pos

al is

su

gges

tin

g w

ould

be

add

ress

ed v

ia t

he

new

levy

. Eve

n w

ith

out

the

con

cern

s ab

out

the

imp

act

on v

iabi

lity

(w

hic

h c

ould

red

uce

th

e sc

ale

of d

evel

opm

ent

and

th

eref

ore

infr

astr

uct

ure

pro

vid

ed),

th

e JI

L’s

sca

le o

f ‘ad

ded

val

ue’

in t

erm

s of

ad

dit

ion

al in

fras

tru

ctu

re d

eliv

ery

is t

her

efor

e re

lati

vely

lim

ited

.

Pg 6/10

14726914v3

Re

lati

on

ship

be

twe

en

JIL

an

d e

xis

tin

g P

OA

s

Wit

h r

egar

d t

o th

e re

lati

onsh

ip b

etw

een

exi

stin

g P

OA

s an

d J

IL, w

e n

ote

that

th

e Je

CC

has

alr

ead

y h

igh

ligh

ted

som

e of

th

ese

issu

es w

ith

in it

s le

tter

to

the

Pla

nn

ing

Pol

icy

and

Pro

ject

s T

eam

, dat

ed 2

2 M

ay

2017

.

Th

e m

ost

rece

nt

revi

ew o

f PO

As

has

bee

n a

dop

ted

via

th

e SP

G a

dvi

ce n

ote.

Th

e Je

CC

’s m

ain

con

cern

s re

late

to

th

e fa

ct t

hat

th

e p

rop

osed

intr

odu

ctio

n o

f JIL

has

not

bee

n c

onsi

der

ed in

con

jun

ctio

n w

ith

rev

iew

s to

P

OA

s. A

s w

e se

t ou

t be

low

, it

app

ears

PO

As

and

JIL

are

exp

ecte

d t

o fu

nd

sim

ilar

infr

astr

uct

ure

, an

d t

her

e is

a

lack

of c

lari

ty a

s to

exa

ctly

wh

at e

ach

is e

xpec

ted

to

fun

d. T

his

giv

es r

ises

to

a co

nce

rn t

hat

is d

escr

ibed

in

En

glan

d a

nd

Wal

es a

s “d

oubl

e d

ipp

ing

” an

d s

omet

hin

g th

at t

he

PP

G in

En

glan

d s

pec

ific

ally

see

ks t

o av

oid

, w

her

e it

sta

tes4 : “

The

re s

hou

ld b

e n

ot a

ctu

al o

r p

erce

ived

‘dou

ble

dip

pin

g’ w

ith

dev

elop

ers

pa

yin

g t

wic

e fo

r th

e sa

me

item

of

infr

ast

ruct

ure

.” (

our

emp

has

is).

Ap

pen

dix

1 o

f th

e P

OA

SP

G s

ets

out

wh

ere

pla

nn

ing

obli

gati

ons

may

be

sou

ght.

Th

ese

incl

ud

e (b

ut

are

not

li

mit

ed t

o);

1 N

atu

ral E

nvi

ron

men

t –

incl

ud

ing

off-

site

lan

dsc

apin

g, t

ree-

pla

nti

ng,

en

viro

nm

enta

l im

pro

vem

ents

, an

d

ced

ing

lan

d t

o th

e p

ubl

ic;

2 H

isto

ric

En

viro

nm

ent

– in

clu

din

g re

stor

atio

n o

f a li

sted

bu

ild

ing,

on

goin

g m

ain

ten

ance

, ced

ing

pro

per

ty

to t

he

pu

blic

, rem

oval

/rec

ord

ing

of a

rch

aeol

ogic

al a

rtef

acts

;

3 So

cial

, Com

mu

nit

y an

d O

pen

Sp

ace

– in

clu

din

g w

orks

to

lan

d o

n o

r of

f sit

e to

imp

rove

qu

alit

y an

d

acce

ssib

ilit

y;

4 T

rave

l an

d T

ran

spor

t -

foot

pat

h e

nh

ance

men

ts, c

ycle

rou

tes,

ped

estr

ian

cro

ssin

g, o

ff-s

ite

cycl

e p

arki

ng,

bu

s sh

elte

r, b

us

serv

ice

subs

idy;

5 N

atu

ral r

esou

rces

an

d w

aste

man

agem

ent

faci

liti

es.

Th

e JI

L P

rop

osal

sta

tes

that

th

e P

OA

pro

cess

wil

l ch

ange

if a

JIL

is in

trod

uce

d t

o co

ver

only

sit

e-sp

ecif

ic

issu

es a

nd

th

e n

ew J

IL le

vy w

ill c

over

are

a-w

ide

imp

rove

men

ts. H

owev

er, a

n e

quiv

alen

t to

th

e E

ngl

ish

‘R

egu

lati

on 1

23’ l

ist

of in

fras

tru

ctu

re w

hic

h J

IL w

ould

be

exp

ecte

d t

o co

ver

has

not

yet

bee

n p

rep

ared

, hen

ce

is it

un

clea

r w

het

her

th

ere

wou

ld b

e ‘d

oubl

e-d

ipp

ing’

lead

ing

to p

erce

pti

ons

of p

oten

tial

‘dou

ble-

dip

pin

g’.

How

ever

, it

is c

lear

th

at t

he

exis

tin

g P

OA

obl

igat

ion

s co

ver

a w

ide

ran

ge o

f on

an

d o

ff-s

ite

infr

astr

uct

ure

- t

he

list

abo

ve o

f are

as w

her

e P

OA

s co

uld

be

requ

ired

is r

emar

kabl

y si

mil

ar t

o th

e li

st o

f pot

enti

al in

fras

tru

ctu

re

wh

ich

cou

ld b

e fu

nd

ed b

y JI

L s

et o

ut

on p

age

19 o

f th

e Je

rsey

In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

pos

al. T

he

ben

efit

of

JIL

is t

hu

s w

hol

ly u

ncl

ear.

Per

cen

tag

e fo

r A

rt

We

not

e th

at t

he

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y ex

clu

des

th

e 0

.75%

of

con

stru

ctio

n c

osts

wh

ich

dev

elop

ers

are

enco

ura

ged

to

mak

e as

a c

ontr

ibu

tion

to

Art

in J

erse

y. T

his

rep

rese

nts

an

oth

er e

xist

ing

cost

wh

ich

is c

urr

entl

y al

read

y be

ing

abso

rbed

by

dev

elop

ers.

Th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

stat

es t

hat

th

is c

ontr

ibu

tion

is a

ssu

med

to

be a

ssim

ilat

ed in

to a

ny

new

levy

. How

ever

, th

ere

is n

o m

enti

on o

f th

is a

nd

an

y p

oten

tial

ch

ange

s to

do

so w

ith

in t

he

Pro

pos

al. T

his

rep

rese

nts

just

on

e el

emen

t of

th

e ca

lcu

lati

on w

hic

h u

nd

erm

ines

th

e p

rop

osed

£8

5/sq

m J

IL c

har

ge p

rop

osed

.

4 A

t P

PG

ID

: 23b

-00

2

Pg 7/10

14726914v3

Ex

em

pti

on

s o

f si

tes

for

aff

ord

ab

le h

ou

sin

g

Un

der

th

e P

rop

osal

, aff

ord

able

hou

sin

g sc

hem

es w

ill b

e ex

emp

t fr

om J

IL. U

nli

ke in

th

e U

K, a

ffor

dab

le

hou

sin

g is

not

req

uir

ed o

n m

arke

t-le

d d

evel

opm

ents

, in

stea

d b

ein

g p

rovi

ded

dir

ectl

y th

rou

gh 1

00

%

affo

rdab

le h

ousi

ng

sch

emes

. At

pre

sen

t A

nd

ium

Hom

es (

the

form

er S

tate

s of

Jer

sey

Hou

sin

g D

epar

tmen

t,

wh

ich

is n

ow a

n a

rms-

len

gth

cor

por

atis

ed s

tate

-ow

ned

hou

sin

g co

mp

any)

is t

he

only

dev

elop

men

t bo

dy

wit

h

acce

ss t

o G

over

nm

ent

fun

din

g to

pro

vid

e su

ch a

ffor

dab

le h

omes

. Th

e as

sum

pti

on in

th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

(an

d

the

enti

re p

rem

ise

of t

he

JIL

ch

arge

) is

th

at t

he

cost

s of

a J

IL w

ill c

ome

off t

he

lan

d v

alu

e (a

s op

pos

ed t

o, fo

r ex

amp

le, b

ein

g a

cost

fron

ted

by

the

hom

e-bu

yer,

wh

ich

in t

he

case

of a

ffor

dab

le h

ousi

ng

wou

ld b

enef

it fi

rst

tim

e bu

yers

). J

eCC

has

rea

l con

cern

th

at t

his

eff

ecti

vely

mak

es t

he

intr

odu

ctio

n o

f a J

IL a

n a

nti

-com

pet

itiv

e p

olic

y w

hic

h, i

n t

erm

s of

acc

essi

ng

lan

d fo

r d

evel

opm

ent

in t

he

mar

ket,

dis

ben

efit

s p

riva

te d

evel

oper

s on

th

e Is

lan

d in

favo

ur

of, w

hat

is e

ffec

tive

ly, a

Sta

te b

ody.

Le

sso

ns

fro

m t

he

UK

: th

e C

IL R

ev

iew

(2

017

)

As

inte

nd

ed in

Jer

sey,

CIL

in t

he

UK

cam

e in

to fo

rce

wit

h t

he

inte

nti

on o

f pro

vid

ing

cert

ain

ty t

o d

evel

oper

s,

loca

l pla

nn

ing

auth

orit

ies

and

com

mu

nit

ies

on in

fras

tru

ctu

re a

nd

fun

din

g as

par

t of

new

dev

elop

men

t. I

n t

he

UK

, loc

al a

uth

orit

ies

hav

e be

en a

ble

to s

et C

IL c

har

ges

sin

ce le

gisl

atio

n c

ame

into

pla

ce in

Ap

ril 2

010

. D

esp

ite

the

Gov

ern

men

t’s

inte

nti

on o

f pro

vid

ing

of a

sim

ple

sys

tem

of l

and

val

ue

cap

ture

, CIL

has

(fa

mou

sly)

be

en s

ubj

ect

to r

epea

ted

legi

slat

ive

chan

ges

to t

ry a

nd

dea

l wit

h u

nfo

rese

en p

robl

ems

and

un

inte

nd

ed

adve

rse

con

sequ

ence

s. I

n N

ovem

ber

2015

th

e G

over

nm

ent

com

mis

sion

ed a

n in

dep

end

ent

revi

ew o

f CIL

to

asse

ss it

s ef

fect

iven

ess.

Th

e re

view

com

pri

sed

:

1 A

res

earc

h r

epor

t (p

rep

ared

by

Un

iver

sity

of R

ead

ing

and

Th

ree

Dra

gon

s), w

hic

h lo

oked

at

the

valu

e of

C

IL, w

ho

is p

ayin

g, h

ow m

uch

is b

ein

g pa

ssed

to

nei

ghbo

urh

ood

s an

d w

het

her

CIL

is a

ffec

tin

g vi

abil

ity;

an

d;

2 A

rep

ort

by t

he

CIL

Rev

iew

tea

m, w

hic

h is

info

rmed

by

the

fin

din

gs o

f th

e re

sear

ch r

epor

t. T

his

look

ed a

t (a

mon

gst

oth

ers)

th

e re

lati

onsh

ip b

etw

een

CIL

an

d S

ecti

on 1

06,

exe

mp

tion

s an

d r

elie

fs, a

dm

inis

trat

ive

arra

nge

men

ts r

egar

din

g C

IL, a

ny

imp

act

on v

iabi

lity

an

d t

he

geog

rap

hy

of C

IL.

Th

e re

por

ts’ f

ind

ings

wer

e p

ubl

ish

ed in

Feb

ruar

y 20

17, a

nd

incl

ud

e so

me

rele

van

t fi

nd

ings

an

d le

sson

s w

hic

h

are

of u

se t

o th

e G

over

nm

ent

of J

erse

y. W

e n

ote

the

JIL

Pro

pos

al a

ckn

owle

dge

s b0

th o

f th

ese

rep

orts

an

d

clai

ms

that

Jer

sey

can

‘lea

rn’ f

rom

th

e le

sson

s of

CIL

in t

he

UK

. Un

fort

un

atel

y, it

is w

hol

ly u

ncl

ear

exac

tly

wh

at t

his

mea

ns,

or

how

it h

as b

een

ref

lect

ed in

th

e co

nce

pt o

r d

esig

n o

f JIL

. Am

ongs

t ot

her

th

ings

, th

e C

IL

Rev

iew

Tea

m r

epor

t se

ts o

ut

that

:

T

he

CIL

Rev

iew

Gro

up

doe

s n

ot b

elie

ve C

IL is

rai

sin

g as

mu

ch m

oney

as

envi

sage

d b

y G

over

nm

ent

wh

en

it w

as in

trod

uce

d;

It

is e

stim

ated

th

at C

IL is

yie

ldin

g be

twee

n 5

% a

nd

20

% o

f th

e co

st o

f new

infr

astr

uct

ure

, lea

vin

g si

gnif

ican

t fu

nd

ing

gap

s. I

t is

rec

ogn

ised

th

at, a

lth

ough

idea

lly,

th

e le

vel o

f CIL

wou

ld b

e se

t by

th

e co

st

of in

fras

tru

ctu

re w

hic

h is

nee

ded

, in

rea

lity

th

is e

nd

s u

p b

ein

g ba

sed

on

via

bili

ty a

nd

wh

at d

evel

opm

ent

can

aff

ord

to

pay

;

T

he

stra

tegi

c n

atu

re o

f CIL

mea

ns

that

in o

rder

to

ensu

re a

ll s

chem

es a

re v

iabl

e, s

ome

hig

her

val

ue

dev

elop

men

ts a

re p

ayin

g le

ss t

han

un

der

th

e p

revi

ous

syst

em. T

his

is r

ecog

nis

ed a

s on

e be

nef

it o

f th

e Se

ctio

n 1

06

syst

em (

equ

ival

ent

to P

OA

in J

erse

y);

In

man

y ca

ses

loca

l au

thor

ity

hav

e ad

opte

d n

il o

r ve

ry lo

w C

IL r

ates

for

com

mer

cial

use

s as

a w

ay o

f en

cou

ragi

ng

econ

omic

gro

wth

;

O

vera

ll, “

CIL

ha

s n

ot p

rovi

ded

the

un

iver

sal a

nd

the

refo

re ‘f

air

for

all’

ap

pro

ach

to

dev

elop

er

con

trib

uti

ons

tha

t w

as

orig

ina

lly

envi

sag

ed”

(Rep

ort

by t

he

CIL

Rev

iew

Tea

m, p

ara

4.1.

3).

Pg 8/10

14726914v3

In a

pp

lyin

g a

‘flat

rat

e’ le

vy a

pp

roac

h in

Jer

sey

- an

are

a th

at is

bot

h d

isti

nct

an

d m

odes

t in

sca

le -

th

ere

is

sign

ific

ant

risk

th

at a

‘mis

-cal

ibra

ted

’ ap

pro

ach

(as

has

occ

urr

ed in

loca

l au

thor

itie

s ac

ross

En

glan

d a

nd

W

ales

) w

ill h

ave

a si

gnif

ican

t d

elet

erio

us

imp

act

on t

he

flow

of d

evel

opm

ent.

In

tu

rn t

his

wou

ld s

erio

usl

y u

nd

erm

ine

imp

lem

enta

tion

of t

he

Isla

nd

Pla

n.

Je

CC

Re

com

me

nd

ati

on

s

Bas

ed o

n o

ur

revi

ew o

f th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy,

on

beh

alf

of t

he

JeC

C, w

e p

rop

ose

the

foll

owin

g re

com

men

dat

ion

s fo

r th

e St

ates

of J

erse

y:

1 T

he

evid

ence

in t

he

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y sh

ows

sign

ific

ant

vari

atio

ns

in t

he

cost

of r

esid

enti

al la

nd

, an

d t

her

e is

litt

le a

vail

able

evi

den

ce o

n t

he

cost

of o

ther

typ

es o

f lan

d d

ue

to t

he

lim

ited

nu

mbe

r of

tra

nsa

ctio

ns

that

tak

e p

lace

. Giv

en t

he

dif

ficu

lty

in d

eter

min

ing

a si

ngl

e ch

arge

acr

oss

all d

evel

opm

ent

wh

ich

wou

ld

not

un

der

min

e th

e vi

abil

ity

of a

sig

nif

ican

t n

um

ber

of s

ites

, th

e St

ates

of J

erse

y sh

ou

ld n

ot

see

k t

o

imp

lem

en

t a

JIL

. It

sho

uld

in

ste

ad

co

nti

nu

e w

ith

th

e e

xis

tin

g P

OA

sys

tem

.

In t

he

even

t th

at t

he

Stat

es o

f Jer

sey

dec

ides

non

eth

eles

s to

con

tin

ue

wit

h p

rep

arat

ion

of a

JIL

ch

arge

, we

hav

e id

enti

fied

a n

um

ber

of s

ign

ific

ant

flaw

s w

ith

in t

he

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y w

hic

h s

hou

ld b

e co

rrec

ted

. Th

ese

are

esse

nti

al in

ord

er fo

r th

e St

ates

to

dem

onst

rate

s th

at a

ny

pro

pos

ed J

IL c

har

ge is

un

der

pin

ned

by

suit

able

an

d

robu

st e

vid

ence

(w

hic

h, a

t p

rese

nt,

we

beli

eve

it is

not

) T

he

flaw

s sh

ould

be

rem

edie

d b

y th

e fo

llow

ing:

2 T

est

brow

nfi

eld

sit

es b

ased

on

a r

ange

of e

xist

ing

use

s, in

clu

din

g of

fice

, ret

ail a

nd

hot

el u

ses,

wh

ich

are

m

ore

refl

ecti

ve o

f th

e si

te t

ypol

ogie

s li

kely

to

com

e fo

rwar

d in

th

e P

lan

per

iod

;

3 Se

nsi

tivi

ty t

est

thes

e va

lues

to

allo

w fo

r h

igh

er v

iabi

lity

th

resh

old

s an

d a

mor

e d

iver

se r

ange

of p

oten

tial

va

lues

, ref

lect

ing

the

grea

ter

ince

nti

ve o

ften

nee

ded

to

mak

e a

sale

an

d t

he

taxe

s w

hic

h a

pp

ly t

o p

rofi

ts,

as w

ell a

s be

tter

ref

lect

ing

the

div

erse

ran

ge o

f ou

tcom

es e

xper

ien

ced

in p

revi

ous

tran

sact

ion

s;

4 C

onsu

lt w

ith

sta

keh

old

ers

and

loca

l qu

anti

ty s

urv

eyor

firm

s to

rea

ch a

n a

gree

d c

onse

nsu

s ov

er b

uil

d

cost

s on

th

e Is

lan

d, i

ncl

ud

ing

sen

siti

vity

tes

tin

g of

th

is; a

nd

5 P

rovi

de

sign

ific

antl

y gr

eate

r cl

arit

y ov

er t

he

rela

tion

ship

of J

IL w

ith

PO

As

and

th

e in

fras

tru

ctu

re t

o be

fu

nd

ed b

y ea

ch t

o av

oid

pot

enti

al fo

r ac

tual

or

per

ceiv

ed ‘d

oubl

e d

ipp

ing’

.

On

ce t

he

abov

e h

ave

been

cor

rect

ed a

nd

agr

eed

up

on b

y al

l par

ties

, we

con

sid

er t

hat

th

ese

wil

l dem

onst

rate

it

is n

ot p

ossi

ble

to im

ple

men

t a

JIL

wit

hou

t u

nd

erm

inin

g th

e Is

lan

d P

lan

. In

th

e ev

ent

that

th

is w

ork

sugg

ests

impl

emen

tati

on o

f a J

IL m

ay s

till

be

pos

sibl

e, it

is in

ou

r vi

ew li

kely

to

be a

t a

sign

ific

antl

y lo

wer

ra

te t

han

th

e le

vel c

urr

entl

y p

rop

osed

, an

d m

ay d

emon

stra

te t

hat

in c

erta

in a

reas

(e.

g. w

ith

in b

uil

t-u

p a

reas

) or

sp

ecif

ic t

ypes

of s

ite

or d

evel

opm

ent,

a n

il J

IL r

ate

shou

ld b

e im

pos

ed.

Co

ncl

usi

on

We

tru

st t

hat

th

e ab

ove

repr

esen

tati

ons

and

th

e en

clos

ed R

evie

w o

f th

e V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

are

of a

ssis

tan

ce t

o th

e St

ates

of J

erse

y in

un

der

stan

din

g th

e co

nce

rns

of t

he

JeC

C o

ver

the

curr

ent

JIL

pro

pos

als,

an

d p

rovi

de

the

basi

s fo

r a

sign

ific

ant

reco

nsi

der

atio

n o

f th

e p

rop

osal

s. N

eith

er t

he

JeC

C n

or t

he

Stat

es o

f Jer

sey

wil

l w

ish

to

see

the

Isla

nd

Pla

n’s

obj

ecti

ves

and

sp

atia

l str

ateg

y fo

r d

evel

opm

ent

un

der

min

ed b

y a

mis

-cal

ibra

ted

le

vy-b

ased

app

roac

h a

nd

ou

r re

com

men

dat

ion

s ab

ove

are

des

ign

ed t

o as

sist

th

e St

ates

of J

erse

y in

en

suri

ng

this

doe

s n

ot o

ccu

r.

Pg 9/10

14726914v3

If y

ou h

ave

any

quer

ies

on t

hes

e re

pre

sen

tati

ons

or r

equ

ire

furt

her

info

rmat

ion

, ple

ase

do

not

hes

itat

e to

co

nta

ct m

e.

You

rs s

ince

rely

Ma

tth

ew

Sp

ry

Sen

ior

Dir

ecto

r C

opy

Jers

ey C

onst

ruct

ion

Cou

nci

l

Ap

pe

nd

ix 1

: Lic

hfi

eld

s re

view

of J

erse

y V

iabi

lity

Stu

dy

Pg 10/10

14726914v3

Ap

pe

nd

ix 1

: L

ich

fie

lds

revi

ew

of

Je

rse

y V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y

Je

rs

ey

In

fra

str

uc

tur

e L

ev

y

Pr

op

os

al

Re

vie

w o

f V

iab

ilit

y

As

se

ss

me

nt

Je

rse

y I

nfr

as

tru

ctu

re

Le

vy

Co

ns

ult

ati

on

Jer

sey

Co

nst

ruct

ion

Co

un

cil

Sep

tem

ber

20

17

© 2

01

7 N

ath

anie

l Lic

hfi

eld

& P

artn

ers

Ltd

, tra

din

g as

Lic

hfi

eld

s. A

ll R

igh

ts R

eser

ved

. Reg

iste

red

in

Engl

and

, no

. 277

81

16.

14

Reg

ent’

s W

har

f, A

ll Sa

ints

Str

eet,

Lo

nd

on

N1

9R

L Fo

rmat

ted

fo

r d

ou

ble

sid

ed p

rin

tin

g.

Pla

ns

bas

ed u

po

n O

rdn

ance

Su

rvey

map

pin

g w

ith

th

e p

erm

issi

on

of

Her

Maj

est

y’s

Stat

ion

ery

Off

ice.

©

Cro

wn

Co

pyr

igh

t re

serv

ed. L

icen

ce n

um

ber

AL5

06

84A

1

46

82

128

v1

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Co

nte

nts

1.0

In

tro

du

cti

on

1

Ba

ckg

rou

nd

1

2.0

P

oli

cy

Co

nte

xt

an

d G

uid

an

ce

– E

ng

lan

d

2

Na

tio

na

l P

lan

nin

g P

oli

cy F

ram

ewo

rk

2

Pla

nn

ing

Pra

ctic

e G

uid

an

ce

2

Oth

er G

uid

an

ce

4

3.0

R

ev

iew

of

Je

rse

y V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y

5

La

nd

Pri

ces

5

Bu

ild

co

sts

13

Via

bil

ity

Ass

essm

ents

14

Co

mp

ari

son

wit

h E

ng

lish

CIL

Ra

tes

19

4.0

C

on

clu

sio

ns

2

0

Rec

om

men

da

tio

ns

20

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

1

1.0

In

tro

du

cti

on

1.1

Lic

hfi

eld

s h

as

be

en a

sked

by

th

e J

erse

y C

on

stru

ctio

n C

ou

nci

l (“

Je

CC

”) a

nd

oth

er

sta

keh

old

ers

to

ma

ke

rep

rese

nta

tio

ns

on

th

eir

beh

alf

to

th

e S

tate

s o

f J

ers

ey c

on

sult

ati

on

on

th

e p

rop

ose

d J

erse

y

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

Le

vy

(“J

IL”)

. T

his

re

po

rt p

rov

ides

a r

evie

w o

f th

e J

erse

y V

iab

ilit

y A

sses

smen

t fo

r

Rev

iew

of

De

vel

op

er C

on

trib

uti

on

s (“

the

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

” “t

he

Stu

dy

”),

pu

bli

shed

in

Ma

y 2

017

an

d p

rep

are

d b

y c

on

sult

an

ts A

rup

an

d H

DH

.

1.2

T

he

Stu

dy

co

ncl

ud

es t

ha

t a

JIL

ra

te o

f b

etw

een

£5

0/s

qm

an

d £

150

/sq

m w

ou

ld b

e su

pp

ort

ed o

n

the

Isla

nd

. T

he

Sta

tes

of

Je

rsey

pro

po

ses

a c

ha

rge

of

£8

5/s

qm

on

res

ide

nti

al

dev

elo

pm

en

t

(res

ult

ing

in

a n

et i

ncr

ease

of

at

lea

st 7

5 s

qm

or

an

y n

ew

dw

elli

ng

) a

nd

£8

5/s

qm

on

off

ice

an

d

reta

il s

pa

ce.

Ba

ck

gr

ou

nd

1.3

T

he

con

cep

t o

f a

n i

nfr

ast

ruct

ure

lev

y i

s a

n e

sta

bli

shed

on

e in

a U

K c

on

tex

t. W

ith

in E

ng

lan

d a

nd

Wa

les,

le

gis

lati

on

ca

me

into

fo

rce

in

20

10 t

o a

llo

w l

oca

l p

lan

nin

g a

uth

ori

ties

(“L

PA

s”)

to

imp

lem

en

t a

co

mm

un

ity

in

fra

stru

ctu

re l

evy

(“C

IL”)

. T

his

wa

s a

fla

t ra

te c

on

trib

uti

on

ma

de

acr

oss

dev

elo

pm

ents

(a

lth

ou

gh

LP

As

can

va

ry r

ate

s a

cro

ss t

hei

r a

rea

, b

y t

yp

e o

f d

ev

elo

pm

ent

or

sca

le o

f d

evel

op

men

t) t

o c

on

trib

ute

to

lo

cal

an

d w

ider

in

fra

stru

ctu

re.

1.4

A

s a

t 2

017

, co

ver

ag

e o

f C

IL c

ha

rgin

g s

ched

ule

s is

pa

tch

y a

cro

ss E

ng

lan

d a

nd

Wa

les.

So

me

LP

As

ha

ve

sim

ply

no

t o

pte

d t

o i

mp

lem

en

t a

CIL

ch

arg

ing

sch

edu

le (

for

exa

mp

le,

du

e to

fa

vo

uri

ng

Sec

tio

n 1

06

ag

reem

en

ts),

so

me

ha

ve

fou

nd

CIL

to

be

un

via

ble

so

are

no

t a

ble

to

im

ple

men

t C

IL,

an

d o

ther

s h

av

e u

sed

CIL

in

co

mb

ina

tio

n w

ith

Sec

tio

n 1

06

(th

e E

ng

lan

d a

nd

Wa

les

equ

iva

len

t o

f

Jer

sey

’s P

lan

nin

g O

bli

ga

tio

n A

gre

em

ents

) to

va

ryin

g d

egre

es.

Th

e su

cces

s o

f C

IL h

as

bee

n

con

sid

ered

by

an

in

de

pen

den

t re

po

rt c

om

mis

sio

ned

by

Go

ver

nm

ent,

pu

bli

shed

in

20

17,

wh

ich

we

dis

cuss

in

ou

r m

ain

re

pre

sen

tati

on

.

1.5

Th

e S

tate

s o

f J

erse

y i

s cu

rren

tly

see

kin

g t

o i

mp

lem

ent

a b

roa

dly

sim

ila

r le

vy

– a

Jer

sey

Infr

ast

ruct

ure

Le

vy

(“J

IL”)

on

res

ide

nti

al,

off

ice

an

d c

om

mer

cia

l d

evel

op

me

nts

. It

pro

po

ses

to

giv

e th

e P

ari

shes

10

% o

f th

ese

lev

ies

an

d p

ote

nti

all

y m

ore

wh

ere

a V

illa

ge

Pla

n i

s in

pla

ce.

1.6

T

he

Stu

dy

un

der

pin

s th

e p

rop

ose

d J

IL r

ate

. H

ow

ever

, L

ich

fiel

ds

an

d t

he

JeC

C h

av

e a

nu

mb

er o

f

crit

icis

ms

of

the

Stu

dy

’s a

ssu

mp

tio

ns

an

d a

pp

roa

ch,

as

wel

l a

s th

e p

rin

cip

le o

f th

e in

tro

du

ctio

n

of

a J

IL a

lto

get

her

in

th

e u

niq

ue

con

tex

t o

f J

erse

y.

Th

e cr

itic

ism

s o

f th

e S

tud

y a

re e

xp

lore

d i

n

this

re

po

rt,

wh

ich

sh

ou

ld b

e re

ad

alo

ng

sid

e o

ur

ma

in l

ette

r o

f re

pre

sen

tati

on

s.

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 2

2.0

P

oli

cy

Co

nte

xt

an

d G

uid

an

ce

– E

ng

lan

d

2.1

W

hil

st t

he

pla

nn

ing

sy

stem

, d

evel

op

me

nt

ind

ust

ry a

nd

ho

usi

ng

ma

rket

are

sel

f-e

vid

entl

y n

ot

the

sam

e b

etw

een

En

gla

nd

an

d J

erse

y,

ther

e a

re s

imil

ari

tie

s in

ter

ms

of

the

pri

nci

ple

s u

nd

erp

inn

ing

bo

th C

IL (

in E

ng

lan

d)

an

d t

he

pro

po

sed

JIL

. In

pra

ctic

al

term

s, t

he

sam

e ch

all

eng

es e

xis

t in

term

s o

f d

evis

ing

a l

ev

y-b

ase

d a

pp

roa

ch t

ha

t is

eff

ecti

ve

in d

eliv

erin

g i

ts o

bje

ctiv

es o

f tr

yin

g t

o

fun

d i

nfr

ast

ruct

ure

wh

ilst

at

the

sam

e ti

me

no

t st

ym

iein

g d

evel

op

men

t a

cro

ss t

he

are

a.

It i

s in

this

co

nte

xt

tha

t th

e p

rin

cip

les

an

d g

uid

an

ce s

et o

ut

wit

hin

En

gla

nd

’s n

ati

on

al

po

licy

pro

vid

es

use

ful

con

tex

t fo

r co

nsi

der

ing

ho

w a

JIL

mig

ht

be

fra

med

an

d t

he

ba

sis

for

rev

iew

ing

th

e

via

bil

ity

ev

ide

nce

un

der

pin

nin

g t

he

JIL

as

pro

po

sed

. C

lea

rly

, th

is a

na

lysi

s is

no

t p

ut

forw

ard

as

bei

ng

th

e a

pp

lica

ble

po

licy

fra

mew

ork

fo

r J

erse

y a

s th

at

is a

ma

tter

fo

r th

e S

tate

s o

f J

erse

y i

tsel

f.

Na

tio

na

l P

lan

nin

g P

oli

cy

Fr

am

ew

or

k

2.2

T

he

Na

tio

na

l P

lan

nin

g P

oli

cy F

ram

ewo

rk (

NP

PF

) is

th

e G

ov

ern

me

nt’

s a

pp

roa

ch t

o o

per

ati

on

of

the

pla

nn

ing

sy

stem

in

En

gla

nd

, u

nd

erp

inn

ed b

y a

fo

cus

on

‘su

sta

ina

ble

dev

elo

pm

ent’

. In

ensu

rin

g s

ust

ain

ab

le d

ev

elo

pm

en

t, t

he

NP

PF

ref

ere

nce

s th

e n

eed

to

en

sure

de

vel

op

me

nt

is

via

ble

(p

ara

17

3),

sta

tin

g:

“Pu

rsu

ing

su

sta

ina

ble

dev

elo

pm

ent

req

uir

es c

are

ful

att

enti

on

to

via

bil

ity

an

d c

ost

s in

pla

n-

ma

kin

g a

nd

dec

isio

n-t

ak

ing

. P

lan

s sh

ou

ld b

e d

eliv

era

ble

. T

her

efo

re,

the

site

s a

nd

th

e sc

ale

of

dev

elo

pm

ent

iden

tifi

ed i

n t

he

pla

n s

ho

uld

no

t b

e su

bje

ct t

o s

uch

a s

cale

of

ob

lig

ati

on

s a

nd

po

licy

bu

rden

s th

at

thei

r a

bil

ity

to

be

dev

elo

ped

via

bly

is

thre

ate

ned

. T

o e

nsu

re v

iab

ilit

y,

the

cost

s o

f a

ny

req

uir

emen

ts l

ikel

y t

o b

e a

pp

lied

to

dev

elo

pm

ent,

su

ch a

s re

qu

irem

ents

fo

r

aff

ord

ab

le h

ou

sin

g,

sta

nd

ard

s, i

nfr

ast

ruct

ure

co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

or

oth

er r

equ

irem

ents

sh

ou

ld,

wh

en t

ak

ing

acc

ou

nt

of

the

no

rma

l co

st o

f d

evel

op

men

t a

nd

mit

iga

tio

n,

pro

vid

e co

mp

etit

ive

retu

rns

to a

wil

lin

g l

an

d o

wn

er a

nd

wil

lin

g d

evel

op

er t

o e

na

ble

th

e d

evel

op

men

t to

be

del

iver

ab

le.”

(o

ur

emp

ha

sis)

2.3

In

oth

er w

ord

s, t

his

est

ab

lish

es t

he

key

pri

nci

ple

th

at

an

y i

nfr

ast

ruct

ure

le

vy

sh

ou

ld n

ot

be

set

at

such

a l

evel

or

in s

uch

a w

ay

as

to f

un

da

men

tall

y u

nd

erm

ine

via

bil

ity

an

d s

teri

lise

gro

wth

/de

vel

op

men

t a

cro

ss a

n a

rea

.

Pla

nn

ing

Pr

ac

tic

e G

uid

an

ce

2.4

T

he

pri

nci

ple

s se

t o

ut

in t

he

NP

PF

are

su

pp

lem

ente

d b

y g

uid

an

ce o

n v

iab

ilit

y a

nd

CIL

wit

hin

En

gla

nd

’s P

lan

nin

g P

ract

ice

Gu

ida

nce

(P

PG

), w

hic

h r

eit

era

tes

the

nee

d f

or

pla

nn

ing

au

tho

riti

es

to s

et t

he

sca

le o

f o

bli

ga

tio

ns

such

th

at

the

Lo

cal

Pla

n i

s n

ot

un

der

min

ed.

Ag

ain

st,

the

bel

ow

is

no

t se

t o

ut

bec

au

se i

t is

th

e r

elev

an

t g

uid

an

ce f

or

Jer

sey

, b

ut

bec

au

se i

t se

ts o

ut

som

e u

sefu

l

pri

nci

ple

s to

wh

ich

th

e d

esig

n o

f a

JIL

mig

ht

use

full

y s

ub

scri

be.

Th

e P

PG

cla

rifi

es,

am

on

gst

oth

er t

hin

gs,

th

at:

“Ch

arg

ing

au

tho

riti

es s

ho

uld

set

a r

ate

wh

ich

do

es n

ot

thre

ate

n t

he

ab

ilit

y t

o d

evel

op

via

bly

the

site

s a

nd

sca

le o

f d

evel

op

men

t id

enti

fied

in

th

e re

lev

an

t P

lan

” (

ID 2

5-0

08

)

Th

e le

vy

is

exp

ecte

d t

o h

av

e a

po

siti

ve

eco

no

mic

eff

ect

on

dev

elo

pm

ent

acr

oss

a l

oca

l p

lan

are

a.

Wh

en d

ecid

ing

th

e le

vy

ra

tes,

an

ap

pro

pri

ate

ba

lan

ce m

ust

be

stru

ck b

etw

een

ad

dit

ion

al

inv

estm

ent

to s

up

po

rt d

evel

op

men

t a

nd

th

e p

ote

nti

al

effe

ct o

n t

he

via

bil

ity

of

dev

elo

pm

ents

….

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

3

Th

is b

ala

nce

is

at

the

cen

tre

of

the

cha

rge

-set

tin

g p

roce

ss.

In m

eeti

ng

th

e re

gu

lato

ry

req

uir

emen

ts (

see

reg

ula

tio

n 1

4(1

), a

s a

men

ded

by

th

e 2

014

Reg

ula

tio

ns)

, ch

arg

ing

au

tho

riti

es

sho

uld

be

ab

le t

o s

ho

w a

nd

ex

pla

in h

ow

th

eir

pro

po

sed

lev

y r

ate

(o

r ra

tes)

wil

l co

ntr

ibu

te

tow

ard

s th

e im

ple

men

tati

on

of

thei

r re

lev

an

t p

lan

an

d s

up

po

rt d

evel

op

men

t a

cro

ss t

hei

r

are

a…

.(ID

25

-00

9)

(ou

r em

ph

asi

s)

2.5

W

hen

set

tin

g o

ut

ho

w d

ev

elo

pm

ent

sho

uld

be

va

lued

fo

r th

e p

urp

ose

s o

f C

IL,

the

PP

G s

tate

s;

“A c

ha

rgin

g a

uth

ori

ty s

ho

uld

use

an

are

a-b

ase

d a

pp

roa

ch,

inv

olv

ing

a b

roa

d t

est

of

via

bil

ity

acr

oss

th

eir

are

a,

as

the

evid

ence

ba

se t

o u

nd

erp

in t

hei

r ch

arg

e. T

he

au

tho

rity

wil

l n

eed

to

be

ab

le t

o s

ho

w w

hy

th

ey c

on

sid

er t

ha

t th

e p

rop

ose

d l

evy

ra

te o

r ra

tes

set

an

ap

pro

pri

ate

ba

lan

ce

bet

wee

n t

he

nee

d t

o f

un

d i

nfr

ast

ruct

ure

an

d t

he

po

ten

tia

l im

pli

cati

on

s fo

r th

e ec

on

om

ic

via

bil

ity

of

dev

elo

pm

ent

acr

oss

th

eir

are

a.

Th

ere

are

a n

um

ber

of

va

lua

tio

n m

od

els

an

d m

eth

od

olo

gie

s a

va

ila

ble

to

ch

arg

ing

au

tho

riti

es

to h

elp

th

em i

n p

rep

ari

ng

th

is e

vid

ence

. T

her

e is

no

req

uir

emen

t to

use

on

e o

f th

ese

mo

del

s, b

ut

cha

rgin

g a

uth

ori

ties

ma

y f

ind

it

hel

pfu

l in

def

end

ing

th

eir

lev

y r

ate

s if

th

ey d

o.

A c

ha

rgin

g a

uth

ori

ty m

ust

use

‘ap

pro

pri

ate

av

ail

ab

le e

vid

ence

’ (a

s d

efin

ed i

n t

he

sect

ion

211

(7A

) o

f th

e P

lan

nin

g A

ct 2

00

8)

to i

nfo

rm t

hei

r d

raft

ch

arg

ing

sch

edu

le.

Th

e g

ov

ern

men

t

reco

gn

ises

th

at

the

av

ail

ab

le d

ata

is

un

lik

ely

to

be

full

y c

om

pre

hen

siv

e. C

ha

rgin

g a

uth

ori

ties

nee

d t

o d

emo

nst

rate

th

at

thei

r p

rop

ose

d l

evy

ra

te o

r ra

tes

are

in

form

ed b

y ‘a

pp

rop

ria

te

av

ail

ab

le’ e

vid

ence

an

d c

on

sist

ent

wit

h t

ha

t ev

iden

ce a

cro

ss t

hei

r a

rea

as

a w

ho

le.

A c

ha

rgin

g a

uth

ori

ty s

ho

uld

dra

w o

n e

xis

tin

g d

ata

wh

ere

ver

it

is a

va

ila

ble

. T

hey

ma

y

con

sid

er a

ra

ng

e o

f d

ata

, in

clu

din

g v

alu

es o

f la

nd

in

bo

th e

xis

tin

g a

nd

pla

nn

ed u

ses,

an

d

pro

per

ty p

rice

s –

fo

r ex

am

ple

, h

ou

se p

rice

in

dic

es a

nd

ra

tea

ble

va

lues

fo

r co

mm

erci

al

pro

per

ty.

Th

ey m

ay

als

o w

an

t to

bu

ild

on

wo

rk u

nd

ert

ak

en t

o i

nfo

rm t

hei

r a

sses

smen

ts o

f

lan

d a

va

ila

bil

ity

.

In a

dd

itio

n,

a c

ha

rgin

g a

uth

ori

ty s

ho

uld

dir

ectl

y s

am

ple

an

ap

pro

pri

ate

ra

ng

e o

f ty

pes

of

site

s

acr

oss

its

are

a,

in o

rder

to

su

pp

lem

ent

exis

tin

g d

ata

. T

his

wil

l re

qu

ire

sup

po

rt f

rom

lo

cal

dev

elo

per

s. T

he

exer

cise

sh

ou

ld f

ocu

s o

n s

tra

teg

ic s

ites

on

wh

ich

th

e re

lev

an

t P

lan

(th

e L

oca

l

Pla

n i

n E

ng

lan

d,

Lo

cal

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Pla

n i

n W

ale

s, a

nd

th

e L

on

do

n P

lan

in

Lo

nd

on

) re

lies

,

an

d t

ho

se s

ites

wh

ere

the

imp

act

of

the

lev

y o

n e

con

om

ic v

iab

ilit

y i

s li

kel

y t

o b

e m

ost

sig

nif

ica

nt

(su

ch a

s b

row

nfi

eld

sit

es).

A c

ha

rgin

g a

uth

ori

ty’s

pro

po

sed

ra

te o

r ra

tes

sho

uld

be

rea

son

ab

le,

giv

en t

he

av

ail

ab

le

evid

ence

, b

ut

ther

e is

no

req

uir

emen

t fo

r a

pro

po

sed

ra

te t

o e

xa

ctly

mir

ror

the

evid

ence

. F

or

exa

mp

le,

this

mig

ht

no

t b

e a

pp

rop

ria

te i

f th

e ev

iden

ce p

oin

ted

to

set

tin

g a

ch

arg

e ri

gh

t a

t th

e

ma

rgin

s o

f v

iab

ilit

y.

Th

ere

is r

oo

m f

or

som

e p

rag

ma

tism

. It

wo

uld

be

ap

pro

pri

ate

to

en

sure

tha

t a

‘bu

ffer

’ or

ma

rgin

is

incl

ud

ed,

so t

ha

t th

e le

vy

ra

te i

s a

ble

to

su

pp

ort

dev

elo

pm

ent

wh

en

eco

no

mic

cir

cum

sta

nce

s a

dju

st.

In a

ll c

ase

s, t

he

cha

rgin

g a

uth

ori

ty s

ho

uld

be

ab

le t

o e

xp

lain

its

ap

pro

ach

cle

arl

y.

(ID

25

-019

) (o

ur

emp

ha

sis)

2.6

W

hen

dis

cuss

ing

ho

w d

evel

op

men

t co

sts

sho

uld

be

refl

ecte

d w

he

n s

etti

ng

CIL

, th

e P

PG

cla

rifi

es

tha

t p

lan

nin

g a

uth

ori

ties

nee

d t

o h

av

e “a

rea

list

ic u

nd

erst

an

din

g o

f co

sts”

(ID

25

-02

0)

an

d t

ha

t

thes

e sh

ou

ld i

ncl

ud

e co

sts

fro

m e

xis

tin

g r

egu

lato

ry r

eq

uir

eme

nts

an

d a

ny

po

lici

es

on

pla

nn

ing

ob

lig

ati

on

s in

th

e r

elev

an

t P

lan

. T

he

PP

G g

oes

on

to

co

nfi

rm t

ha

t L

PA

s ca

n s

et d

iffe

ren

t C

IL

rate

s b

y a

rea

, ty

pe

of

de

vel

op

me

nt

or

size

of

dev

elo

pm

en

t (I

D 2

5-0

21)

. T

he

JIL

do

es

no

t p

rop

ose

dif

fere

nti

al

rate

s b

y a

rea

, a

lth

ou

gh

it

do

es p

rop

ose

dif

fere

nt

rate

s b

y c

erta

in t

yp

es o

f

dev

elo

pm

ent;

in

du

stri

al

an

d s

om

e fo

rms

of

com

me

rcia

l d

evel

op

men

t a

re p

rop

ose

d t

o h

av

e a

nil

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 4

JIL

ch

arg

e,

wh

ile

resi

de

nti

al,

off

ice

an

d r

eta

il d

evel

op

men

t is

pro

po

sed

to

ha

ve

a c

ha

rge

of

£8

5/s

qm

.

Oth

er

Gu

ida

nc

e

2.7

O

ther

fo

rms

of

gu

ida

nce

ex

ist

in t

he

form

of

the

Ha

rma

n G

uid

an

ce1 a

nd

th

e R

ICS

Gu

ida

nce

2 ;

ho

we

ver

th

ese

are

set

ou

t in

Ch

ap

ter

2 o

f th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y a

nd

th

rou

gh

ou

t a

nd

hen

ce a

re n

ot

rep

eate

d h

ere.

1 V

iab

ility

Tes

tin

g Lo

cal P

lan

s: A

dvi

ce f

or

pla

nn

ing

pra

ctit

ion

ers

- h

ttp

s://

ww

w.lo

cal.g

ov.

uk/

site

s/d

efau

lt/f

iles/

do

cum

ents

/via

bili

ty-

test

ing-

loca

l-p

-50

c.p

df

2 R

ICS

Pro

fess

ion

al G

uid

ance

, En

glan

d: F

inan

cial

Via

bili

ty in

Pla

nn

ing

htt

p:/

/ww

w.r

ics.

org

/Do

cum

ents

/Fin

anci

al%

20

viab

ility

%2

0in

%2

0p

lan

nin

g.p

df

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/viability-testing-local-p-50c.pdf

https://www.local.gov.uk/sites/default/files/documents/viability-testing-local-p-50c.pdf

http://www.rics.org/Documents/Financial%20viability%20in%20planning.pdf

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

5

3.0

R

ev

iew

of

Je

rs

ey

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

3.1

T

he

Stu

dy

’s c

on

clu

sio

ns,

an

d t

he

con

clu

sio

ns

on

th

e le

vel

of

JIL

th

at

dev

elo

pm

en

t in

Jer

sey

cou

ld b

ear,

are

ult

ima

tely

dra

wn

fro

m a

nu

mb

er o

f v

iab

ilit

y a

pp

rais

als

fo

r d

iffe

ren

t ty

pes

of

dev

elo

pm

ent

wh

ich

ea

ch e

mb

ed a

ser

ies

of

ass

um

pti

on

s a

rou

nd

th

e v

alu

es a

nd

co

sts

of

dev

elo

pm

ent

on

th

e is

lan

d.

Th

e ro

bu

stn

ess

of

the

Stu

dy

’s c

on

clu

sio

ns

is t

he

refo

re d

irec

tly

rela

ted

to

th

e re

aso

na

ble

ne

ss o

f th

ose

in

div

idu

al

ass

um

pti

on

s. L

ich

fiel

ds

an

d t

he

JeC

C h

av

e

con

sid

era

ble

co

nce

rns

wit

h t

he

ass

um

pti

on

s a

nd

ap

pro

ach

es a

do

pte

d w

ith

in t

he

Stu

dy

an

d

thes

e a

re s

et o

ut

as

foll

ow

s.

La

nd

Pr

ice

s

Alt

er

na

tiv

e u

se

va

lue

s

3.2

D

evel

op

me

nts

on

bro

wn

fiel

d l

an

d h

av

e a

n a

ssu

med

alt

ern

ati

ve

lan

d u

se v

alu

e o

f in

du

stri

al

lan

d

(pa

ra 6

.8).

Th

e st

ud

y (

pa

ra 6

.28

) in

dic

ate

s th

at

this

va

lue

is £

1.9

m/h

a.

3.3

A

s a

pre

lim

ina

ry i

ssu

e,

the

Stu

dy

sta

tes

tha

t “w

e h

av

e n

o e

vid

ence

of

wa

reh

ou

se l

an

d

tra

nsa

ctio

ns

at

this

tim

e.”

(pa

ra 6

.27

) b

efo

re g

oin

g o

n t

o m

ak

e a

n a

ssu

mp

tio

n o

n t

he

va

lue

of

ind

ust

ria

l la

nd

. T

his

est

ima

te d

oes

no

t a

pp

ear

to b

e e

vid

ence

-ba

sed

an

d d

oes

no

t ci

te s

pec

ific

exa

mp

les

of

the

va

lue

of

ind

ust

ria

l la

nd

in

Jer

sey

. T

his

ref

lect

s th

e fa

ct t

ha

t th

ere

is l

ittl

e

ind

ust

ria

l la

nd

wit

hin

Jer

sey

; h

isto

rica

lly

th

e m

ain

in

du

stri

es h

av

e b

een

fa

rmin

g a

nd

ho

spit

ali

ty.

It i

s th

ere

fore

qu

esti

on

ab

le h

ow

th

is f

igu

re c

an

be

use

d a

s a

ben

chm

ark

wh

en

tes

tin

g v

iab

ilit

y.

Th

e S

tud

y i

tsel

f st

ate

s th

at

this

is

a “

rela

tiv

ely

lo

w”

va

lue

(pa

ra 1

0.1

3).

3.4

In

ad

dit

ion

, n

ot

all

bro

wn

fiel

d s

ites

wil

l h

av

e b

een

pre

vio

usl

y i

n i

nd

ust

ria

l u

se,

an

d t

hes

e m

ay

ha

ve

a m

uch

hig

her

va

lue

tha

n a

ssu

med

in

th

e S

tud

y (

wh

ich

, a

s n

ote

d,

do

es n

ot

ap

pea

r it

self

to

be

ba

sed

on

an

y e

vid

ence

). W

ith

in i

ts a

sses

smen

t o

f v

iab

ilit

y,

the

Stu

dy

ass

um

es (

wit

h t

he

exce

pti

on

of

sma

ll p

ad

do

ck s

ite

dev

elo

pm

en

ts,

on

e re

sid

enti

al

con

ver

sio

n s

chem

e a

nd

tw

o o

ffic

e

con

ver

sio

ns)

th

at

all

bro

wn

fiel

d s

ites

are

in

in

du

stri

al

use

an

d t

her

efo

re h

av

e in

du

stri

al

lan

d

va

lue

(of

£1.

9m

/ha

). T

he

Stu

dy

its

elf

acc

epts

th

is l

imit

ati

on

, b

ut

it i

s n

ot

then

ref

lect

ed w

ith

in

the

via

bil

ity

mo

del

lin

g,

mea

nin

g o

ne

sho

uld

be

ver

y c

au

tio

us

ind

eed

ab

ou

t b

asi

ng

co

ncl

usi

on

s

up

on

it:

“It

is i

mp

ort

an

t to

no

te t

ha

t m

uch

of

the

dev

elo

pm

ent

tha

t d

oes

co

me

forw

ard

in

St

Hel

ier

in

pa

rtic

ula

r is

on

pre

vio

usl

y d

evel

op

ed l

an

d t

ha

t h

as

a v

alu

e th

at

is g

rea

ter

tha

n a

n i

nd

ust

ria

l

va

lue.

” (p

ara

6.6

1)

3.5

B

row

nfi

eld

la

nd

lo

cate

d i

n b

uil

t-u

p a

rea

s -

wh

ich

is

wh

ere

the

Co

un

cil

inte

nd

s to

co

nce

ntr

ate

mo

st d

evel

op

men

t -

ma

y h

av

e d

iffe

ren

t a

lter

na

tiv

e u

se v

alu

es h

igh

er t

ha

n i

nd

ust

ria

l. T

hes

e

bro

wn

fiel

d s

ites

ma

y h

av

e b

een

in

a n

um

ber

of

pre

vio

us

use

s in

clu

din

g h

ote

ls o

r o

ffic

es,

an

d o

ne

mem

ber

of

the

JeC

C g

av

e e

xa

mp

les

of

bro

wn

fiel

d s

ites

wh

ich

wer

e cu

rre

ntl

y i

n u

se a

s ca

r

pa

rkin

g/r

eta

il,

an

d a

no

the

r in

use

as

a b

an

k.

We

no

te t

ha

t w

hil

e th

e S

tud

y h

as

mo

del

led

off

ice

con

ver

sio

n s

che

mes

, it

ha

s n

ot

mo

del

led

an

y b

row

nfi

eld

dev

elo

pm

ents

in

oth

er p

rev

iou

s u

ses

eith

er a

s co

nv

ersi

on

s o

r re

dev

elo

pm

ents

. T

hes

e si

tes

cou

ld h

av

e a

su

bst

an

tia

lly

hig

her

alt

ern

ati

ve

use

va

lue

to t

he

£1.

9m

/ha

ass

um

ed (

ag

ain

, n

oti

ng

th

at

this

fig

ure

is

no

t ev

iden

ce-

ba

sed

).

Alt

er

na

tiv

e u

se

- R

eta

il

3.6

B

y w

ay

of

illu

stra

tio

n,

the

Stu

dy

giv

es t

he

va

lue

of

seco

nd

ary

la

nd

va

lues

fo

r re

tail

sit

es o

f £

37

5-

£7

00

/sq

m (

pa

ra 6

.35

), w

hic

h i

s su

bst

an

tia

lly

hig

her

th

an

th

e £

32

0/s

qm

(p

ara

6.2

7)

for

ind

ust

ria

l la

nd

. T

he

va

lue

of

seco

nd

ary

sit

es p

er h

ecta

re t

her

efo

re r

an

ge

fro

m £

3.7

5m

/ha

to

£7

m/h

a (

alt

ho

ug

h t

his

ass

um

es 1

00

% c

ov

era

ge

wh

ich

ma

y b

e o

ver

-re

pre

sen

tati

ve

).

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 6

3.7

T

he

Stu

dy

’s e

xis

tin

g f

igu

res

(fo

r re

sid

ua

l v

alu

e v

s ex

isti

ng

va

lue

an

d v

iab

ilit

y t

hre

sho

ld)

for

the

bro

wn

fiel

d s

ites

, b

ase

d o

n a

n i

nd

ust

ria

l v

alu

e, a

re s

ho

wn

gra

ph

ica

lly

in

Fig

ure

3.1

bel

ow

. It

is

clea

r th

at

for

thes

e s

ites

, th

e re

sid

ua

l v

alu

e w

ou

ld a

pp

ea

r to

ex

ceed

ex

isti

ng

use

va

lue

(E

UV

) a

nd

via

bil

ity

th

resh

old

co

mfo

rta

bly

.

Figu

re 3

.1 R

esid

ual

Val

ue

of

Bro

wn

fie

ld S

ites

co

mp

ared

to

Alt

ern

ativ

e U

se V

alu

e (I

nd

ust

rial

) an

d V

iab

ility

Th

resh

old

Sou

rce:

Lic

hfi

eld

s b

ased

on

Tab

le 1

0.2

of

the

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

3.8

H

ow

ever

, fo

r co

mp

ari

son

, th

e re

sid

ua

l v

alu

es o

f th

ese

site

s w

hen

co

mp

are

d w

ith

se

con

da

ry

reta

il v

alu

es a

re s

ho

wn

in

Fig

ure

3.2

. F

or

sim

pli

city

, th

e v

alu

es (

£m

/ha

) h

av

e b

een

ca

lcu

late

d

ass

um

ing

10

0%

co

ver

ag

e (w

hic

h m

ay

no

t b

e th

e ca

se f

or

all

sit

es,

an

d m

ay

be

slig

htl

y l

ow

er),

ho

we

ver

it

is e

vid

ent

tha

t th

ere

are

ver

y f

ew s

ites

wh

ich

co

mfo

rta

bly

ex

ceed

th

e u

pp

er e

nd

of

the

ran

ge

.

3.9

D

esp

ite

the

Stu

dy

acc

epti

ng

th

at

bro

wn

fiel

d l

an

d v

alu

es i

n t

he

bu

ilt-

up

are

as

are

lik

ely

to

be

hig

her

th

an

in

du

stri

al

va

lue

s, w

hic

h h

as

bee

n s

up

po

rte

d b

y i

nfo

rma

tio

n p

rov

ided

to

Lic

hfi

eld

s

by

me

mb

ers

of

the

Je

CC

an

d t

hei

r e

xp

eri

en

ces

in d

evel

op

ing

bro

wn

fiel

d s

ites

, th

is i

s

un

fort

un

ate

ly n

ot

refl

ecte

d i

n t

he

Stu

dy

’s a

sses

smen

t. T

he

sen

siti

vit

ies

un

der

tak

en

fo

r

alt

ern

ati

ve

via

bil

ity

th

resh

old

s (s

ee T

ab

le 1

0.3

of

the

Stu

dy

) a

re t

este

d u

p t

o a

th

resh

old

of

£6

.5m

/ha

(a

t w

hic

h s

ix o

f th

e to

tal

site

s b

eco

me

un

via

ble

), h

ow

eve

r th

is i

s st

ill

bel

ow

th

e u

pp

er

end

of

the

ran

ge

for

seco

nd

ary

ret

ail

sp

ace

. S

eco

nd

ary

ret

ail

sp

ace

is

a l

ikel

y f

utu

re c

on

trib

uto

r

to h

ou

sin

g d

evel

op

me

nt

in J

erse

y a

nd

th

e S

tud

y i

s fl

aw

ed b

y f

ail

ing

to

ad

equ

ate

ass

ess

thes

e

scen

ari

os.

Ind

ust

rial

Via

bili

ty T

hre

sho

ld

02468

10

12

14

16

18

20

Site

1Si

te 2

Site

3Si

te 4

Site

5Si

te 6

Site

7Si

te 8

Site

11

Site

12

Site

13

Site

14

Value £m/ha

Site

s te

ste

d a

s b

row

nfi

eld

in

in

du

stri

al u

se

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

7

Figu

re 3

.2 R

esid

ual

Val

ue

of

Bro

wn

fie

ld S

ites

co

mp

ared

to

Alt

ern

ativ

e U

se V

alu

e (S

eco

nd

ary

Re

tail)

an

d V

iab

ility

Th

resh

old

Sou

rce:

Lic

hfi

eld

s b

ased

on

Tab

le 1

0.2

of

the

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

3.1

0

By

wa

y o

f fu

rth

er i

llu

stra

tio

n,

Fig

ure

3.3

sh

ow

s th

e re

sid

ua

l v

alu

es c

om

pa

red

wit

h p

rim

ary

ret

ail

lan

d v

alu

es.

Ag

ain

, w

hil

e th

ese

cou

ld b

e sl

igh

tly

ov

er-e

stim

ate

s o

f la

nd

va

lue

, th

ey n

on

eth

eles

s

dem

on

stra

te t

ha

t m

an

y s

ite

s w

ou

ld b

e a

t th

e m

arg

ins

of

via

bil

ity

. D

ev

elo

pm

ent

of

pri

ma

ry r

eta

il

spa

ce m

ay

be

a r

eali

stic

so

urc

e o

f b

row

nfi

eld

la

nd

fo

r h

ou

sin

g;

the

Stu

dy

sta

tes

tha

t th

ere

is l

ittl

e

dem

an

d f

or

ad

dit

ion

al

reta

il u

nit

s, w

ith

ev

en t

he

pri

ma

ry a

rea

s se

ein

g s

om

e lo

ng

ter

m v

aca

ncy

acr

oss

sev

era

l u

nit

s (p

ara

6.3

2 o

nw

ard

s).

Re

tail

(lo

we

r)

Re

tail

(up

pe

r)

Via

bili

ty T

hre

sho

ld

Via

bili

ty T

hre

sho

ld

02468

10

12

14

16

18

20

Site

1Si

te 2

Site

3Si

te 4

Site

5Si

te 6

Site

7Si

te 8

Site

11

Site

12

Site

13

Site

14

Value £m/ha

Site

s te

ste

d a

s b

row

nfi

eld

in

in

du

stri

al u

se

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 8

Figu

re 3

.3 R

esid

ual

Val

ue

of

Bro

wn

fie

ld S

ites

co

mp

ared

to

Alt

ern

ativ

e U

se V

alu

e (P

rim

ary

Re

tail)

an

d V

iab

ility

Th

resh

old

Sou

rce:

Lic

hfi

eld

s b

ased

on

Tab

le 1

0.2

of

the

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

Alt

er

na

tiv

e u

se

- H

ote

ls

3.1

1 In

ad

dit

ion

to

ret

ail

sit

es,

ther

e a

re a

lso

ex

am

ple

s o

f b

row

nfi

eld

sit

es w

hic

h a

re c

on

ver

sio

ns

fro

m

ho

tel

to r

esid

enti

al

use

s. T

he

Stu

dy

cit

es e

xa

mp

les

of

the

Met

rop

ole

Ho

tel

(so

ld f

or

£9

.5m

/ha

),

Sh

ak

esp

eare

Ho

tel

(£14

.6m

/ha

) a

nd

Old

Co

urt

Ho

use

Ho

tel

(£3

.9m

/ha

). W

ith

th

e e

xce

pti

on

of

the

Old

Co

urt

Ho

use

Ho

tel,

th

e sa

les

va

lues

of

thes

e si

tes

exce

ed a

lmo

st a

ll t

he

resi

du

al

va

lues

of

the

bro

wn

fiel

d s

ites

, a

s sh

ow

n i

n F

igu

re 3

.4.

It i

s p

oss

ible

th

at

the

va

lue

of

such

sit

es w

ill

incr

ease

in

th

e fu

ture

as

the

su

pp

ly o

f v

aca

nt

ho

tels

av

ail

ab

le f

or

resi

de

nti

al

con

ve

rsio

n

dim

inis

hes

.

3.1

2

Ag

ain

th

is r

ep

rese

nts

a r

eali

stic

fu

ture

sce

na

rio

fo

r h

ou

sin

g d

ev

elo

pm

ent

in J

ers

ey w

hic

h t

he

Stu

dy

ha

s fa

iled

to

ad

equ

ate

ly a

sses

s. I

t fu

rth

er d

emo

nst

rate

s th

e d

egre

e o

f u

nd

ere

stim

ati

on

of

alt

ern

ati

ve

lan

d v

alu

es o

f b

row

nfi

eld

sit

es l

ikel

y t

o c

om

e fo

rwa

rd f

or

dev

elo

pm

en

t, l

ead

ing

to

th

e

Stu

dy

sig

nif

ica

ntl

y o

ver

sta

tin

g t

he

via

bil

ity

of

such

sit

es.

Re

tail

(lo

we

r)

Re

tail

(up

pe

r)

Via

bili

ty T

hre

sho

ld

Via

bili

ty T

hre

sho

ld

02468

10

12

14

16

18

20

Site

1Si

te 2

Site

3Si

te 4

Site

5Si

te 6

Site

7Si

te 8

Site

11

Site

12

Site

13

Site

14

Value £m/ha

Site

s te

ste

d a

s b

row

nfi

eld

in

in

du

stri

al u

se

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

9

Figu

re 3

.4 R

esid

ual

Val

ue

of

Bro

wn

fie

ld S

ites

co

mp

ared

to

Sal

es V

alu

es o

f H

ote

l Sit

es

Sou

rce:

Lic

hfi

eld

s b

ased

on

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

Alt

er

na

tiv

e u

se

– O

ffic

es

3.1

3

Th

e S

tud

y a

sses

ses

the

va

lue

of

seco

nd

ary

off

ice

spa

ce f

or

con

ver

sio

n a

t £

2,3

89

/sq

m.

Th

e S

tud

y

ass

esse

s tw

o c

on

ver

sio

n s

chem

es o

f se

con

da

ry o

ffic

es,

into

six

an

d 2

5 f

lats

res

pec

tiv

ely

.

3.1

4

As

set

ou

t a

bo

ve

, th

e S

tud

y h

as

ass

esse

d t

he

ma

jori

ty o

f it

s b

row

nfi

eld

sit

es a

ga

inst

an

in

du

stri

al

lan

d v

alu

e o

f £

1.9

m/h

a,

wh

ich

eq

ua

tes

to a

va

lue

of

£3

20

/sq

m (

ass

um

ing

60

% c

ov

era

ge

on

a

site

). O

n a

per

sq

m c

om

pa

riso

n b

asi

s, t

he

va

lue

of

seco

nd

ary

off

ice

spa

ce i

s th

eref

ore

ov

er

sev

en

tim

es t

he

ind

ust

ria

l fi

gu

re u

sed

fo

r m

ost

bro

wn

fiel

d s

ite

ass

essm

ents

. T

he

ab

sen

ce o

f a

ny

fu

rth

er

test

ing

of

off

ice

site

s (e

ith

er a

s co

nv

ersi

on

s o

r co

mp

lete

red

evel

op

me

nts

) is

yet

an

oth

er

sig

nif

ica

nt

fla

w o

f th

e S

tud

y.

Th

e co

nce

ntr

ati

on

of

dev

elo

pm

ent

in b

uil

t-u

p a

rea

s m

ean

s

red

evel

op

me

nt

of

off

ice

spa

ce i

s li

kel

y t

o c

on

trib

ute

to

fu

ture

ho

usi

ng

su

pp

ly a

nd

it

is i

mp

era

tiv

e

thes

e ty

po

log

ies

are

pro

pe

rly

ass

esse

d f

or

via

bil

ity

.

Me

tro

po

le H

ote

l

Shak

esp

ear

e H

ote

l

Old

Co

urt

Ho

use

02468

10

12

14

16

18

20

Site

1Si

te 2

Site

3Si

te 4

Site

5Si

te 6

Site

7Si

te 8

Site

11

Site

12

Site

13

Site

14

Value £m/ha

Site

s te

ste

d a

s b

row

nfi

eld

in

in

du

stri

al u

se

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 10

Re

sid

en

tia

l la

nd

va

lue

s

3.1

5

Ta

ble

6.1

of

the

Stu

dy

sh

ow

s th

e sa

les

va

lue

s o

f d

evel

op

men

t si

tes

bet

wee

n 2

00

6 a

nd

20

16;

in

tota

l it

sh

ow

s ju

st 1

7 s

ites

ov

er a

10

yea

r p

erio

d,

an

av

era

ge

of

1-2

sit

es p

er y

ear.

As

a m

att

er o

f

pri

nci

ple

, th

is i

s a

n e

xce

pti

on

all

y s

ma

ll s

am

ple

siz

e u

po

n w

hic

h t

o d

eter

min

e a

ver

ag

e v

alu

es a

nd

sub

seq

uen

tly

in

fra

stru

ctu

re l

evy

ch

arg

es,

pa

rtic

ula

rly

wh

en t

he

va

lues

va

ry t

o t

he

deg

ree

th

at

is

seen

in

Jer

sey

. T

he

lo

wes

t v

alu

e se

en i

n t

he

sa

mp

le i

s £

1.5

m/h

a (

in L

es P

iece

s S

t M

art

in,

in

20

14)

bu

t th

is r

an

ges

up

to

£2

3m

/ha

at

Wa

ver

ley

Ho

use

. W

e n

ote

th

at

wit

hin

th

e t

ext

(pa

ra

6.2

0)

the

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

su

gg

ests

la

nd

va

lues

as

low

as

£7

16,4

18/h

a,

alt

ho

ug

h t

his

ca

nn

ot

be

seen

in

th

e co

rres

po

nd

ing

ta

ble

.

3.1

6

Th

e S

tud

y h

as

rem

ov

ed t

wo

‘ou

tlie

rs’ w

hic

h w

ere

sold

fo

r a

pri

ce o

f £

23

m/h

a.

Th

ese

are

;

Wa

ver

ley

Ho

use

, a

sit

e o

f 0

.05

ha

wh

ich

so

ld f

or

£1.

15m

in

20

14,

or

£2

3m

/ha

; a

nd

22

La

Co

lom

ber

ie,

St

Hel

ier,

a s

ite

of

0.0

7 h

a w

hic

h s

old

fo

r £

1.6

m i

n 2

014

, o

r £

22

.8m

/ha

.

3.1

7

Th

ese

site

s m

ay

ap

pea

r o

utl

iers

in

th

e v

iew

of

the

Stu

dy

’s a

uth

ors

, h

ow

ever

, g

iven

th

at

eve

n o

nce

they

are

rem

ov

ed v

alu

es s

till

ra

ng

e fr

om

£1m

-£14

m/h

a,

an

d t

ha

t th

ese

rep

rese

nt

two

of

the

17

site

s, t

hey

sh

ou

ld a

rgu

ab

ly n

ot

be

rem

ov

ed f

rom

th

e sa

mp

le.

Ind

eed

, 2

2 L

a C

olo

mb

erie

rep

rese

nts

a c

on

ver

sio

n s

chem

e in

St

Hel

ier

bu

ilt-

up

are

a;

this

is

pre

cise

ly t

he

typ

e o

f

dev

elo

pm

ent

wh

ich

is

enco

ura

ged

wit

hin

th

e Is

lan

d P

lan

, w

hic

h s

ever

ely

res

tric

ts d

evel

op

men

t

in t

he

cou

ntr

ysi

de.

3.1

8

Ha

vin

g r

emo

ved

th

e p

urp

ort

ed ‘o

utl

iers

’ th

e S

tud

y h

as

con

sid

ered

th

e a

ve

rag

e o

f th

ese

va

lues

(med

ian

an

d m

ean

) b

efo

re r

each

ing

a j

ud

gm

en

t v

alu

e o

f £

6m

/ha

wh

ich

it

tak

es f

orw

ard

in

th

e

Via

bil

ity

mo

del

lin

g.

Wh

ilst

ta

kin

g t

he

av

era

ge

lan

d v

alu

e m

ay

no

t b

e a

n u

nre

aso

na

ble

ap

pro

ach

,

this

is

on

ly l

ikel

y t

o b

e a

n a

pp

rop

ria

te r

ep

rese

nta

tio

n o

f a

ver

ag

e la

nd

va

lues

wh

ere

:

Th

e o

ver

all

sa

mp

le s

ize

is l

arg

e;

Th

ere

is a

cle

ar

clu

ster

ing

of

va

lues

aro

un

d t

he

av

era

ge

, w

hic

h i

s th

e v

alu

e th

at

cou

ld b

e

exp

ecte

d f

or

mo

st s

ites

; a

nd

Th

ere

are

few

in

sta

nce

s o

f se

ver

e v

alu

es a

t th

e e

xtr

em

es,

ab

ov

e o

r b

elo

w t

he

av

era

ge.

3.1

9

Th

e a

va

ila

ble

da

ta f

or

Je

rse

y i

s sh

ow

n i

n F

igu

re 3

.5 b

elo

w.

As

exp

ecte

d d

ue

to t

he

sma

ll n

um

ber

of

site

s, t

her

e is

a s

ign

ific

an

t ra

ng

e a

bo

ve

an

d b

elo

w t

he

av

era

ge.

Th

e lo

wes

t la

nd

va

lues

see

n a

re

on

e q

ua

rter

of

the

av

era

ge

(£

1.5

m/h

a),

wh

ile

th

e h

igh

est

va

lues

are

fo

ur

tim

es t

he

av

era

ge.

Ev

en

Su

mm

ar

y

Th

e S

tud

y h

as

no

t p

rov

ided

an

y e

vid

ence

fo

r th

e in

du

stri

al

va

lues

ass

um

ed i

n i

ts m

od

elli

ng

an

d i

t ev

en

ap

pea

rs t

o a

ccep

t th

ese

are

“lo

w”.

Th

ere

are

cle

arl

y o

ther

sit

e ty

po

log

ies

lik

ely

to

com

e fo

rwa

rd f

or

dev

elo

pm

ent

in J

erse

y w

he

re t

he

alt

ern

ati

ve

use

va

lue

is h

igh

er t

ha

n

ind

ust

ria

l, i

ncl

ud

ing

ret

ail

, o

ffic

e a

nd

ho

tel

use

s.

Th

e S

tud

y u

ltim

ate

ly f

ail

s t

o a

de

qu

ate

ly t

es

t th

e r

an

ge

of

de

ve

lop

me

nts

lik

ely

to

co

me

fo

rw

ar

d i

n J

er

se

y,

refl

ecti

ng

th

e fa

ct t

ha

t d

evel

op

me

nt

is m

ost

ly c

on

cen

tra

ted

wit

hin

bu

ilt-

up

are

as

wh

ich

co

nta

in a

ra

ng

e o

f u

ses.

Co

mp

ar

ing

th

e S

tud

y’s

re

sid

ua

l v

alu

es

to

oth

er

alt

er

na

tiv

e l

an

d v

alu

e e

sti

ma

tes

an

d v

iab

ilit

y b

en

ch

ma

rk

s s

ho

ws

sig

nif

ica

nt

va

ria

tio

n i

n v

iab

ilit

y w

ith

ma

ny

sit

es

at

the

ma

rg

ins

of

via

bil

ity

or

un

via

ble

alt

og

eth

er

. T

his

is

als

o l

ikel

y t

o b

e th

e

case

wh

en

ass

essi

ng

sit

es i

n s

eco

nd

ary

off

ice

use

, g

iven

va

lues

of

thes

e si

tes

are

su

bst

an

tia

lly

hig

her

th

an

th

e in

du

stri

al

va

lue

per

sq

m c

urr

entl

y u

sed

.

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

11

on

ce t

hes

e ‘o

utl

iers

’ are

re

mo

ved

, th

e h

igh

est

va

lues

in

th

e sa

mp

le (

c.£

14m

/ha

) a

re s

till

ov

er

do

ub

le t

he

av

era

ge.

3.2

0

Th

is o

bse

rva

tio

n a

lon

e re

pre

sen

ts a

sig

nif

ica

nt

sho

rtco

min

g w

hen

att

emp

tin

g t

o a

sses

s v

iab

ilit

y

an

d s

et a

JIL

ch

arg

e fo

r th

e Is

lan

d.

If a

JIL

is

to b

e im

po

sed

as

a c

ha

rge

on

all

dev

elo

pm

ents

, it

nee

ds

to e

nsu

re t

ha

t d

evel

op

me

nt

acr

oss

Jer

sey

rem

ain

s v

iab

le,

wh

ich

oft

en

mea

ns

loo

kin

g a

t

the

‘wo

rst-

case

sce

na

rio

’, o

r ‘l

ow

est

com

mo

n d

en

om

ina

tor’

. T

his

is

on

e o

f th

e li

mit

ati

on

s o

f C

IL

in E

ng

lan

d,

iden

tifi

ed w

ith

in t

he

CIL

Re

vie

w G

rou

p R

ep

ort

(w

hic

h w

e d

iscu

ss i

n o

ur

ma

in

rep

rese

nta

tio

ns)

.

Figu

re 3

.5 R

esid

enti

al L

and

Val

ues

in J

erse

y an

d V

iab

ility

Stu

dy

assu

mp

tio

n

Sou

rce:

Lic

hfi

eld

s b

ased

on

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

3.2

1 T

o d

emo

nst

rate

th

e d

iffi

cult

y i

n s

etti

ng

CIL

ra

tes

ba

sed

on

th

e ra

ng

e o

f la

nd

va

lue

s se

en i

n

Jer

sey

, F

igu

re 3

.6 s

ho

ws

the

pri

ce p

aid

(£

m p

er h

ecta

re)

for

the

sit

es i

n J

ers

ey,

lab

elle

d w

ith

com

pa

rato

r L

oca

l A

uth

ori

ties

fro

m E

ng

lan

d (

i.e.

wh

ere

res

iden

tia

l la

nd

va

lues

are

sim

ila

r).

It

sho

ws

tha

t la

nd

va

lues

at

the

low

er e

nd

of

the

ran

ge

in J

erse

y a

re a

kin

to

va

lues

se

en i

n p

art

s o

f

the

Wes

t M

idla

nd

s (C

ov

entr

y,

Str

atf

ord

-on

-Av

on

) w

hil

st t

he

hig

hes

t v

alu

es s

een

in

Jer

sey

are

ak

in t

o t

ho

se s

een

in

Ce

ntr

al

Lo

nd

on

(H

ari

ng

ey,

Ha

rro

w,

Ha

ckn

ey a

nd

Ea

lin

g).

A d

irec

t

com

pa

riso

n w

ith

va

lues

see

n i

n J

erse

y i

s n

ot

wh

oll

y a

pp

lica

ble

bec

au

se t

he

com

pa

rato

r v

alu

es

for

En

gla

nd

ex

clu

de

an

y e

ffec

t fr

om

s.1

06

ag

reem

ent

ob

lig

ati

on

s, w

her

eas

tho

se i

n J

erse

y w

ill

refl

ect

the

imp

osi

tio

n o

f P

OA

co

sts.

3.2

2

Sh

ow

n i

n t

his

co

nte

xt,

it

wo

uld

cle

arl

y b

e ex

tre

mel

y d

iffi

cult

to

set

a C

IL r

ate

fo

r a

n a

rea

wh

ere

som

e la

nd

va

lues

wer

e a

s lo

w a

s in

Co

ven

try

, w

hil

e in

oth

er a

rea

s a

s h

igh

as

in C

entr

al

Lo

nd

on

.

It i

s h

igh

ly q

ues

tio

na

ble

ho

w i

t w

ou

ld b

e p

oss

ible

to

se

t a

CIL

ra

te i

n s

uch

an

are

a w

hic

h w

ou

ld

no

t u

nd

erm

ine

via

bil

ity

acr

oss

so

me

site

s. T

his

dem

on

stra

tes

tha

t th

e u

se o

f a

n a

ver

ag

e

resi

den

tia

l la

nd

va

lue

in J

erse

y i

s n

ot

ap

pro

pri

ate

giv

en t

he

wid

e ra

ng

e o

f v

alu

es s

een

. T

he

re i

s a

rea

l a

nd

sig

nif

ica

nt

risk

th

at

the

intr

od

uct

ion

of

an

in

fra

stru

ctu

re l

evy

, b

ase

d o

n t

he

via

bil

ity

stu

dy

wo

uld

un

der

min

e v

iab

ilit

y o

f a

sig

nif

ica

nt

pro

po

rtio

n o

f si

tes.

Th

is f

urt

her

le

nd

s su

pp

ort

to t

he

exis

tin

g P

OA

sy

ste

m w

her

eby

in

fra

stru

ctu

re c

on

trib

uti

on

s a

re c

on

sid

ered

on

a s

ite

-by

-sit

e

ba

sis.

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

£0

£5

£1

0

£1

5

£2

0

£2

5 Ma

y-0

5O

ct-0

6Fe

b-0

8Ju

l-0

9N

ov-

10

Ap

r-1

2A

ug-

13

De

c-14

Ma

y-1

6Se

p-1

7


Sale

dat

e

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 12

Figu

re 3

.6 R

esid

enti

al L

and

Val

ues

in J

erse

y an

d E

ngl

and

LA

co

mp

arat

ors

Sou

rce:

Lic

hfi

eld

s b

ased

on

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y an

d D

CLG

Lan

d V

alu

e Es

tim

ates

fo

r P

olic

y A

pp

rais

al (

20

15

)

Re

sid

en

tia

l v

alu

es

us

ed

in

via

bil

ity

as

se

ss

me

nt

3.2

3

No

twit

hst

an

din

g o

ur

crit

icis

ms

of

the

ap

pro

ach

ta

ken

to

la

nd

va

lues

, it

wo

uld

ap

pe

ar

tha

t th

e

Stu

dy

ha

s n

ot

tak

en f

orw

ard

its

£6

m/h

a v

alu

ati

on

wh

en

ass

essi

ng

th

e v

iab

ilit

y o

f S

ite

16.

Th

is

site

is

an

ex

am

ple

of

3 l

arg

er

det

ach

ed d

wel

lin

gs,

mo

de

lled

as

the

red

ev

elo

pm

ent

of

an

ex

isti

ng

resi

den

tia

l si

te.

Th

e S

tud

y a

sses

ses

this

sit

e a

s ‘m

arg

ina

l’ o

n t

he

ba

sis

tha

t it

s re

sid

ua

l v

alu

e

exce

eds

the

EU

V,

bu

t n

ot

the

via

bil

ity

th

resh

old

(E

UV

+ 2

0%

).

3.2

4

Its

exis

tin

g u

se a

s a

res

iden

tia

l si

te w

ou

ld i

mp

ly a

va

lue

of

£6

m/h

a s

ho

uld

be

use

d,

as

sta

ted

thro

ug

ho

ut

the

Stu

dy

. H

ow

ever

, T

ab

le 1

0.2

of

the

Stu

dy

sh

ow

th

e a

ssu

med

alt

ern

ati

ve

use

va

lue

for

this

sit

e is

£4

m/h

a (

wit

h a

via

bil

ity

th

resh

old

of

£4

.8m

), n

ot

£6

m/h

a.

We

no

te t

ha

t th

e

exis

tin

g d

wel

lin

g i

s a

ssu

me

d t

o h

av

e a

va

lue

of

£8

00

,00

0 (

as

sta

ted

in

10

.13

of

the

Stu

dy

)

alt

ho

ug

h t

his

do

es n

ot

exp

lain

th

e d

iffe

ren

ce i

n E

UV

.

3.2

5

Wit

h a

res

idu

al

va

lue

of

£4

.2m

, th

is w

ou

ld m

ak

e th

e s

ite

un

via

ble

, n

ot

ma

rgin

al,

as

the

Stu

dy

imp

lies

. A

rev

iew

of

the

resi

den

tia

l d

evel

op

me

nt

ap

pra

isa

ls p

rov

ided

in

Ap

pen

dix

6 o

f th

e S

tud

y

con

firm

s th

at

the

va

lue

of

£4

m h

as

bee

n u

sed

in

th

e a

sses

smen

t.

Co

ven

try

Stra

tfo

rd-o

n-A

von

Da

rtfo

rd

Ch

ich

este

rA

du

rH

erts

mer

e

Bre

ntw

oo

dC

hil

tern

St A

lba

ns

Ha

veri

ngElm

bri

dge

Ho

un

slo

wHa

rin

gey

Ha

rro

w

Eali

ng

Ha

ckn

ey

£0

£5

£1

0

£1

5

£2

0

£2

5


Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

13

Bu

ild

co

sts

3.2

6

Sec

tio

n 7

.0 o

f th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y s

ets

ou

t th

e a

ssu

med

dev

elo

pm

ent

cost

s w

hic

h h

av

e b

een

use

d

in a

sses

sin

g v

iab

ilit

y.

Th

e D

evel

op

men

t co

sts

set

ou

t in

pa

ras

7.2

-24

co

ver

ba

seli

ne

con

stru

ctio

n

cost

s, o

ther

no

rma

l d

evel

op

men

t co

sts,

ab

no

rma

l d

ev

elo

pm

ent/

bro

wn

fiel

d c

ost

s, f

ees

an

d

con

tin

gen

cies

. W

e h

av

e lo

ok

ed a

t ea

ch i

n t

urn

to

ass

ess

the

rea

son

ab

len

ess

of

the

se

ass

um

pti

on

s.

3.2

7

It i

s e

vid

ent

fro

m T

ab

le 7

.1 o

f th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y t

ha

t b

uil

d c

ost

s in

Jer

sey

are

su

bje

ct t

o

sig

nif

ica

nt

flu

ctu

ati

on

s. T

he

curr

ent

da

ta s

ho

ws

tha

t th

e B

uil

d C

ost

in

dex

ha

s b

ee

n a

s h

igh

as

1.3

9 i

n F

eb

rua

ry 2

014

. T

he

Stu

dy

sta

tes

tha

t d

uri

ng

co

nsu

lta

tio

n,

com

men

ts w

ere

rec

eiv

ed

wh

ich

su

gg

este

d t

he

ind

ex

wa

s a

s h

igh

as

1.4

or

1.5

6;

ho

wev

er,

thes

e w

ere

no

t ta

ke

n i

nto

acc

ou

nt

wit

hin

th

e s

tud

y a

nd

an

in

dex

of

1.2

is

use

d.

As

BC

IS d

ata

fo

r J

erse

y i

s a

lso

ba

sed

on

va

lues

see

n

in t

he

Isle

of

Ma

n a

nd

Isl

e o

f W

igh

t, w

ith

a v

ery

sm

all

da

ta s

am

ple

fro

m J

erse

y,

this

un

der

min

es

the

reli

ab

ilit

y o

f th

e B

CIS

fig

ure

s to

pro

vid

e a

n a

pp

rop

ria

te e

stim

ate

of

bu

ild

co

sts

in J

erse

y.

3.2

8

Fu

rth

erm

ore

, th

e S

tud

y i

tse

lf s

tate

s th

at

du

rin

g s

tak

eho

lder

co

nsu

lta

tio

n,

ther

e w

as

a c

on

sen

sus

tha

t in

fla

tio

n i

n t

he

curr

ent

yea

r w

ou

ld b

e g

rea

ter

tha

n a

nti

cip

ate

d d

ue

to i

mp

act

of

the

wea

k

po

un

d (

as

a r

esu

lt o

f th

e U

K’s

dec

isio

n t

o l

eav

e th

e E

U).

3.2

9

Da

nd

ara

ha

s p

rov

ided

Lic

hfi

eld

s w

ith

ad

dit

ion

al

info

rma

tio

n o

n b

uil

d c

ost

s in

Jer

sey

wh

ich

sug

ges

ts t

ha

t th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y s

ign

ific

an

tly

un

der

-est

ima

tes

this

. D

an

da

ra i

s th

e b

igg

est

pro

per

ty d

evel

op

er i

n J

erse

y,

focu

sin

g o

n n

ew

ho

mes

, h

om

es f

or

the

eld

erl

y a

nd

co

mm

erci

al

pre

mis

es.

Th

is b

uil

d c

ost

in

form

ati

on

pro

vid

ed b

y a

lo

cal

qu

an

tity

su

rvey

or

firm

, a

nd

ver

ifie

d b

y

Da

nd

ara

ag

ain

st t

he

ir o

wn

ex

per

ien

ce,

esti

ma

tes

bu

ild

co

sts

of

a r

esid

enti

al-

led

mix

ed u

sed

sch

eme

c.2

5%

hig

her

th

an

th

ose

ass

um

ed i

n t

he

Stu

dy

, a

t £

2,3

68

/sq

m.

Th

is e

qu

ate

s to

an

un

der

-est

ima

te o

f b

uil

d c

ost

s o

f £

45

0/s

qm

. T

his

est

ima

te w

ou

ld a

pp

ear

to b

e in

lin

e w

ith

com

men

ts r

ecei

ved

fro

m s

tak

eho

lder

s d

uri

ng

co

nsu

lta

tio

n,

wh

ich

su

gg

este

d a

hig

her

in

dex

(o

f

1.4

-1.5

6)

sho

uld

be

use

d,

an

d r

efle

ct o

ther

fa

cto

rs s

uch

as

the

wea

ke

r p

ou

nd

.

3.3

0

Ev

ide

ntl

y,

if b

uil

d c

ost

s h

av

e b

een

un

der

-est

ima

ted

by

an

yth

ing

ov

er t

he

£8

5/s

qm

JIL

ch

arg

e

pro

po

sed

, th

is m

ean

s it

wil

l n

ot

be

po

ssib

le t

o i

mp

lem

en

t th

is c

ha

rge

wit

ho

ut

ma

kin

g s

che

mes

un

via

ble

. T

he

deg

ree

to w

hic

h t

he

Stu

dy

un

der

-est

ima

tes

lik

ely

bu

ild

co

sts

is s

uff

icie

nt

alo

ne

to

wip

e o

ut

an

y p

ote

nti

al

via

bil

ity

hea

dro

om

fo

r a

JIL

ch

arg

e.

3.3

1 H

ow

ever

, in

ad

dit

ion

to

th

is,

du

rin

g c

on

sult

ati

on

wit

h s

tak

eho

lder

s, i

t w

as

sug

ges

ted

th

at

incr

ease

d b

uil

din

g s

tan

da

rds

in J

erse

y w

ou

ld a

dd

a f

urt

her

4%

to

th

e b

uil

d c

ost

s. B

y w

ay

of

com

pa

riso

n,

via

bil

ity

stu

die

s u

nd

erta

ke

n i

n E

ng

lan

d h

av

e m

ad

e sp

ecif

ic a

llo

wa

nce

s fo

r

Su

mm

ar

y

Re

sid

en

tia

l la

nd

va

lue

s i

n J

er

se

y a

re

in

pr

inc

iple

dif

fic

ult

to

es

tab

lis

h d

ue

to

th

e

sm

all

nu

mb

er

of

tra

ns

ac

tio

ns

th

at

tak

e p

lac

e.

As

a m

att

er

of

pr

inc

iple

, th

is

hig

hli

gh

ts t

he

ov

er

all

dif

fic

ult

y i

n e

sta

bli

sh

ing

a J

IL,

bec

au

se t

he

imp

osi

tio

n o

f su

ch

a c

ha

rge

sho

uld

no

t u

nd

erm

ine

the

via

bil

ity

of

cert

ain

ty

pes

of

site

.

Th

e v

ari

ati

on

in

la

nd

va

lues

is

clea

r w

hen

co

mp

ari

ng

to

va

lues

in

En

gli

sh l

oca

l a

uth

ori

ties

;

the

dif

ficu

ltie

s in

ass

essi

ng

via

bil

ity

in

Jer

sey

bec

om

e cl

ear

wh

en s

et i

n t

his

co

nte

xt.

Th

e

av

era

ge

va

lue

use

d i

s o

f li

ttle

ass

ista

nce

in

tes

tin

g v

iab

ilit

y,

as

dem

on

stra

ted

th

ere

are

a

nu

mb

er o

f si

tes

sold

fo

r £

mil

lio

ns/

ha

hig

her

th

an

th

is.

We

als

o n

ote

an

err

or

in t

he

ex

isti

ng

use

va

lue

of

site

16

, w

hic

h s

ho

uld

be

ass

esse

d a

s

un

via

ble

, n

ot

ma

rgin

al.

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 14

ad

dit

ion

al

bu

ild

co

sts

ass

oci

ate

d w

ith

bu

ild

ing

to

hig

he

r st

an

da

rds,

in

clu

din

g C

od

e f

or

Su

sta

ina

ble

Ho

mes

lev

el 4

3.

Ho

wev

er,

the

Stu

dy

ha

s o

pte

d n

ot

to m

ak

e a

n a

dju

stm

en

t fo

r a

ny

sim

ila

r co

sts,

ke

epin

g b

uil

d c

ost

s a

t th

e B

CIS

co

sts,

wit

h a

1.2

in

de

x.

Th

is f

urt

he

r d

emo

nst

rate

s

the

deg

ree

to w

hic

h b

uil

d c

ost

s h

av

e b

een

un

der

esti

ma

ted

in

th

e S

tud

y,

lea

din

g t

o v

iab

ilit

y b

ein

g

sig

nif

ica

ntl

y o

ve

r-st

ate

d,

lea

din

g t

o t

he

co

ncl

usi

on

th

at

it w

ou

ld n

ot

be

via

ble

to

in

tro

du

ce a

JIL

cha

rge

on

dev

elo

pm

en

t.

Pe

rc

en

tag

e f

or

Ar

t

3.3

2

As

pa

rt o

f d

evel

op

men

ts i

n J

erse

y,

dev

elo

per

s a

re e

nco

ura

ged

to

ma

ke

a p

ub

lic

art

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n

equ

iva

len

t to

0.7

5%

of

con

stru

ctio

n c

ost

s o

n s

ites

. W

hil

st t

he

Stu

dy

sta

tes

at

pa

ra 7

.31

tha

t th

is

wil

l b

e a

ssim

ila

ted

in

to a

ny

new

le

vy

, th

e J

erse

y I

nfr

ast

ruct

ure

Lev

y P

rop

osa

l co

nsu

lta

tio

n

do

cum

ent

ma

kes

no

ref

ere

nce

to

th

e co

ntr

ibu

tio

n f

or

the

Art

s, a

nd

wh

eth

er t

his

wil

l ch

an

ge

foll

ow

ing

in

tro

du

ctio

n o

f a

new

le

vy

. U

nti

l is

it

clea

r th

at

such

a c

ost

wo

uld

be

ass

imil

ate

d i

nto

an

y o

ther

ch

arg

e,

this

sh

ou

ld b

e in

clu

ded

wit

hin

cu

rren

t d

evel

op

men

t co

sts.

Th

is r

epre

sen

ts a

furt

her

de

vel

op

men

t co

st f

or

wh

ich

th

e S

tud

y h

as

fail

ed t

o a

cco

un

t.

Co

mp

an

y t

ax

3.3

3

Th

e S

tud

y s

tate

s th

at

alt

ho

ug

h i

t w

as

sug

ges

ted

du

rin

g c

on

sult

ati

on

wit

h s

tak

eh

old

ers,

an

all

ow

an

ce f

or

20

% ‘i

nco

me

tax

’ wa

s n

ot

acc

epte

d.

Ho

wev

er,

sha

reh

old

ers

of

dev

elo

pm

ent

com

pa

nie

s in

Jer

sey

are

lia

ble

to

pa

y t

ax

at

20

% (

wh

ich

is

gen

era

lly

pa

id o

ut

of

the

fu

nd

s o

f th

e

com

pa

ny

). T

he

effe

ct o

f a

co

mp

an

y t

ax

on

dev

elo

pm

en

t in

Jer

sey

is

an

im

po

rta

nt

con

sid

era

tio

n

for

two

rea

son

s:

1 It

is

lik

ely

to

aff

ect

the

lev

el o

f d

evel

op

er p

rofi

t re

qu

ire

d;

an

d

2

It i

s li

kel

y t

o a

ffec

t th

e v

iab

ilit

y t

hre

sho

lds

(wh

ich

we

retu

rn t

o l

ate

r in

th

is r

ep

ort

), s

ince

th

e

sca

le o

f u

pli

ft o

n e

xis

tin

g u

se w

ill

nee

d t

o b

e h

igh

en

ou

gh

to

in

cen

tiv

ise

a s

ale

, ta

kin

g

acc

ou

nt

of

pro

fit,

ta

xes

an

d o

ther

fa

cto

rs (

such

as

no

in

her

ita

nce

ta

xes

). O

ne

mem

ber

of

the

JeC

C s

tate

d t

ha

t it

ha

s so

ld l

an

d f

or

a “

sig

nif

ica

nt”

pre

miu

m a

bo

ve

EU

V t

o a

llo

w f

or

pro

fits

an

d t

ax

es.

Via

bil

ity

As

se

ss

me

nts

Via

bil

ity

th

re

sh

old

s

3.3

4

Th

e S

tud

y a

ssu

mes

a v

iab

ilit

y t

hre

sho

ld (

bei

ng

th

e sc

ale

ab

ov

e th

e ex

isti

ng

/alt

ern

ati

ve

use

va

lue

exce

eds

for

the

site

to

be

via

ble

) o

f 2

0%

. P

ara

6.5

4 o

f th

e S

tud

y s

tate

s th

at

this

su

pp

ort

ed b

y

“wo

rk d

on

e el

sew

her

e a

nd

ap

pea

l d

ecis

ion

s, a

s se

t o

ut

in C

ha

pte

r 2

”. C

ha

pte

r 2

of

the

Stu

dy

sets

ou

t so

me

of

the

va

rio

us

gu

ida

nce

wit

hin

th

e E

ng

lish

PP

G r

eg

ard

ing

via

bil

ity

, a

nd

it

is w

ho

lly

3 F

or

exam

ple

, see

So

uth

Oxf

ord

shir

e V

iab

ility

Stu

dy,

wh

ich

ad

ds

6%

fo

r th

is. T

hat

Stu

dy

cite

s re

sear

ch b

y C

yrill

Sw

eett

un

der

take

n

on

beh

alf

of

the

Dep

artm

ent

of

Co

mm

un

itie

s an

d L

oca

l Go

vern

men

t o

n t

he

imp

act

of

bu

ildin

g to

CSH

sta

nd

ard

s.

Su

mm

ar

y

Ov

era

ll t

he

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

ha

s si

gn

ific

an

tly

un

der

-est

ima

ted

co

nst

ruct

ion

co

sts.

Th

e S

tud

y

itse

lf n

ote

s th

at

du

rin

g c

on

sult

ati

on

sta

keh

old

ers

ind

ica

ted

bu

ild

co

sts

wer

e su

bst

an

tia

lly

hig

her

th

an

th

ose

ass

um

ed i

n t

he

Stu

dy

, a

nd

Da

nd

ara

ha

ve

con

firm

ed t

his

to

be

the

case

.

Th

e B

CIS

da

ta s

ho

uld

be

use

d w

ith

ca

uti

on

giv

en l

ittl

e d

ata

is

act

ua

lly

av

ail

ab

le f

or

Jer

sey

.

Th

e s

ca

le o

f u

nd

er

es

tim

ati

on

in

bu

ild

co

sts

alo

ne

is

su

ffic

ien

t to

en

tir

ely

wip

e

ou

t a

ny

po

ten

tia

l in

fra

str

uc

tur

e l

ev

y c

on

trib

uti

on

, c

ur

re

ntl

y p

ro

po

se

d a

t

£8

5/s

qm

.

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

15

un

clea

r h

ow

th

ese

sup

po

rt t

he

spec

ific

20

% u

pli

ft p

rop

ose

d f

or

Jer

sey

, a

s st

ate

d i

n t

he

Stu

dy

.

Th

e J

eCC

co

nsi

der

th

at

this

co

mp

lete

ly d

isre

ga

rds

loca

l ci

rcu

mst

an

ces

spec

ific

to

Jer

sey

, fo

r

exa

mp

le a

s th

ere

is n

o i

nh

eri

tan

ce t

ax

in

Jer

sey

, th

ere

is l

ess

of

an

in

cen

tiv

e fo

r in

div

idu

al

lan

do

wn

ers

to s

ell,

co

mp

are

d t

o i

n E

ng

lan

d.

Th

e J

eC

C s

tate

s th

at

ther

e a

re m

an

y e

xa

mp

les

of

pro

per

ty b

ein

g h

an

ded

do

wn

th

rou

gh

ge

ner

ati

on

s a

nd

on

ly s

old

“w

hen

th

e ti

me

an

d v

alu

e is

rig

ht”

.

3.3

5

Le

Ma

suri

er i

s a

n e

xa

mp

le o

f a

co

mm

erci

al

pro

per

ty c

om

pa

ny

in

Je

rsey

wh

ich

ha

s h

eld

la

nd

on

the

Isla

nd

fo

r lo

ng

per

iod

s, i

n s

om

e ca

ses

sin

ce 1

83

5.

Mem

ber

s o

f th

e J

eC

C g

ive

ex

am

ple

s o

f

site

s w

hic

h w

ere

sold

at

“sig

nif

ica

nt

pre

miu

ms”

to

res

iden

tia

l d

evel

op

ers

to e

nsu

re a

pro

fit

an

d

tax

fre

e d

isp

osa

l. T

his

dem

on

stra

tes

an

oth

er f

un

da

me

nta

l d

iffe

ren

ce b

etw

een

th

e p

rop

erty

ma

rket

s in

En

gla

nd

an

d i

n J

erse

y w

hic

h m

ean

s it

is

no

t p

oss

ible

to

ap

pro

pri

ate

ly a

nd

ro

bu

stly

ass

ess

via

bil

ity

ba

sed

on

th

e id

enti

cal

ap

pro

ach

as

in E

ng

lan

d,

then

set

a p

rop

ose

d

infr

ast

ruct

ure

lev

y o

n d

evel

op

men

t.

3.3

6

Th

e ex

iste

nce

of

tax

on

la

nd

sa

les

com

bin

ed w

ith

th

e a

bse

nce

of

inh

erit

an

ce t

ax

me

an

s th

at

the

via

bil

ity

th

resh

old

s a

re l

ikel

y t

o b

e in

ex

cess

of

tho

se a

ssu

med

wit

hin

th

e S

tud

y.

Th

is i

s in

ad

dit

ion

to

ou

r p

rev

iou

s cr

itic

ism

s ra

ised

ab

ou

t th

e v

alu

e o

f b

row

nfi

eld

la

nd

ass

um

ed,

wh

ich

,

even

un

der

th

e S

tud

y’s

cu

rren

t a

ssu

mp

tio

n (

of

20

%)

wo

uld

un

der

min

e v

iab

ilit

y w

hen

com

pa

rin

g r

esid

ua

l la

nd

va

lues

.

3.3

7

Th

e v

iab

ilit

y t

hre

sho

ld m

ay

als

o b

e h

igh

er w

her

e d

ev

elo

per

s a

pp

roa

ch l

an

do

wn

ers

in

circ

um

sta

nce

s w

her

e th

e si

te i

s in

use

. T

his

is

bec

au

se n

ot

on

ly w

ill

the

lan

do

wn

er r

equ

ire

a

pre

miu

m a

bo

ve

the

EU

V,

bu

t m

ay

see

k a

hig

her

pre

miu

m t

o c

om

pe

nsa

te f

or

the

nee

d t

o v

aca

te

the

pre

mis

es a

nd

th

e in

con

ven

ien

ce.

Pa

dd

oc

k l

an

d

3.3

8

Wh

en a

pp

lied

to

th

e a

lter

na

tiv

e u

se v

alu

e o

n p

ad

do

ck l

an

d (

£15

0,0

00

/ha

) th

e S

tud

y’s

via

bil

ity

thre

sho

ld a

mo

un

ts t

o £

180

,00

0/h

a (

see

Ta

ble

10

.2).

Th

e S

tud

y i

tsel

f a

ccep

ts t

ha

t p

ad

do

ck l

an

d

alr

ead

y a

ttra

cts

a p

rem

ium

(a

rou

nd

4-5

tim

es t

he

va

lue

) o

ver

ag

ricu

ltu

ral

lan

d (

va

lued

at

£3

6,0

00

/ha

) d

ue

to b

ein

g o

f a

men

ity

va

lue,

fo

r u

se a

s p

on

y p

ad

do

cks

or

to p

rov

ide

pro

tect

ion

/pri

va

cy.

Th

eref

ore

, it

is

qu

esti

on

ab

le w

het

her

a l

an

do

wn

er

wo

uld

acc

ept

an

up

lift

of

just

20

% o

n a

sit

es i

n E

UV

as

a p

ad

do

ck (

equ

iva

len

t to

an

ad

dit

ion

al

£3

0,0

00

/ha

) if

th

ere

we

re

a p

oss

ibil

ity

of

the

lan

d b

ein

g d

evel

op

ed f

or

resi

de

nti

al

use

s.

3.3

9

Th

ose

liv

ing

on

th

e ed

ge

of

sett

lem

ents

wh

o o

wn

sm

all

pa

rcel

s o

f la

nd

alo

ng

th

e ed

ge

of

the

sett

lem

ent

cou

ld d

ecid

e n

ev

er t

o s

ell

such

la

nd

fo

r d

ev

elo

pm

ent,

pu

ttin

g a

sig

nif

ica

ntl

y h

igh

er

va

lue

on

th

e a

men

ity

an

d p

riv

acy

it

pro

vid

es;

a v

alu

e w

hic

h c

an

no

t n

eces

sari

ly b

e m

easu

red

thro

ug

h a

via

bil

ity

stu

dy

. T

his

is

lik

ely

to

be

fu

rth

er c

om

po

un

ded

by

th

e a

bse

nce

of

inh

erit

an

ce

tax

in

Jer

sey

all

ow

ing

su

ch l

an

d t

o b

e p

ass

ed o

n w

ith

no

fin

an

cia

l p

ena

lty

.

3.4

0

Th

e S

tud

y’s

ap

pro

ach

to

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

pa

dd

ock

la

nd

is

an

ex

tre

me

ov

ersi

mp

lifi

cati

on

of

a v

ery

com

ple

x s

yst

em

, in

wh

ich

in

cen

tiv

es t

o s

ell

are

aff

ecte

d b

y a

ra

ng

e o

f p

erso

na

l a

nd

wid

er

eco

no

mic

fa

cto

rs.

No

ex

am

ple

s h

av

e b

een

cit

ed i

n t

he

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

wh

ich

ju

stif

y i

ts

ass

um

pti

on

s.

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 16

Stu

dy

Ou

tpu

ts

3.4

1 A

s a

res

ult

of

the

de

gre

e to

wh

ich

th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y h

as

un

der

-est

ima

ted

th

e E

UV

of

bro

wn

fiel

d

site

s:

Th

e ‘A

dd

itio

na

l P

rofi

t’ s

ho

wn

in

Ta

ble

10

.4 o

f th

e S

tud

y i

s in

corr

ect

– o

ur

an

aly

sis

ab

ov

e

sho

ws

tha

t w

he

n c

om

pa

rin

g a

ga

inst

mo

re l

ike

ly l

an

d v

alu

es t

he

resi

du

al

lan

d v

alu

e d

oes

no

t

exce

ed t

o v

iab

ilit

y t

hre

sho

ld (

even

at

20

%)

for

mo

st s

ites

;

Th

e S

tud

y’s

co

ncl

usi

on

th

at

this

‘Ad

dit

ion

al

Pro

fit’

dem

on

stra

tes

ther

e is

cle

ar

cap

aci

ty f

or

dev

elo

pe

r co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns

is f

law

ed a

nd

in

corr

ect;

Th

e S

tud

y’s

su

bse

qu

ent

ass

essm

ents

of

the

sca

le o

f a

po

ten

tia

l J

IL a

re a

lso

fla

wed

.

Alt

er

na

tiv

e V

iab

ilit

y T

es

tin

g

Re

sid

ua

l L

an

d V

alu

es

3.4

2

Usi

ng

th

e H

om

es a

nd

Co

mm

un

itie

s A

gen

cy (

HC

A)

De

vel

op

men

t A

pp

rais

al

To

ol4 L

ich

fiel

ds

ha

s

recr

eate

d t

he

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

’s a

sses

smen

ts f

or

Sit

e 3

(a

20

Un

it B

row

nfi

eld

sit

e),

on

th

e b

asi

s

tha

t th

e J

eC

C c

on

sid

ers

this

on

e o

f th

e m

ore

lik

ely

ty

pes

of

site

to

co

me

forw

ard

in

Jer

sey

. T

his

use

s th

e a

ssu

mp

tio

ns

set

ou

t w

ith

in t

he

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

an

d a

s sh

ow

n i

n A

pp

end

ix 6

of

the

Stu

dy

. L

ich

fiel

ds

ha

s th

en m

ad

e so

me

am

end

men

ts t

0 t

he

via

bil

ity

ass

essm

ent

ba

sed

on

th

e

JeC

C’s

alt

ern

ati

ve

ass

um

pti

on

s, w

hic

h a

re:

A c

on

stru

ctio

n p

erio

d o

f 3

6 m

on

ths

(co

mp

are

d t

o 2

1 m

on

ths

in t

he

Stu

dy

);

Sa

les

per

iod

en

din

g u

p t

o 1

2 m

on

ths

po

st-c

om

ple

tio

n (

com

pa

red

to

6 m

on

ths

in t

he

Stu

dy

);

10%

fo

r co

nti

ng

enci

es (

com

pa

red

to

5%

in

th

e S

tud

y);

Incr

easi

ng

de

vel

op

ers

retu

rn t

o 2

5%

(co

mp

are

d t

o 2

0%

in

th

e S

tud

y,

to a

llo

w f

or

inte

rest

an

d t

ax

); a

nd

Incl

ud

ing

th

e p

erce

nta

ge

for

Art

(a

t 0

.75

% o

f b

uil

d c

ost

s).

3.4

3

Ma

kin

g t

he

ab

ov

e ch

an

ges

sh

ow

s a

res

idu

al

lan

d v

alu

e o

f £

2.2

m f

or

this

sit

e, e

qu

iva

len

t to

£5

.8m

/ha

, w

ith

ou

t th

e in

clu

sio

n o

f th

e p

rop

ose

d J

IL.

Wh

en J

IL i

s in

clu

ded

, th

is f

all

s to

£5

.1m

/ha

. F

ull

ou

tpu

ts c

an

be

fou

nd

in

Ap

pe

nd

ix 1

of

this

re

po

rt.

3.4

4

Th

e S

tud

y n

ote

s th

at

con

cern

s w

ere

rais

ed d

uri

ng

co

nsu

lta

tio

n t

ha

t th

e b

uil

d c

ost

s w

ere

too

lo

w,

an

d t

ha

t a

n i

nd

ex

of

1.4

sh

ou

ld b

e a

ssu

med

on

th

e B

CIS

(a

s o

pp

ose

d t

o t

he

1.2

use

d i

n t

he

4 S

ee h

ttp

s://

ww

w.g

ov.

uk/

gove

rnm

ent/

colle

ctio

ns/

dev

elo

pm

ent-

app

rais

al-t

oo

l

Su

mm

ar

y

A g

ener

al

20

% u

pli

ft h

as

be

en a

pp

lied

to

alt

ern

ati

ve

use

va

lues

to

det

erm

ine

wh

at

va

lue

wo

uld

in

cen

tiv

ise

a l

an

do

wn

er t

o s

ell,

ho

we

ver

th

is d

oe

s n

ot

re

fle

ct

the

sp

ec

ific

lo

ca

l

cir

cu

ms

tan

ce

s (

pa

rti

cu

lar

ly r

ela

ted

to

ta

x)

in J

er

se

y.

La

nd

ow

ne

rs i

n J

erse

y d

o n

ot

ha

ve

the

sam

e in

cen

tiv

e to

rel

ease

la

nd

as

tho

se i

n t

he

UK

, w

ith

hig

her

pre

miu

ms

oft

en

req

uir

ed.

Th

e la

ck o

f ev

iden

ce p

rese

nte

d o

n s

ale

s a

nd

dev

elo

pm

ent

of

pa

dd

ock

la

nd

, a

nd

giv

en l

an

do

wn

ers

ma

y p

lace

an

in

fin

itel

y h

igh

er v

alu

e o

n t

hei

r la

nd

fo

r u

se a

s a

me

nit

y s

pa

ce

(or

to p

rote

ct t

he

ir p

riv

acy

) m

ak

es i

t d

iffi

cult

, if

no

t im

po

ssib

le,

for

the

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

to

det

erm

ine

a v

iab

ilit

y t

hre

sho

ld f

or

thes

e ty

pes

of

site

.

https://www.gov.uk/government/collections/development-appraisal-tool

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

17

Stu

dy

). A

do

pti

ng

th

is i

nd

ex w

ou

ld g

ive

a r

esid

ua

l la

nd

va

lue

of

£4

.7m

/ha

(a

s ca

n b

e se

en i

n

Ap

pe

nd

ix 1

). W

ith

th

e p

rop

ose

d J

IL i

ncl

ud

ed,

this

fa

lls

to £

3.9

m/h

a

3.4

5

Ho

wev

er,

mem

ber

s o

f th

e J

eCC

ra

ise

con

cern

s a

bo

ut

the

BC

IS o

ver

all

fo

r J

erse

y (

sin

ce i

t

incl

ud

es f

ew s

am

ple

s fr

om

Jer

sey

an

d d

raw

s u

po

n d

ata

fro

m e

lse

wh

ere

, e.

g.

the

Isl

e o

f M

an

),

an

d D

an

da

ra h

as

pu

t a

lter

na

tiv

e b

uil

d c

ost

fig

ure

s to

Lic

hfi

eld

s o

f £

2,6

38

/sq

m.

Th

e V

iab

ilit

y

Stu

dy

als

o s

tate

s th

at

du

rin

g c

on

sult

ati

on

, a

sta

keh

old

er

ind

ica

ted

th

at

va

lues

30

% h

igh

er t

ha

n

BC

IS,

eq

uiv

ale

nt

to a

1.5

6 i

nd

ex w

as

ap

pro

pri

ate

. O

n t

he

ba

sis

of

the

bu

ild

co

sts

per

sq

m

ind

exed

to

1.5

6,

the

resi

du

al

lan

d v

alu

e o

f S

ite

3 w

ou

ld b

e £

3.7

m/h

a.

On

ce a

CIL

ch

arg

e5 h

as

bee

n i

nco

rpo

rate

d,

this

fa

lls

to £

3.0

m/h

a.

3.4

6

Th

e o

utc

om

es o

f th

e a

bo

ve

ass

essm

ents

are

sh

ow

n i

n t

he

con

tex

t o

f th

e p

rice

pa

id p

er h

ecta

re o

f

resi

den

tia

l si

tes

sho

wn

in

th

e S

tud

y (

as

set

ou

t p

rev

iou

sly

) in

Fig

ure

3.7

. It

sh

ow

s th

at

ad

just

ing

bu

ild

co

sts

to a

n i

nd

ex

of

1.4

on

th

e B

CIS

wo

uld

, w

he

n p

rop

ose

d J

IL i

s in

clu

ded

, re

sult

in

resi

du

al

lan

d v

alu

e b

elo

w t

he

pri

ce p

aid

on

alm

ost

ev

ery

sit

e so

ld i

n J

erse

y s

ince

20

06

. W

hen

usi

ng

Da

nd

ara

’s h

igh

er e

stim

ate

of

bu

ild

co

sts,

res

idu

al

lan

d v

alu

e is

clo

se t

o £

0,

an

d s

lig

htl

y

neg

ati

ve

wh

en t

he

pro

po

sed

JIL

is

incl

ud

ed.

Figu

re 3

.7 R

esid

ual

Lan

d V

alu

es (

Lich

fiel

ds'

Ass

essm

ent)

co

mp

ared

to

Sal

es V

alu

es o

f R

esi

den

tial

Sit

es

in J

ers

ey. D

ash

ed

lin

es s

ho

w

RLV

wh

en p

rop

ose

d J

IL is

incl

ud

ed.

Sou

rce:

Lic

hfi

eld

s u

sin

g H

CA

To

ol a

nd

bas

ed o

n V

iab

ility

Stu

dy/

JeC

C f

igu

res.

Tw

o s

ite

s w

ith

val

ue

of

£23

m/h

a n

ot

sho

wn

.

Su

rp

lus

/De

fic

it

3.4

7

In a

dd

itio

n t

o t

he

ab

ov

e,

by

wa

y o

f ex

am

ple

, L

ich

fiel

ds

ha

s a

lso

mo

del

led

fo

ur

of

the

site

s (S

ites

2,

3,

4 a

nd

5)

to d

ete

rmin

e w

het

her

th

ere

is a

su

rplu

s/d

efic

it,

ma

kin

g a

dju

stm

ents

fo

r b

uil

d

cost

s et

c. (

as

set

ou

t a

bo

ve)

.

5 T

o e

nsu

re t

hat

CIL

is n

ot

set

at t

he

mar

gin

s o

f vi

abili

ty, C

IL is

inp

ut

into

th

e H

CA

Dev

elo

pm

ent

Ap

pra

isal

To

ol a

s £

17

0/s

qm

; th

is

effe

ctiv

ely

app

lies

a 5

0%

bu

ffer

to

th

e p

rop

ose

d £

85

/sq

m.

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

£1

.0

£2

.0

£3

.0

£4

.0

£5

.0

£6

.0

£7

.0

£8

.0

£9

.0

£1

0.0

£1

1.0

£1

2.0

£1

3.0

£1

4.0

£1

5.0


JeC

C A

ssu

mp

tio

ns

JeC

C, w

ith

bu

ild c

ost

s in

de

xed

to

1.4

JeC

C, w

ith

bu

ild c

ost

s in

de

xed

to

1.5

6

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 18

3.4

8

To

pro

vid

e a

be

nch

ma

rk,

the

Stu

dy

’s a

ssu

mp

tio

ns

ha

ve

bee

n i

np

ut

into

th

e m

od

el.

Th

is g

ives

a

fig

ure

wh

ich

ali

gn

s b

roa

dly

wit

h t

he

‘Ad

dit

ion

al

Pro

fit’

set

ou

t fo

r ea

ch s

ite

in

Ap

pe

nd

ix 6

of

the

Stu

dy

(a

lbei

t w

ith

a s

ma

ll m

arg

in o

f er

ror

du

e to

dif

fere

nce

s in

th

e to

olk

its

emp

loy

ed).

Th

is i

s

sho

wn

in

th

e fi

rst

colu

mn

of

Ta

ble

3.1

.

3.4

9

By

all

ow

ing

fo

r L

ich

fiel

ds

alt

ern

ati

ve

ass

um

pti

on

s (a

s se

t o

ut

ab

ov

e a

nd

in

mo

re d

eta

il i

n

Ap

pe

nd

ix 2

), a

nd

acc

epti

ng

(fo

r th

e p

urp

ose

s o

f th

is e

xer

cise

) th

e v

iab

ilit

y t

hre

sho

ld o

f

£2

.28

m/h

a,

it i

s ev

iden

t th

at

the

pu

rpo

rted

su

rplu

s in

th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y i

s d

rast

ica

lly

red

uce

d.

Fo

r si

te 4

th

e s

urp

lus

red

uce

s fr

om

£1.

2m

to

ju

st £

27

9,0

00

. H

ow

ever

, th

e p

ract

ica

liti

es o

f

ass

essi

ng

via

bil

ity

an

d s

etti

ng

a J

IL r

ate

bec

om

e ev

en m

ore

cle

ar

wh

en

co

nsi

der

ing

th

e

va

ria

bil

ity

of

lan

d v

alu

es.

Th

is h

as

bee

n e

xp

lore

d i

n d

ep

th a

bo

ve

, w

hic

h s

ho

ws

the

va

ria

tio

n i

n

resi

den

tia

l la

nd

va

lues

in

Je

rsey

ba

sed

on

pre

vio

us

tra

nsa

ctio

ns,

th

e p

ote

nti

all

y h

igh

er v

alu

es

of

reta

il a

nd

ho

tel

site

s, a

nd

th

e la

ck o

f ev

iden

ce a

lto

get

her

rel

ati

ng

to

in

du

stri

al

lan

d v

alu

es.

Ta

ble

3.1

sh

ow

s th

at

if l

an

d v

alu

es

incr

ease

d t

o £

4m

/ha

, o

ne

of

the

fou

r si

tes

wo

uld

bec

om

e u

nv

iab

le,

at

£6

m/h

a t

hre

e o

f th

e fo

ur

bec

om

e u

nv

iab

le a

nd

ov

er £

8m

/ha

all

are

un

via

ble

. T

hes

e in

crea

sed

lan

d v

alu

es a

re n

ot

ou

tlie

rs:

15 o

f th

e 17

tra

nsa

cted

sit

es w

ere

at

or

ab

ov

e £

4m

an

d 1

0 w

ere

ov

er

£6

m p

er

hec

tare

.

Tab

le 3

.1 S

urp

lus/

Def

icit

usi

ng

Lich

fie

lds

assu

mp

tio

ns

and

at

vary

ing

lan

d v

alu

es

St

ud

y A

ssu

mp

tio

ns

Lich

fiel

ds

Ass

um

pti

on

s

Site

Su

rplu

s/d

efic

it

at S

tud

y V

iab

ility

Th

resh

old

Surp

lus

Def

icit

at

£2

.28

m/h

a Su

rplu

s D

efic

it

at £

4m

/ha

Surp

lus

Def

icit

at

£6

m/h

a Su

rplu

s D

efic

it

at £

8m

/ha

Surp

lus

Def

icit

at

£1

2m

/ha

1

£5

,13

2,0

00

£

2,7

95

,00

0

£1

,17

9,0

00

-£

70

1,0

00

-£

2,5

80

,00

0

-£6

,33

8,0

00

2

£3

,22

5,0

00

£

1,7

69

,00

0

£6

80

,00

0

£7

48

,00

0

-£1

,85

5,0

00

-£

4,3

89

,00

0

3

£2

,09

5,0

00

£

1,0

98

,00

0

£3

91

,00

0

-£4

31

,00

0

-£1

,25

3,0

00

-£

2,8

97

,00

0

4

£1

,22

1,0

00

£

27

9,0

00

-£

42

8,0

00

-£

1,2

50

,00

0

-£2

,07

2,0

00

-£

3,7

15

,00

0

Sou

rce:

Lic

hfi

eld

s b

ased

on

HC

A D

AT

and

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

3.5

0

Th

e a

bo

ve

hig

hli

gh

ts t

wo

fu

nd

am

enta

l is

sues

wit

h d

ete

rmin

ing

via

bil

ity

in

Jer

sey

;

1 T

he

sca

le o

f v

iab

ilit

y h

as

be

en s

ign

ific

an

tly

ov

er-e

stim

ate

d i

n t

he

Stu

dy

, le

ad

ing

th

e a

uth

ors

to i

nco

rrec

tly

co

ncl

ud

e th

ere

is s

uff

icie

nt

sco

pe

to i

ntr

od

uce

a J

IL;

an

d

2

Th

e in

her

en

t d

iffi

cult

y i

n d

eter

min

ing

la

nd

va

lues

on

th

e Is

lan

d m

ean

s th

at

via

bil

ity

is

nea

rly

im

po

ssib

le t

o d

eter

min

e a

lto

get

her

. T

he

sen

siti

vit

y o

f v

iab

ilit

y t

o l

an

d v

alu

es i

s

clea

rly

dem

on

stra

ted

ab

ov

e a

nd

ea

rlie

r in

th

is S

ecti

on

.

3.5

1 L

ich

fiel

ds

fin

din

gs

usi

ng

th

e H

CA

to

ol

are

in

lin

e w

ith

via

bil

ity

ca

lcu

lati

on

s u

nd

erta

ken

inte

rna

lly

by

th

e J

eCC

wh

ich

sh

ow

th

at

wit

h i

ts a

dju

ste

d a

ssu

mp

tio

ns

an

d i

np

uts

, v

iab

ilit

y

wo

uld

be

ma

rgin

al

on

th

is s

ite,

wit

h a

dev

elo

per

ret

urn

aft

er i

nte

rest

of

just

bel

ow

5%

.

Imp

ac

t o

f th

e U

K l

ea

vin

g t

he

Eu

ro

pe

an

Un

ion

3.5

2

Un

der

th

e h

ead

ing

‘Sen

siti

vit

y T

esti

ng

’ th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y r

efer

ence

s co

nce

rns

rais

ed d

uri

ng

sta

keh

old

er c

on

sult

ati

on

ab

ou

t th

e im

pa

ct o

f th

e w

eak

po

un

d f

oll

ow

ing

th

e E

U r

efer

end

um

.

3.5

3

Wh

ilst

th

e S

tud

y d

oes

un

de

rta

ke

sen

siti

vit

y t

esti

ng

, v

ary

ing

bu

ild

co

sts

by

bet

wee

n +

5%

an

d

+2

0%

, th

e o

utp

uts

of

thes

e a

sses

smen

ts a

re f

un

da

men

tall

y f

law

ed g

iven

th

ey a

re u

nd

erp

inn

ed

by

la

nd

va

lue

ass

um

pti

on

s a

nd

via

bil

ity

th

resh

old

s (a

nd

va

rio

us

oth

er

ass

um

pti

on

s) w

hic

h

them

selv

es a

re f

law

ed.

Ou

r a

na

lysi

s a

bo

ve

ad

op

ts h

igh

er

bu

ild

co

sts

an

d s

ho

ws

a s

ign

ific

an

t

red

uct

ion

in

res

idu

al

lan

d v

alu

e re

sult

s.

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

19

Co

mp

ar

iso

n w

ith

En

gli

sh

CIL

Ra

tes

3.5

4

As

set

ou

t in

th

e m

ain

re

pre

sen

tati

on

s a

nd

ab

ov

e,

we

con

sid

er t

ha

t th

e d

iffe

ren

ces

in t

he

Je

rsey

ho

usi

ng

ma

rket

co

mp

are

d t

o t

ho

se i

n t

he

UK

ma

ke

it d

iffi

cult

to

ass

ess

via

bil

ity

an

d i

mp

lem

ent

a C

IL c

ha

rge

alt

og

eth

er.

Ho

wev

er,

th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y p

rov

ides

so

me

com

pa

riso

ns

of

CIL

ra

tes

set

in l

oca

l a

uth

ori

ty a

rea

s in

En

gla

nd

, w

hic

h a

pp

ear

to s

up

po

rt t

he

Stu

dy

’s c

on

clu

sio

n.

3.5

5

Ta

ble

12

.1 o

f th

e S

tud

y s

ets

ou

t C

IL c

ha

rgin

g r

ate

s (w

he

re a

do

pte

d)

for

are

as

slig

htl

y m

ore

an

d

slig

htl

y l

ess

exp

en

siv

e (i

n t

erm

s o

f a

ve

rag

e h

ou

se p

rice

s) t

ha

n J

ers

ey,

fro

m O

xfo

rd (

£4

75

,73

2)

to

Win

ches

ter

(£4

32

,55

7).

Ho

wev

er,

to

un

der

sta

nd

wh

eth

er t

hes

e a

re a

pp

rop

ria

te c

om

pa

rato

rs f

or

Jer

sey

(w

hic

h i

n p

rin

cip

le,

we

con

sid

er

they

are

no

t) i

t is

nec

essa

ry t

o u

nd

erst

an

d w

ha

t ev

iden

ce

ha

s u

nd

erp

inn

ed t

hes

e C

IL c

ha

rges

. A

ve

rag

e h

ou

se p

rice

s in

iso

lati

on

are

no

t a

n a

pp

rop

ria

te

com

pa

rato

r fo

r C

IL c

ha

rges

; a

rea

s w

ith

sim

ila

r a

ver

ag

e h

ou

se p

rice

s w

ill

ha

ve

va

ryin

g

resi

den

tia

l la

nd

va

lues

an

d b

uil

d c

ost

s, a

nd

wit

hin

lo

cal

au

tho

rity

are

as

ther

e a

re o

ften

va

ryin

g

CIL

ra

tes.

Th

is i

s ev

iden

t, f

or

exa

mp

le,

in K

ensi

ng

ton

an

d C

hel

sea

(th

e m

ost

ex

pe

nsi

ve

loca

l

au

tho

rity

in

En

gla

nd

) w

her

e C

IL r

ate

s a

re a

ctu

all

y n

il i

n s

om

e p

art

s o

f th

e B

oro

ug

h.

3.5

6

Th

e S

tud

y g

ives

th

e e

xa

mp

le o

f S

ou

th O

xfo

rdsh

ire

6 w

hic

h h

as

a C

IL c

ha

rge

of

£8

5-£

150

/sq

m f

or

ho

usi

ng

an

d £

70

fo

r su

per

ma

rket

s. A

lth

ou

gh

ha

vin

g a

sim

ila

r a

ver

ag

e h

ou

se p

rice

to

Jer

sey

,

av

era

ge

resi

den

tia

l la

nd

va

lues

are

mu

ch l

ow

er i

n S

ou

th O

xfo

rdsh

ire

th

an

th

e a

ver

ag

e w

hic

h h

as

bee

n u

sed

in

th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y (

at

£3

.7m

/ha

7)

wh

ich

is

at

the

low

er e

nd

of

the

ran

ge

see

n i

n

Jer

sey

. L

an

d v

alu

es f

or

oth

er t

yp

es o

f la

nd

(e

.g.

off

ice

spa

ce)

are

als

o s

ub

sta

nti

all

y l

ow

er t

ha

n i

n

Jer

sey

, fo

r ex

am

ple

sit

es i

n c

urr

ent/

his

tori

c em

plo

ym

en

t u

se i

n S

ou

th O

xfo

rdsh

ire

are

va

lued

bet

we

en £

32

5k

/ha

to

£7

50

k/h

a.

Th

is i

s li

kel

y t

o r

efle

ct S

ou

th O

xfo

rdsh

ire’

s lo

cati

on

, w

ith

off

ice

dem

an

d b

ein

g c

on

cen

tra

ted

wit

hin

Ox

ford

an

d R

ead

ing

(i.

e.

ne

igh

bo

uri

ng

au

tho

riti

es).

Bu

ild

cost

s a

re a

lso

lo

wer

in

So

uth

Ox

ford

shir

e th

an

in

Jer

sey

, m

ean

ing

th

ere

is l

ikel

y t

o b

e m

ore

sco

pe

for

CIL

co

ntr

ibu

tio

ns.

3.5

7

Th

e S

ou

th O

xfo

rdsh

ire

Via

bil

ity

Ass

essm

ent

incl

ud

es a

10

% a

llo

wa

nce

fo

r co

nti

ng

ency

(d

ou

ble

tha

t u

sed

in

th

e J

erse

y S

tud

y)

an

d a

fu

rth

er

6%

fo

r m

eeti

ng

Co

de

for

Su

sta

ina

ble

Ho

mes

. A

s

sta

ted

ab

ov

e th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y a

lrea

dy

un

der

-est

ima

tes

bu

ild

co

sts

in J

erse

y,

an

d w

ere

sim

ila

r

cost

s (t

o t

ho

se a

pp

lied

in

So

uth

Ox

ford

shir

e) t

o b

e in

clu

ded

wit

hin

th

e V

iab

ilit

y,

it i

s li

kel

y t

he

sco

pe

for

intr

od

uct

ion

of

a J

IL w

ou

ld f

urt

her

be

red

uce

d.

3.5

8

It i

s cl

ear

tha

t w

hil

st J

erse

y h

as

sim

ila

r a

ver

ag

e h

ou

se p

rice

s to

th

e ex

am

ple

s g

ive

n o

f lo

cal

au

tho

riti

es i

n E

ng

lan

d,

com

pa

riso

ns

of

CIL

ch

arg

es i

n t

ho

se a

uth

ori

ties

(o

r ev

en

th

e ex

iste

nce

of

a C

IL c

ha

rge

alt

og

eth

er)

do

es n

ot

sup

po

rt t

he

exis

ten

ce o

f C

IL c

ha

rge

in J

erse

y8 .

6 S

ou

th O

xfo

rdsh

ire

CIL

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y -

htt

p:/

/ww

w.s

ou

tho

xon

.go

v.u

k/si

tes/

def

ault

/file

s/C

IL%

20

Via

bili

ty%

20

stu

dy%

20

Oct

%2

02

01

4.p

df

7 S

ou

rce:

DC

LG L

and

Val

ue

Esti

mat

es f

or

Po

licy

Ap

pra

isal

htt

p:/

/rea

lest

atea

pp

rais

al.c

o.u

k/w

p/w

p-c

on

ten

t/u

plo

ads/

20

13

/07

/201

5-

DC

LG-L

and

-Val

ue-

Esti

mat

es.p

df

8 A

lth

ou

gh t

he

Stu

dy

corr

ectl

y n

ote

s in

En

glan

d a

ffo

rdab

le h

ou

sin

g is

req

uir

ed o

n n

ew m

arke

t d

eve

lop

men

ts, t

he

leve

l of

affo

rdab

le h

ou

sin

g se

t w

ith

in a

Lo

cal P

lan

is it

self

su

bje

ct t

o v

iab

ility

tes

tin

g, a

nd

var

ies

bet

wee

n lo

cal a

uth

ori

ty a

reas

. Th

is w

ill

fact

or

in b

uild

co

sts,

sal

es

valu

es a

nd

dev

elo

per

pro

fit

wh

ich

var

y to

Jer

sey

hen

ce d

o n

ot

pro

vid

e a

dir

ect

co

mp

aris

on

.

Su

mm

ar

y

Th

e co

mp

ara

tor

au

tho

riti

es f

rom

En

gla

nd

pre

sen

ted

in

th

e S

tud

y m

ust

be

see

n i

n t

he

con

tex

t

of

exa

ctly

wh

at

ev

iden

ce a

nd

ass

um

pti

on

s u

nd

erp

in t

ho

se C

IL c

ha

rges

, n

ot

just

a s

imp

le

com

pa

riso

n o

f a

ve

rag

e h

ou

se p

rice

s. T

he

low

er l

an

d v

alu

es i

n S

ou

th O

xfo

rdsh

ire

, fo

r

exa

mp

le,

are

lik

ely

to

co

ntr

ibu

te t

o t

he

sco

pe

for

CIL

, a

nd

su

ch f

act

ors

wil

l v

ary

be

twee

n

are

as.

Th

ese

do

no

t su

pp

ort

th

e im

ple

men

tati

on

of

a J

IL i

n J

erse

y.

http://www.southoxon.gov.uk/sites/default/files/CIL%20Viability%20study%20Oct%202014.pdf

http://realestateappraisal.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2015-DCLG-Land-Value-Estimates.pdf

http://realestateappraisal.co.uk/wp/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/2015-DCLG-Land-Value-Estimates.pdf

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 20

4.0

C

on

clu

sio

ns

4.3

R

egre

tta

bly

, th

e V

iab

ilit

y S

tud

y i

s n

ot

a r

ob

ust

ass

essm

ent

of

via

bil

ity

in

Jer

sey

up

on

wh

ich

to

set

a J

IL c

ha

rge

. N

otw

ith

sta

nd

ing

th

at

the

JeC

C c

on

sid

ers

the

pri

nci

ple

of

a J

IL o

n t

he

Isla

nd

itse

lf t

o b

e n

ot

po

ssib

le,

we

ha

ve

iden

tifi

ed a

nu

mb

er o

f fl

aw

s w

ith

in t

he

Stu

dy

. M

ost

of

thes

e

crit

icis

ms

alo

ne

wo

uld

un

der

min

e th

e p

rop

ose

d J

IL;

ho

wev

er,

wh

en

co

nsi

der

ed i

n c

om

bin

ati

on

,

they

dem

on

stra

te t

he

de

gre

e to

wh

ich

via

bil

ity

ha

s b

een

ov

erst

ate

d f

or

the

Isla

nd

. In

su

mm

ary

:

1 T

he

alt

ern

ati

ve

use

va

lue

of

mo

st o

f th

e si

tes

ass

esse

d i

s b

ase

d o

n a

n a

ssu

mp

tio

n o

f

ind

ust

ria

l v

alu

e;

ho

we

ver

, th

e S

tud

y h

as

no

ev

ide

nce

to

su

pp

ort

th

is f

igu

re;

2

Wit

h t

he

exce

pti

on

of

a f

ew s

chem

es,

the

Stu

dy

ass

esse

s a

ll b

row

nfi

eld

sit

es a

s b

ein

g i

n

ind

ust

ria

l u

se,

des

pit

e th

e f

act

th

at

in J

erse

y b

row

nfi

eld

sit

es a

re l

ikel

y t

o b

e o

ther

use

s

wh

ich

ma

y h

av

e h

igh

er v

alu

es.

Th

is i

ncl

ud

es h

ote

l si

tes,

ret

ail

sp

ace

an

d o

ffic

e sp

ace

, w

hic

h

ha

ve

a h

igh

er v

alu

e,

an

d a

s su

ch t

he

Stu

dy

ha

s fa

iled

to

ass

ess

the

typ

es o

f si

te w

hic

h a

re

lik

ely

to

co

me

fo

rwa

rd.

Th

e S

tud

y a

ccep

ts t

ha

t th

e in

du

stri

al

va

lue

ma

y b

e lo

w a

nd

sit

es

ma

y b

e i

n o

ther

use

s, b

ut

it f

ail

s to

ca

rry

fo

rwa

rd a

ny

of

thes

e o

bse

rva

tio

ns

into

its

via

bil

ity

mo

del

lin

g.

Ou

r es

tim

ati

on

of

lan

d v

alu

es o

f se

con

da

ry r

eta

il s

pa

ce s

ho

ws

tha

t th

e re

sid

ua

l

va

lues

wo

uld

no

t su

ffic

ien

tly

ex

ceed

th

e v

iab

ilit

y t

hre

sho

ld a

cro

ss m

ost

dev

elo

pm

en

ts;

3

Th

e v

iab

ilit

y t

hre

sho

ld u

sed

in

th

e S

tud

y a

ssu

mes

a 2

0%

up

lift

on

ex

isti

ng

va

lue

wo

uld

ince

nti

vis

e a

la

nd

ow

ner

to

sel

l. I

t is

qu

esti

on

ab

le h

ow

, in

th

e ca

se o

f J

erse

y,

it i

s p

oss

ible

to

det

erm

ine

such

a v

alu

e, g

iven

th

e sp

ecif

ic t

ax

an

d l

an

d o

wn

ersh

ip c

ircu

mst

an

ces

on

th

e

Isla

nd

, w

hic

h v

ary

co

mp

are

d t

o t

he

UK

. J

eC

C m

em

ber

s cl

ari

fy t

ha

t a

sig

nif

ica

nt

pre

miu

m i

s

oft

en r

equ

ired

, to

ref

lect

ta

xes

an

d p

rofi

t m

arg

ins.

It

is a

lso

lik

ely

th

at

the

pre

miu

m w

ill

va

ry d

epen

din

g o

n t

he

typ

e o

f la

nd

, w

ith

ow

ner

s o

f p

ad

do

ck l

an

d l

ikel

y t

o d

ema

nd

a m

uch

hig

her

pre

miu

m g

iven

th

e a

men

ity

va

lue

of

such

la

nd

. In

Lo

nd

on

, su

bje

ct t

o U

K-

ass

um

pti

on

s, t

he

Ma

yo

r’s

late

st a

ffo

rda

ble

ho

usi

ng

SP

D a

ssu

mes

an

up

lift

to

EU

V o

f u

p t

o

30

% a

nd

its

eff

ect

on

ma

rket

be

ha

vio

ur

is s

o f

ar

un

test

ed;

an

d

4

Th

e co

nst

ruct

ion

co

sts

are

lik

ely

to

be

a s

ign

ific

an

t u

nd

er-e

stim

ate

, n

ot

lea

st b

eca

use

BC

IS

da

ta h

as

lim

ited

in

form

ati

on

wh

ich

dir

ectl

y r

ela

tes

to J

erse

y.

Sta

keh

old

ers

sug

ges

ted

hig

he

r

fig

ure

s d

uri

ng

co

nsu

lta

tio

n,

an

d f

igu

res

pu

t to

Lic

hfi

eld

s b

y m

emb

ers

of

the

Je

CC

(b

ase

d o

n

loca

l Q

S s

urv

eys)

dem

on

stra

te t

ha

t th

e u

nd

eres

tim

ati

on

in

bu

ild

co

sts

alo

ne

wo

uld

en

tire

ly

wip

e o

ut

an

y p

ote

nti

al

JIL

co

ntr

ibu

tio

n;

Ad

dit

ion

al

calc

ula

tio

ns

un

der

tak

en b

y t

he

Je

CC

of

Sit

es

3 a

nd

4 s

ho

w t

ha

t co

rrec

tin

g

for

con

stru

ctio

n c

ost

s (a

mo

ng

st o

ther

err

ors

) w

ou

ld r

esu

lt i

n a

ret

urn

on

in

ves

tme

nt

of

1% t

o 5

% o

n b

row

nfi

eld

sit

es

of

12-2

0 u

nit

s –

cle

arl

y t

his

is

un

via

ble

. O

ur

ow

n

ass

essm

ent

usi

ng

th

e H

CA

ap

pra

isa

l to

ol

va

lid

ate

th

e J

eCC

’s a

sses

sme

nts

.

Re

co

mm

en

da

tio

ns

4.4

N

otw

ith

sta

nd

ing

ou

r co

nce

rns

ab

ou

t th

e o

ver

all

pri

nci

ple

of

a J

IL (

as

set

ou

t in

ou

r m

ain

rep

rese

nta

tio

ns)

, in

th

e ev

en

t th

at

the

Sta

tes

of

Jer

sey

dec

ide

s n

on

eth

eles

s to

co

nti

nu

e w

ith

pre

pa

rati

on

of

a J

IL c

ha

rge,

we

ha

ve

iden

tifi

ed a

nu

mb

er o

f si

gn

ific

an

t fl

aw

s w

ith

in t

he

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

wh

ich

sh

ou

ld b

e c

orr

ecte

d.

Th

ese

are

ess

en

tia

l in

ord

er f

or

the

Sta

tes

to d

emo

nst

rate

s th

at

an

y p

rop

ose

d J

IL c

ha

rge

is u

nd

erp

inn

ed b

y s

uit

ab

le a

nd

ro

bu

st e

vid

ence

(w

hic

h,

at

pre

sen

t, w

e

bel

iev

e is

no

t) T

he

fla

ws

sho

uld

be

rem

edie

d b

y t

he

foll

ow

ing

:

1 T

es

t b

ro

wn

fie

ld s

ite

s b

as

ed

on

a r

an

ge

of

ex

isti

ng

us

es

, in

clu

din

g o

ffic

e, r

eta

il a

nd

ho

tel

use

s, w

hic

h a

re m

ore

ref

lect

ive

of

the

site

ty

po

log

ies

lik

ely

to

co

me

forw

ard

in

th

e P

lan

per

iod

;

2

Se

ns

itiv

ity

te

st

thes

e v

alu

es t

o a

llo

w f

or

hig

her

via

bil

ity

th

resh

old

s, r

efle

ctin

g t

he

gre

ate

r

ince

nti

ve

oft

en n

eed

ed t

o m

ak

e a

sa

le a

nd

th

e ta

xes

wh

ich

ap

ply

to

pro

fits

;

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

21

3

Co

nsu

lt w

ith

sta

ke

ho

lder

s a

nd

lo

cal

qu

an

tity

su

rvey

or

firm

s to

re

ac

h a

nd

ag

re

ed

co

ns

en

su

s o

f b

uil

d c

os

ts o

n t

he

isla

nd

, in

clu

din

g s

en

sit

ivit

y t

es

tin

g t

o t

his

;

4

Pro

vid

e si

gn

ific

an

tly

gre

ate

r cl

ari

ty o

ver

th

e re

lati

on

ship

of

JIL

wit

h P

OA

s a

nd

th

e

infr

ast

ruct

ure

to

be

fun

ded

by

ea

ch t

o a

vo

id p

ote

nti

al

for

ac

tua

l o

r p

er

ce

ive

d ‘

do

ub

le

dip

pin

g’

4.5

O

nce

th

e a

bo

ve

ha

ve

bee

n c

orr

ecte

d a

nd

ag

reed

up

on

by

all

pa

rtie

s, w

e c

on

sid

er t

ha

t th

ese

wil

l

dem

on

stra

te i

t is

no

t p

oss

ible

to

im

ple

me

nt

a J

IL w

ith

ou

t u

nd

erm

inin

g t

he

Isla

nd

Pla

n.

In t

he

even

t th

at

this

do

es d

em

on

stra

ted

im

ple

men

tati

on

of

a J

IL m

ay

be

po

ssib

le,

it i

s li

kel

y t

o b

e

sig

nif

ica

ntl

y l

ow

er

tha

n t

he

lev

el c

urr

entl

y p

rop

ose

d,

an

d m

ay

dem

on

stra

te t

ha

t in

cer

tain

are

as

(e.g

. w

ith

in b

uil

t-u

p a

rea

s) o

r sp

ecif

ic t

yp

es

of

site

a n

il J

IL r

ate

sh

ou

ld b

e im

po

sed

.

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 22

Ap

pe

nd

ix 1

: O

utp

uts

of

HC

A D

ev

elo

pm

en

t A

pp

ra

isa

l T

oo

l fo

r R

LV

Ca

lcu

lati

on

s

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

23

Ou

tpu

ts –

Je

CC

ass

um

pti

on

s, w

ith

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

bu

ild

co

sts

Re

sid

ua

l L

an

d v

alu

ati

on

£0

HC

A D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

AP

PR

AIS

AL

TO

OL

SC

HE

ME

Site

Ad

dre

ss

Je

rse

yD

ate

of a

pp

rais

al

27

/03

/20

17

Site

Re

fere

nce

Ne

t R

esid

entia

l Site

Are

a (

he

cta

res)

0.3

84

File

So

urc

eA

uth

or

& O

rga

nis

atio

n

Sche

me

De

scri

ptio

n2

0 u

nit b

row

nfie

ld s

ite

Re

gis

tere

d P

rovi

de

r (w

he

re a

pp

lica

ble

)0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

9,2

09

,17

0£

4,6

23

psq

m

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

OP

EN

MA

RK

ET

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

2,9

09

,24

1£

1,4

60

psq

m

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

6,2

99

,92

9

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(E

XC

LU

DIN

G O

TH

ER

FU

ND

ING

)£

0

OT

HE

R S

OU

RC

ES

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

FU

ND

ING

£0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(IN

CL

UD

ING

OT

HE

R F

UN

DIN

G)

£0

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

0#

DIV

/0!

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M A

FF

OR

DA

BL

E H

OU

SIN

G£

0

Va

lue

of R

esid

entia

l Ca

r P

ark

ing

£0

Ca

r P

ark

ing

Build

Co

sts

£0

Ca

pit

alis

ed

An

nu

al G

rou

nd

Re

nts

£0

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L V

AL

UE

OF

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

T O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£2

,90

9,2

41

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£6

,29

9,9

29

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

ST

S O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L£

0

GR

OS

S D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

VA

LU

E O

F S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

TS

£2

,90

9,2

41

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N T

O S

CH

EM

E C

OS

TS

£6

,29

9,9

29

Ex

tern

al W

ork

s &

In

fra

str

uc

ture

Co

sts

(£

)P

er

unit

% o

f G

DV

pe

r H

ecta

re

Site

Pre

pa

ratio

n/D

em

olit

ion

£0

Ro

ad

s a

nd

Se

we

rs£

0

Se

rvic

es (

Po

we

r, W

ate

r, G

as, T

elc

o a

nd

IT)

£3

93

,28

01

9,6

64

4.3

%1

,02

4,1

66

Str

ate

gic

La

nd

sca

pin

g£

0

Off S

ite

Wo

rks

£0

Pub

lic O

pe

n S

pa

ce

£0

Site

Sp

ecific

Susta

ina

bili

ty In

itia

tive

s£

0

Plo

t sp

ecific

ext

ern

al w

ork

s£

0

Oth

er

1£

0

Oth

er

2£

0

£3

93

,28

04

.3%

1,0

24

,16

6

Oth

er

sit

e c

os

ts

Fe

es a

nd

ce

rtific

atio

n1

2.0

%£

31

7,3

72

15

,86

93

.4%

82

6,4

89

Oth

er

Acq

uis

itio

n C

osts

(£

)£

0

Sit

e A

bn

orm

als

(£

)

De

-ca

nting

te

na

nts

£0

De

co

nta

min

atio

n£

0

Oth

er

£0

Oth

er

2£

0

Oth

er

3£

0

Oth

er

4£

0

Oth

er

5£

0

£0

To

tal S

ite

Co

sts

in

c F

ee

s£

71

0,6

51

35

,53

3

Sta

tuto

ry 1

06

co

sts

£2

1,8

57

1,0

93

To

tal M

ark

eti

ng

Co

sts

£2

30

,22

3

To

tal D

ire

ct

Co

sts

£3

,87

1,9

73

Fin

an

ce

an

d a

cq

uis

itio

n c

os

ts

La

nd

Pa

yme

nt

£2

,22

1,2

32

11

1,0

62

pe

r O

M h

om

e5

,78

4,4

58

pe

r he

cta

re

Arr

ang

em

ent F

ee

£0

0.0

%o

f in

tere

st

Mis

c F

ee

s (

Surv

eyo

rs e

tc)

£0

0.0

0%

of sche

me

va

lue

Ag

ents

Fe

es

£0

Le

ga

l Fe

es

£3

3,3

18

Sta

mp

Duty

£1

00

,56

2

To

tal I

nte

rest P

aid

£6

79

,79

2

To

tal F

ina

nc

e a

nd

Ac

qu

isit

ion

Co

sts

£3

,03

4,9

04

To

tal O

pe

rati

ng

Pro

fit

£2

,30

2,2

93

(i.e

. p

rofit a

fte

r d

ed

ucting

sa

les a

nd

site

sp

ecific

fin

ance

co

sts

but b

efo

re d

ed

ucting

de

velo

pe

r o

verh

ea

ds a

nd

ta

xatio

n)

TO

TA

L C

OS

T£

9,2

09

,17

0

Su

rplu

s/(

De

fic

it)

at

co

mp

leti

on

1/6

/20

22

£0

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

of

Su

rplu

s (

De

fic

it)

at

27

/3/2

01

7£

0

Sc

he

me

In

ve

stm

en

t M

IRR

1

3.8

%(b

efo

re D

eve

loper's

retu

rns a

nd inte

rest

to a

void

double

counting r

etu

rns)

Site

Va

lue

as a

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of T

ota

l Sche

me

Va

lue

24

.1%

Pe

ak C

ash R

eq

uir

em

ent

-£4

,49

3,7

13

Site

Va

lue

(P

V)

pe

r he

cta

re£

1p

er

he

cta

re£

1p

er

acre

Pre

ss f

or

Sin

gle

Pa

ge

Su

mm

ary

Pre

ss f

or

4 p

ag

e d

eta

il

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 24

Ou

tpu

ts –

Je

CC

ass

um

pti

on

s, w

ith

Via

bil

ity

Stu

dy

bu

ild

co

sts,

in

clu

din

g J

IL

Re

sid

ua

l L

an

d v

alu

ati

on

£0

HC

A D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

AP

PR

AIS

AL

TO

OL

SC

HE

ME

Site

Ad

dre

ss

Je

rse

yD

ate

of a

pp

rais

al

27

/03

/20

17

Site

Re

fere

nce

Ne

t R

esid

entia

l Site

Are

a (

he

cta

res)

0.3

84

File

So

urc

eA

uth

or

& O

rga

nis

atio

n

Sche

me

De

scri

ptio

n2

0 u

nit b

row

nfie

ld s

ite

Re

gis

tere

d P

rovi

de

r (w

he

re a

pp

lica

ble

)0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

9,2

09

,17

0£

4,6

23

psq

m

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

OP

EN

MA

RK

ET

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

2,9

09

,24

1£

1,4

60

psq

m

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

6,2

99

,92

9

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(E

XC

LU

DIN

G O

TH

ER

FU

ND

ING

)£

0

OT

HE

R S

OU

RC

ES

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

FU

ND

ING

£0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(IN

CL

UD

ING

OT

HE

R F

UN

DIN

G)

£0

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

0#

DIV

/0!

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M A

FF

OR

DA

BL

E H

OU

SIN

G£

0

Va

lue

of R

esid

entia

l Ca

r P

ark

ing

£0

Ca

r P

ark

ing

Build

Co

sts

£0

Ca

pit

alis

ed

An

nu

al G

rou

nd

Re

nts

£0

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L V

AL

UE

OF

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

T O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£2

,90

9,2

41

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£6

,29

9,9

29

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

ST

S O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L£

0

GR

OS

S D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

VA

LU

E O

F S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

TS

£2

,90

9,2

41

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N T

O S

CH

EM

E C

OS

TS

£6

,29

9,9

29

Ex

tern

al W

ork

s &

In

fra

str

uc

ture

Co

sts

(£

)P

er

unit

% o

f G

DV

pe

r H

ecta

re

Site

Pre

pa

ratio

n/D

em

olit

ion

£0

Ro

ad

s a

nd

Se

we

rs£

0

Se

rvic

es (

Po

we

r, W

ate

r, G

as, T

elc

o a

nd

IT)

£3

93

,28

01

9,6

64

4.3

%1

,02

4,1

66

Str

ate

gic

La

nd

sca

pin

g£

0

Off S

ite

Wo

rks

£0

Pub

lic O

pe

n S

pa

ce

£0

Site

Sp

ecific

Susta

ina

bili

ty In

itia

tive

s£

0

Plo

t sp

ecific

ext

ern

al w

ork

s£

0

Oth

er

1£

0

Oth

er

2£

0

£3

93

,28

04

.3%

1,0

24

,16

6

Oth

er

sit

e c

os

ts

Fe

es a

nd

ce

rtific

atio

n1

2.0

%£

31

7,3

72

15

,86

93

.4%

82

6,4

89

Oth

er

Acq

uis

itio

n C

osts

(£

)£

0

Sit

e A

bn

orm

als

(£

)

De

-ca

nting

te

na

nts

£0

De

co

nta

min

atio

n£

0

Oth

er

£0

Oth

er

2£

0

Oth

er

3£

0

Oth

er

4£

0

Oth

er

5£

0

£0

To

tal S

ite

Co

sts

in

c F

ee

s£

71

0,6

51

35

,53

3

Sta

tuto

ry 1

06

co

sts

£3

60

,52

11

8,0

26

To

tal M

ark

eti

ng

Co

sts

£2

30

,22

3

To

tal D

ire

ct

Co

sts

£4

,21

0,6

37

Fin

an

ce

an

d a

cq

uis

itio

n c

os

ts

La

nd

Pa

yme

nt

£1

,94

3,2

89

97

,16

4p

er

OM

ho

me

5,0

60

,64

7p

er

he

cta

re

Arr

ang

em

ent F

ee

£0

0.0

%o

f in

tere

st

Mis

c F

ee

s (

Surv

eyo

rs e

tc)

£0

0.0

0%

of sche

me

va

lue

Ag

ents

Fe

es

£0

Le

ga

l Fe

es

£2

9,1

49

Sta

mp

Duty

£8

6,6

64

To

tal I

nte

rest P

aid

£6

37

,13

8

To

tal F

ina

nc

e a

nd

Ac

qu

isit

ion

Co

sts

£2

,69

6,2

40

To

tal O

pe

rati

ng

Pro

fit

£2

,30

2,2

93

(i.e

. p

rofit a

fte

r d

ed

ucting

sa

les a

nd

site

sp

ecific

fin

ance

co

sts

but b

efo

re d

ed

ucting

de

velo

pe

r o

verh

ea

ds a

nd

ta

xatio

n)

TO

TA

L C

OS

T£

9,2

09

,16

9

Su

rplu

s/(

De

fic

it)

at

co

mp

leti

on

1/6

/20

22

£1

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

of

Su

rplu

s (

De

fic

it)

at

27

/3/2

01

7£

0

Sc

he

me

In

ve

stm

en

t M

IRR

1

4.0

%(b

efo

re D

eve

loper's

retu

rns a

nd inte

rest

to a

void

double

counting r

etu

rns)

Site

Va

lue

as a

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of T

ota

l Sche

me

Va

lue

21

.1%

Pe

ak C

ash R

eq

uir

em

ent

-£4

,33

5,5

69

Site

Va

lue

(P

V)

pe

r he

cta

re£

1p

er

he

cta

re£

1p

er

acre

Pre

ss f

or

Sin

gle

Pa

ge

Su

mm

ary

Pre

ss f

or

4 p

ag

e d

eta

il

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

25

Ou

tpu

ts –

Je

CC

ass

um

pti

on

s, w

ith

bu

ild

co

sts

ind

exed

to

1.4

Re

sid

ua

l L

an

d v

alu

ati

on

£0

HC

A D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

AP

PR

AIS

AL

TO

OL

SC

HE

ME

Site

Ad

dre

ss

Je

rse

yD

ate

of a

pp

rais

al

27

/03

/20

17

Site

Re

fere

nce

Ne

t R

esid

entia

l Site

Are

a (

he

cta

res)

0.3

84

File

So

urc

eA

uth

or

& O

rga

nis

atio

n

Sche

me

De

scri

ptio

n2

0 u

nit b

row

nfie

ld s

ite

Re

gis

tere

d P

rovi

de

r (w

he

re a

pp

lica

ble

)0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

9,2

09

,17

0£

4,6

23

psq

m

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

OP

EN

MA

RK

ET

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

3,3

93

,38

4£

1,7

03

psq

m

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

5,8

15

,78

6

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(E

XC

LU

DIN

G O

TH

ER

FU

ND

ING

)£

0

OT

HE

R S

OU

RC

ES

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

FU

ND

ING

£0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(IN

CL

UD

ING

OT

HE

R F

UN

DIN

G)

£0

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

0#

DIV

/0!

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M A

FF

OR

DA

BL

E H

OU

SIN

G£

0

Va

lue

of R

esid

entia

l Ca

r P

ark

ing

£0

Ca

r P

ark

ing

Build

Co

sts

£0

Ca

pit

alis

ed

An

nu

al G

rou

nd

Re

nts

£0

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L V

AL

UE

OF

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

T O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£3

,39

3,3

84

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£5

,81

5,7

86

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

ST

S O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L£

0

GR

OS

S D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

VA

LU

E O

F S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

TS

£3

,39

3,3

84

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N T

O S

CH

EM

E C

OS

TS

£5

,81

5,7

86

Ex

tern

al W

ork

s &

In

fra

str

uc

ture

Co

sts

(£

)P

er

unit

% o

f G

DV

pe

r H

ecta

re

Site

Pre

pa

ratio

n/D

em

olit

ion

£0

Ro

ad

s a

nd

Se

we

rs£

0

Se

rvic

es (

Po

we

r, W

ate

r, G

as, T

elc

o a

nd

IT)

£3

93

,28

01

9,6

64

4.3

%1

,02

4,1

66

Str

ate

gic

La

nd

sca

pin

g£

0

Off S

ite

Wo

rks

£0

Pub

lic O

pe

n S

pa

ce

£0

Site

Sp

ecific

Susta

ina

bili

ty In

itia

tive

s£

0

Plo

t sp

ecific

ext

ern

al w

ork

s£

0

Oth

er

1£

0

Oth

er

2£

0

£3

93

,28

04

.3%

1,0

24

,16

6

Oth

er

sit

e c

os

ts

Fe

es a

nd

ce

rtific

atio

n1

2.0

%£

37

0,1

87

18

,50

94

.0%

96

4,0

29

Oth

er

Acq

uis

itio

n C

osts

(£

)£

0

Sit

e A

bn

orm

als

(£

)

De

-ca

nting

te

na

nts

£0

De

co

nta

min

atio

n£

0

Oth

er

£0

Oth

er

2£

0

Oth

er

3£

0

Oth

er

4£

0

Oth

er

5£

0

£0

To

tal S

ite

Co

sts

in

c F

ee

s£

76

3,4

67

38

,17

3

Sta

tuto

ry 1

06

co

sts

£2

1,8

57

1,0

93

To

tal M

ark

eti

ng

Co

sts

£2

30

,22

3

To

tal D

ire

ct

Co

sts

£4

,40

8,9

31

Fin

an

ce

an

d a

cq

uis

itio

n c

os

ts

La

nd

Pa

yme

nt

£1

,78

7,1

15

89

,35

6p

er

OM

ho

me

4,6

53

,94

5p

er

he

cta

re

Arr

ang

em

ent F

ee

£0

0.0

%o

f in

tere

st

Mis

c F

ee

s (

Surv

eyo

rs e

tc)

£0

0.0

0%

of sche

me

va

lue

Ag

ents

Fe

es

£0

Le

ga

l Fe

es

£2

6,8

07

Sta

mp

Duty

£7

8,8

56

To

tal I

nte

rest P

aid

£6

05

,16

9

To

tal F

ina

nc

e a

nd

Ac

qu

isit

ion

Co

sts

£2

,49

7,9

47

To

tal O

pe

rati

ng

Pro

fit

£2

,30

2,2

93

(i.e

. p

rofit a

fte

r d

ed

ucting

sa

les a

nd

site

sp

ecific

fin

ance

co

sts

but b

efo

re d

ed

ucting

de

velo

pe

r o

verh

ea

ds a

nd

ta

xatio

n)

TO

TA

L C

OS

T£

9,2

09

,17

1

Su

rplu

s/(

De

fic

it)

at

co

mp

leti

on

1/6

/20

22

(£1

)

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

of

Su

rplu

s (

De

fic

it)

at

27

/3/2

01

7(£

)

Sc

he

me

In

ve

stm

en

t M

IRR

1

4.2

%(b

efo

re D

eve

loper's

retu

rns a

nd inte

rest

to a

void

double

counting r

etu

rns)

Site

Va

lue

as a

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of T

ota

l Sche

me

Va

lue

19

.4%

Pe

ak C

ash R

eq

uir

em

ent

-£4

,20

5,0

96

Site

Va

lue

(P

V)

pe

r he

cta

re-£

1p

er

he

cta

re-£

1p

er

acre

Pre

ss f

or

Sin

gle

Pa

ge

Su

mm

ary

Pre

ss f

or

4 p

ag

e d

eta

il

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 26

Ou

tpu

ts –

Je

CC

ass

um

pti

on

s, w

ith

bu

ild

co

sts

ind

exed

to

1.4

, in

clu

din

g J

IL

Re

sid

ua

l L

an

d v

alu

ati

on

£0

HC

A D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

AP

PR

AIS

AL

TO

OL

SC

HE

ME

Site

Ad

dre

ss

Je

rse

yD

ate

of a

pp

rais

al

27

/03

/20

17

Site

Re

fere

nce

Ne

t R

esid

entia

l Site

Are

a (

he

cta

res)

0.3

84

File

So

urc

eA

uth

or

& O

rga

nis

atio

n

Sche

me

De

scri

ptio

n2

0 u

nit b

row

nfie

ld s

ite

Re

gis

tere

d P

rovi

de

r (w

he

re a

pp

lica

ble

)0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

9,2

09

,17

0£

4,6

23

psq

m

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

OP

EN

MA

RK

ET

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

3,3

94

,11

4£

1,7

04

psq

m

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

5,8

15

,05

6

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(E

XC

LU

DIN

G O

TH

ER

FU

ND

ING

)£

0

OT

HE

R S

OU

RC

ES

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

FU

ND

ING

£0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(IN

CL

UD

ING

OT

HE

R F

UN

DIN

G)

£0

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

0#

DIV

/0!

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M A

FF

OR

DA

BL

E H

OU

SIN

G£

0

Va

lue

of R

esid

entia

l Ca

r P

ark

ing

£0

Ca

r P

ark

ing

Build

Co

sts

£0

Ca

pit

alis

ed

An

nu

al G

rou

nd

Re

nts

£0

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L V

AL

UE

OF

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

T O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£3

,39

4,1

14

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£5

,81

5,0

56

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

ST

S O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L£

0

GR

OS

S D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

VA

LU

E O

F S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

TS

£3

,39

4,1

14

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N T

O S

CH

EM

E C

OS

TS

£5

,81

5,0

56

Ex

tern

al W

ork

s &

In

fra

str

uc

ture

Co

sts

(£

)P

er

unit

% o

f G

DV

pe

r H

ecta

re

Site

Pre

pa

ratio

n/D

em

olit

ion

£0

Ro

ad

s a

nd

Se

we

rs£

0

Se

rvic

es (

Po

we

r, W

ate

r, G

as, T

elc

o a

nd

IT)

£3

93

,28

01

9,6

64

4.3

%1

,02

4,1

66

Str

ate

gic

La

nd

sca

pin

g£

0

Off S

ite

Wo

rks

£0

Pub

lic O

pe

n S

pa

ce

£0

Site

Sp

ecific

Susta

ina

bili

ty In

itia

tive

s£

0

Plo

t sp

ecific

ext

ern

al w

ork

s£

0

Oth

er

1£

0

Oth

er

2£

0

£3

93

,28

04

.3%

1,0

24

,16

6

Oth

er

sit

e c

os

ts

Fe

es a

nd

ce

rtific

atio

n1

2.0

%£

37

0,2

67

18

,51

34

.0%

96

4,2

37

Oth

er

Acq

uis

itio

n C

osts

(£

)£

0

Sit

e A

bn

orm

als

(£

)

De

-ca

nting

te

na

nts

£0

De

co

nta

min

atio

n£

0

Oth

er

£0

Oth

er

2£

0

Oth

er

3£

0

Oth

er

4£

0

Oth

er

5£

0

£0

To

tal S

ite

Co

sts

in

c F

ee

s£

76

3,5

47

38

,17

7

Sta

tuto

ry 1

06

co

sts

£3

60

,52

11

8,0

26

To

tal M

ark

eti

ng

Co

sts

£2

30

,22

3

To

tal D

ire

ct

Co

sts

£4

,74

8,4

06

Fin

an

ce

an

d a

cq

uis

itio

n c

os

ts

La

nd

Pa

yme

nt

£1

,50

8,5

16

75

,42

6p

er

OM

ho

me

3,9

28

,42

6p

er

he

cta

re

Arr

ang

em

ent F

ee

£0

0.0

%o

f in

tere

st

Mis

c F

ee

s (

Surv

eyo

rs e

tc)

£0

0.0

0%

of sche

me

va

lue

Ag

ents

Fe

es

£0

Le

ga

l Fe

es

£2

2,6

28

Sta

mp

Duty

£6

4,9

26

To

tal I

nte

rest P

aid

£5

62

,40

2

To

tal F

ina

nc

e a

nd

Ac

qu

isit

ion

Co

sts

£2

,15

8,4

71

To

tal O

pe

rati

ng

Pro

fit

£2

,30

2,2

93

(i.e

. p

rofit a

fte

r d

ed

ucting

sa

les a

nd

site

sp

ecific

fin

ance

co

sts

but b

efo

re d

ed

ucting

de

velo

pe

r o

verh

ea

ds a

nd

ta

xatio

n)

TO

TA

L C

OS

T£

9,2

09

,16

9

Su

rplu

s/(

De

fic

it)

at

co

mp

leti

on

1/6

/20

22

£1

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

of

Su

rplu

s (

De

fic

it)

at

27

/3/2

01

7£

0

Sc

he

me

In

ve

stm

en

t M

IRR

1

4.5

%(b

efo

re D

eve

loper's

retu

rns a

nd inte

rest

to a

void

double

counting r

etu

rns)

Site

Va

lue

as a

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of T

ota

l Sche

me

Va

lue

16

.4%

Pe

ak C

ash R

eq

uir

em

ent

-£4

,04

6,5

16

Site

Va

lue

(P

V)

pe

r he

cta

re£

1p

er

he

cta

re£

1p

er

acre

Pre

ss f

or

Sin

gle

Pa

ge

Su

mm

ary

Pre

ss f

or

4 p

ag

e d

eta

il

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

27

Ou

tpu

ts –

Je

CC

ass

um

pti

on

s, b

uil

d c

ost

s in

dex

ed t

o 1

.56

Re

sid

ua

l L

an

d v

alu

ati

on

£0

HC

A D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

AP

PR

AIS

AL

TO

OL

SC

HE

ME

Site

Ad

dre

ss

Je

rse

yD

ate

of a

pp

rais

al

27

/03

/20

17

Site

Re

fere

nce

Ne

t R

esid

entia

l Site

Are

a (

he

cta

res)

0.3

84

File

So

urc

eA

uth

or

& O

rga

nis

atio

n

Sche

me

De

scri

ptio

n2

0 u

nit b

row

nfie

ld s

ite

Re

gis

tere

d P

rovi

de

r (w

he

re a

pp

lica

ble

)0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

9,2

09

,17

0£

4,6

23

psq

m

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

OP

EN

MA

RK

ET

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

3,7

82

,01

3£

1,8

98

psq

m

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

5,4

27

,15

7

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(E

XC

LU

DIN

G O

TH

ER

FU

ND

ING

)£

0

OT

HE

R S

OU

RC

ES

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

FU

ND

ING

£0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(IN

CL

UD

ING

OT

HE

R F

UN

DIN

G)

£0

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

0#

DIV

/0!

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M A

FF

OR

DA

BL

E H

OU

SIN

G£

0

Va

lue

of R

esid

entia

l Ca

r P

ark

ing

£0

Ca

r P

ark

ing

Build

Co

sts

£0

Ca

pit

alis

ed

An

nu

al G

rou

nd

Re

nts

£0

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L V

AL

UE

OF

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

T O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£3

,78

2,0

13

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£5

,42

7,1

57

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

ST

S O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L£

0

GR

OS

S D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

VA

LU

E O

F S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

TS

£3

,78

2,0

13

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N T

O S

CH

EM

E C

OS

TS

£5

,42

7,1

57

Ex

tern

al W

ork

s &

In

fra

str

uc

ture

Co

sts

(£

)P

er

unit

% o

f G

DV

pe

r H

ecta

re

Site

Pre

pa

ratio

n/D

em

olit

ion

£0

Ro

ad

s a

nd

Se

we

rs£

0

Se

rvic

es (

Po

we

r, W

ate

r, G

as, T

elc

o a

nd

IT)

£3

93

,28

01

9,6

64

4.3

%1

,02

4,1

66

Str

ate

gic

La

nd

sca

pin

g£

0

Off S

ite

Wo

rks

£0

Pub

lic O

pe

n S

pa

ce

£0

Site

Sp

ecific

Susta

ina

bili

ty In

itia

tive

s£

0

Plo

t sp

ecific

ext

ern

al w

ork

s£

0

Oth

er

1£

0

Oth

er

2£

0

£3

93

,28

04

.3%

1,0

24

,16

6

Oth

er

sit

e c

os

ts

Fe

es a

nd

ce

rtific

atio

n1

2.0

%£

41

2,5

83

20

,62

94

.5%

1,0

74

,43

5

Oth

er

Acq

uis

itio

n C

osts

(£

)£

0

Sit

e A

bn

orm

als

(£

)

De

-ca

nting

te

na

nts

£0

De

co

nta

min

atio

n£

0

Oth

er

£0

Oth

er

2£

0

Oth

er

3£

0

Oth

er

4£

0

Oth

er

5£

0

£0

To

tal S

ite

Co

sts

in

c F

ee

s£

80

5,8

63

40

,29

3

Sta

tuto

ry 1

06

co

sts

£2

1,8

57

1,0

93

To

tal M

ark

eti

ng

Co

sts

£2

30

,22

3

To

tal D

ire

ct

Co

sts

£4

,83

9,9

56

Fin

an

ce

an

d a

cq

uis

itio

n c

os

ts

La

nd

Pa

yme

nt

£1

,43

8,6

41

71

,93

2p

er

OM

ho

me

3,7

46

,46

2p

er

he

cta

re

Arr

ang

em

ent F

ee

£0

0.0

%o

f in

tere

st

Mis

c F

ee

s (

Surv

eyo

rs e

tc)

£0

0.0

0%

of sche

me

va

lue

Ag

ents

Fe

es

£0

Le

ga

l Fe

es

£2

1,5

80

Sta

mp

Duty

£6

1,4

32

To

tal I

nte

rest P

aid

£5

45

,26

8

To

tal F

ina

nc

e a

nd

Ac

qu

isit

ion

Co

sts

£2

,06

6,9

22

To

tal O

pe

rati

ng

Pro

fit

£2

,30

2,2

93

(i.e

. p

rofit a

fte

r d

ed

ucting

sa

les a

nd

site

sp

ecific

fin

ance

co

sts

but b

efo

re d

ed

ucting

de

velo

pe

r o

verh

ea

ds a

nd

ta

xatio

n)

TO

TA

L C

OS

T£

9,2

09

,17

1

Su

rplu

s/(

De

fic

it)

at

co

mp

leti

on

1/6

/20

22

(£1

)

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

of

Su

rplu

s (

De

fic

it)

at

27

/3/2

01

7(£

)

Sc

he

me

In

ve

stm

en

t M

IRR

1

4.6

%(b

efo

re D

eve

loper's

retu

rns a

nd inte

rest

to a

void

double

counting r

etu

rns)

Site

Va

lue

as a

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of T

ota

l Sche

me

Va

lue

15

.6%

Pe

ak C

ash R

eq

uir

em

ent

-£3

,97

3,4

18

Site

Va

lue

(P

V)

pe

r he

cta

re-£

1p

er

he

cta

re-£

1p

er

acre

Pre

ss f

or

Sin

gle

Pa

ge

Su

mm

ary

Pre

ss f

or

4 p

ag

e d

eta

il

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 28

Ou

tpu

ts –

Je

CC

ass

um

pti

on

s, b

uil

d c

ost

s in

dex

ed t

o 1

.56

, in

clu

din

g J

IL

Re

sid

ua

l L

an

d v

alu

ati

on

£0

HC

A D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

AP

PR

AIS

AL

TO

OL

SC

HE

ME

Site

Ad

dre

ss

Je

rse

yD

ate

of a

pp

rais

al

27

/03

/20

17

Site

Re

fere

nce

Ne

t R

esid

entia

l Site

Are

a (

he

cta

res)

0.3

84

File

So

urc

eA

uth

or

& O

rga

nis

atio

n

Sche

me

De

scri

ptio

n2

0 u

nit b

row

nfie

ld s

ite

Re

gis

tere

d P

rovi

de

r (w

he

re a

pp

lica

ble

)0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

9,2

09

,17

0£

4,6

23

psq

m

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

OP

EN

MA

RK

ET

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

3,7

82

,01

3£

1,8

98

psq

m

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M O

PE

N M

AR

KE

T H

OU

SIN

G£

5,4

27

,15

7

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(E

XC

LU

DIN

G O

TH

ER

FU

ND

ING

)£

0

OT

HE

R S

OU

RC

ES

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

FU

ND

ING

£0

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F A

LL

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

(IN

CL

UD

ING

OT

HE

R F

UN

DIN

G)

£0

BU

ILD

CO

ST

OF

AF

FO

RD

AB

LE

HO

US

ING

in

c C

on

tin

ge

nc

y£

0#

DIV

/0!

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M A

FF

OR

DA

BL

E H

OU

SIN

G£

0

Va

lue

of R

esid

entia

l Ca

r P

ark

ing

£0

Ca

r P

ark

ing

Build

Co

sts

£0

Ca

pit

alis

ed

An

nu

al G

rou

nd

Re

nts

£0

TO

TA

L C

AP

ITA

L V

AL

UE

OF

RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

T O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£3

,78

2,0

13

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N O

F R

ES

IDE

NT

IAL

SC

HE

ME

£5

,42

7,1

57

CA

PIT

AL

VA

LU

E O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

ST

S O

F N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L S

CH

EM

E£

0

CO

NT

RIB

UT

ION

TO

SC

HE

ME

CO

ST

S F

RO

M N

ON

-RE

SID

EN

TIA

L£

0

GR

OS

S D

EV

EL

OP

ME

NT

VA

LU

E O

F S

CH

EM

E£

9,2

09

,17

0

TO

TA

L B

UIL

D C

OS

TS

£3

,78

2,0

13

TO

TA

L C

ON

TR

IBU

TIO

N T

O S

CH

EM

E C

OS

TS

£5

,42

7,1

57

Ex

tern

al W

ork

s &

In

fra

str

uc

ture

Co

sts

(£

)P

er

unit

% o

f G

DV

pe

r H

ecta

re

Site

Pre

pa

ratio

n/D

em

olit

ion

£0

Ro

ad

s a

nd

Se

we

rs£

0

Se

rvic

es (

Po

we

r, W

ate

r, G

as, T

elc

o a

nd

IT)

£3

93

,28

01

9,6

64

4.3

%1

,02

4,1

66

Str

ate

gic

La

nd

sca

pin

g£

0

Off S

ite

Wo

rks

£0

Pub

lic O

pe

n S

pa

ce

£0

Site

Sp

ecific

Susta

ina

bili

ty In

itia

tive

s£

0

Plo

t sp

ecific

ext

ern

al w

ork

s£

0

Oth

er

1£

0

Oth

er

2£

0

£3

93

,28

04

.3%

1,0

24

,16

6

Oth

er

sit

e c

os

ts

Fe

es a

nd

ce

rtific

atio

n1

2.0

%£

41

2,5

83

20

,62

94

.5%

1,0

74

,43

5

Oth

er

Acq

uis

itio

n C

osts

(£

)£

0

Sit

e A

bn

orm

als

(£

)

De

-ca

nting

te

na

nts

£0

De

co

nta

min

atio

n£

0

Oth

er

£0

Oth

er

2£

0

Oth

er

3£

0

Oth

er

4£

0

Oth

er

5£

0

£0

To

tal S

ite

Co

sts

in

c F

ee

s£

80

5,8

63

40

,29

3

Sta

tuto

ry 1

06

co

sts

£3

60

,52

11

8,0

26

To

tal M

ark

eti

ng

Co

sts

£2

30

,22

3

To

tal D

ire

ct

Co

sts

£5

,17

8,6

21

Fin

an

ce

an

d a

cq

uis

itio

n c

os

ts

La

nd

Pa

yme

nt

£1

,16

0,6

98

58

,03

5p

er

OM

ho

me

3,0

22

,65

0p

er

he

cta

re

Arr

ang

em

ent F

ee

£0

0.0

%o

f in

tere

st

Mis

c F

ee

s (

Surv

eyo

rs e

tc)

£0

0.0

0%

of sche

me

va

lue

Ag

ents

Fe

es

£0

Le

ga

l Fe

es

£1

7,4

10

Sta

mp

Duty

£4

7,5

35

To

tal I

nte

rest P

aid

£5

02

,61

4

To

tal F

ina

nc

e a

nd

Ac

qu

isit

ion

Co

sts

£1

,72

8,2

57

To

tal O

pe

rati

ng

Pro

fit

£2

,30

2,2

93

(i.e

. p

rofit a

fte

r d

ed

ucting

sa

les a

nd

site

sp

ecific

fin

ance

co

sts

but b

efo

re d

ed

ucting

de

velo

pe

r o

verh

ea

ds a

nd

ta

xatio

n)

TO

TA

L C

OS

T£

9,2

09

,17

0

Su

rplu

s/(

De

fic

it)

at

co

mp

leti

on

1/6

/20

22

£0

Pre

se

nt

Va

lue

of

Su

rplu

s (

De

fic

it)

at

27

/3/2

01

7£

0

Sc

he

me

In

ve

stm

en

t M

IRR

1

4.9

%(b

efo

re D

eve

loper's

retu

rns a

nd inte

rest

to a

void

double

counting r

etu

rns)

Site

Va

lue

as a

Pe

rce

nta

ge

of T

ota

l Sche

me

Va

lue

12

.6%

Pe

ak C

ash R

eq

uir

em

ent

-£3

,81

5,2

73

Site

Va

lue

(P

V)

pe

r he

cta

re£

0p

er

he

cta

re£

0p

er

acre

Pre

ss f

or

Sin

gle

Pa

ge

Su

mm

ary

Pre

ss f

or

4 p

ag

e d

eta

il

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t

Pg

29

Ap

pe

nd

ix 2

: In

pu

ts a

nd

as

su

mp

tio

ns

fo

r

su

rp

lus

/de

fic

it c

alc

ula

tio

ns

Jers

ey In

fras

tru

ctu

re L

evy

Pro

po

sal :

Rev

iew

of

Via

bili

ty A

sses

smen

t P

g 30

Tab

le 4

.1 C

om

par

iso

n o

f as

sum

pti

on

s in

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y an

d L

ich

fiel

ds

Ass

essm

ent

V

iab

ility

Stu

dy

Lich

fie

lds

Via

bili

ty T

hre

sho

ld

£2

.28

m/h

a £

2.2

8m

/ha

/ va

riab

le

Res

iden

tial

un

it m

ix, s

ize

and

val

ue

A

s p

er A

pp

end

ix 6

of

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

Bu

ild c

ost

s p

er s

qm

£

1,4

30

fo

r fl

ats

£1

,28

0 f

or

ho

use

s

1.4

ind

ex a

pp

lied

: £

1,6

68

fo

r fl

ats

£1

,49

3 f

or

ho

use

s

Pro

fess

ion

al f

ees

12

%

Per

cen

tage

fo

r A

rt

No

ne

0.7

5%

Co

nti

nge

ncy

5

%

10

%

Infr

astr

uct

ure

per

sq

m

As

per

Ap

pen

dix

6 o

f V

iab

ility

Stu

dy

Site

pu

rch

ase

lega

l fee

s 1

.5%

Inte

rest

6

%

Sale

s 2

% f

ees,

0.5

% le

gal

Dev

elo

per

ret

urn

2

0%

2

5%

Stam

p D

uty

A

s p

er A

pp

end

ix 6

of

Via

bili

ty S

tud

y

Cyc

ling

into

St

Hel

ier

A J

erse

y in

Tra

nsiti

on S

usta

inab

le T

rans

port

Gro

up tr

affic

su

rvey

, Ju

ly 2

017

Surv

ey r

ep

ort

, 1

3 July

20

17

Copyri

ght

© 2

017

Jers

ey in T

ransi

tion.

Publis

hed

un

der

a C

reati

ve C

om

mons

Att

rib

uti

on

4.0

In

tern

ati

onal Li

cense

.C

onta

ct n

igel@

mis

tweb.n

et

or

Ruth

at

rolls

3@

mac.

com

Su

mm

ary

On

Tue

sday

4 J

uly

2017

, on

a dr

y, m

ild, s

umm

er m

orni

ng, v

olun

teer

s fr

om J

erse

y in

Tra

nsit

ion

repe

ated

the

cycl

e su

rvey

that

the

orga

nisa

tion

had

car

ried

out

on

Tue

sday

24

Janu

ary

the

sam

e ye

ar. T

he to

tal n

umbe

r of

cyc

lists

com

ing

into

St H

elie

r be

twee

n 8

and

9 am

had

incr

ease

d by

60%

to

a to

tal o

f 61

6. T

hese

cyc

list

s re

pres

ent a

sig

nifi

cant

ass

et to

Jer

sey

life

as th

eir

effo

rts

redu

ce th

e am

ount

of

road

traf

fic

and

cong

estio

n. T

hey

impr

ove

the

air

qual

ity f

or e

very

one,

they

red

uce

the

num

ber

of c

ar p

arks

we

need

in S

t Hel

ier

and

they

are

fitt

er, m

ore

read

y fo

r a

busy

day

’s w

ork,

and

le

ss o

f a

burd

en o

n th

e he

alth

ser

vice

s no

w a

nd in

the

futu

re, t

han

if th

ey h

ad d

rive

n in

in th

eir

cars

.

We

are

surp

rise

d th

at th

e co

mpa

riso

n be

twee

n w

inte

r an

d su

mm

er c

yclin

g w

as o

nly

a 60

% in

crea

se.

We

wou

ld h

ave

expe

cted

a d

oubl

ing

or tr

eblin

g. W

e ar

e ke

en to

ask

– to

sta

rt a

nd to

join

the

deba

te

abou

t – w

hat c

an b

e do

ne to

enc

oura

ge m

ore

peop

le o

f al

l age

s to

cyc

le to

wor

k, s

choo

l, sh

oppi

ng

and

leis

ure.

The

re is

con

side

rabl

e re

sear

ch o

n th

e su

bjec

t wor

ldw

ide,

as

virt

ually

eve

ry c

ount

ry a

nd

city

is a

skin

g th

e sa

me

ques

tion.

The

pot

enti

al b

enef

its f

or th

e ec

onom

y, f

or in

divi

dual

s, a

nd f

or th

e en

viro

nmen

t, ar

e hu

ge, a

nd s

ome

othe

r m

ajor

juri

sdic

tions

are

way

ahe

ad o

f us

her

e in

Jer

sey.

Rat

ion

ale

Thi

s su

rvey

is a

rep

eat o

f th

e ‘C

yclin

g in

to S

t Hel

ier’

sur

vey

carr

ied

out i

n Ja

nuar

y 20

17 b

y Je

rsey

in

Tra

nsiti

on. T

he p

urpo

se is

to p

rovi

de c

ompa

rativ

e da

ta in

the

sam

e ye

ar f

rom

win

ter

to s

umm

er

usin

g, a

s fa

r as

pos

sibl

e, id

entic

al m

etho

dolo

gy.

2

In th

e re

port

of

the

Janu

ary

surv

ey, w

e w

rote

abo

ut

the

mis

sed

targ

et in

201

5 to

hav

e re

duce

d pe

ak

hour

mot

oris

ed tr

affi

c by

15%

, with

onl

y 1.

6%

achi

eved

. We

wro

te a

bout

the

was

te r

epre

sent

ed b

y th

ousa

nds

of p

eopl

e fo

r sc

ores

on

min

utes

eac

h da

y sa

t in

cars

in h

eavi

ly c

onge

sted

traf

fic.

We

also

w

rote

abo

ut th

e gr

eenh

ouse

gas

es, a

nd th

eir

effe

ct

on J

erse

y m

eeti

ng it

s gl

obal

war

min

g co

mm

itmen

ts.

We

high

light

ed a

ir q

uali

ty p

robl

ems

for

mot

oris

ts,

cycl

ists

, ped

estr

ians

and

res

iden

ts, e

spec

ially

with

re

gard

to th

e 20

14 R

icar

do-A

EA

rep

ort ‘

Air

qu

alit

y m

onit

orin

g in

Jer

sey.

’ At t

he ti

me,

the

gov.

je a

ir q

uali

ty m

onito

ring

res

ults

pag

e sh

owed

tw

o er

ror

mes

sage

s. T

oday

, alt

houg

h it

has

wor

ked

in th

e m

eant

ime,

onl

y on

e se

t of

live

resu

lts

is

avai

labl

e. S

ince

the

last

rep

ort,

ther

e ha

s be

en ta

lk

of e

stab

lishi

ng m

ore

air

qual

ity m

onito

ring

poi

nts

in S

t Hel

ier,

and

even

of

atta

chin

g m

onito

ring

eq

uipm

ent t

o bu

ses

so th

at is

land

-wid

e m

easu

rem

ents

are

obt

aine

d. J

erse

y in

Tra

nsit

ion

wou

ld

wel

com

e su

ch in

itia

tives

, and

we

hope

that

the

talk

will

soo

n re

sult

in a

ctio

n.

Six

mon

ths

ago,

we

wro

te a

bout

the

harm

that

pol

luti

on le

vels

bey

ond

EU

dir

ectiv

es d

o th

e re

puta

tion

of J

erse

y as

a s

elf-

gove

rnin

g ju

risd

icti

on, a

nd a

lso

abou

t the

har

m th

at s

uch

leve

ls d

o to

th

e he

alth

of

loca

l res

iden

ts –

and

the

actu

al c

osts

of

this

in te

rms

of h

ealt

h sp

endi

ng, q

uite

apa

rt

from

the

redu

ctio

n in

peo

ple’

s qu

ality

of

life.

Fin

ally

we

wro

te a

bout

the

heal

th b

enef

its o

f cy

clin

g ac

cord

ing

to U

K N

HS

and

oth

er m

edic

al

evid

ence

. The

y ar

e co

nsid

erab

le c

ompa

red

to th

e se

dent

ary

lifes

tyle

of

a tr

uly

com

mitt

ed m

otor

ist.

We

stan

d by

our

pre

viou

s co

mm

ents

, and

ref

er th

e re

ader

to th

e ea

rlie

r re

port

for

fur

ther

det

ails

and

ci

tati

ons.

3

Met

ho

do

log

y

Exa

ctly

as

in J

anua

ry 2

017,

Jer

sey

in T

rans

itio

n vo

lunt

eers

sto

od a

t all

the

maj

or r

oute

s w

here

a

cycl

ist m

ay e

nter

St H

elie

r. C

ycli

sts

pass

ing

each

che

ckpo

int,

com

ing

into

tow

n be

twee

n 8.

00 a

nd

9.00

am

on

Tue

sday

24

Janu

ary

2017

wer

e co

unte

d. I

llust

ratio

n 1

show

s th

e po

siti

ons

of th

e ch

eckp

oint

s. C

ycli

sts

wer

e co

unte

d co

min

g in

to to

wn

at th

e fo

llow

ing

loca

tions

.

4

Illu

stra

tion

1:

Red

sta

rs m

ark

the

surv

ey c

heck

poin

ts, o

n al

l the

maj

or r

oads

com

ing

into

St H

elie

r. T

hank

s to

Ope

n St

reet

Map

for

the

map

.

1.O

n th

e W

este

rn C

ycle

Pat

h, b

esid

e th

e se

awal

l at W

est P

ark

2.O

n th

e In

ner

Roa

d, a

t the

Wes

t Par

k bu

s sh

elte

r3.

On

Que

ens

Roa

d, ju

st b

efor

e th

e ro

unda

bout

4.O

n T

rini

ty H

ill, n

ear

the

Rob

in H

ood

pub

5.O

n S

t Sav

iour

s H

ill, o

ppos

ite

the

turn

off

to T

he B

ridg

e6.

On

Mon

t Mill

ais,

bef

ore

the

light

s ne

ar H

owar

d D

avis

Par

k7.

On

Rou

te d

u Fo

rt, n

ear

the

new

Pol

ice

Sta

tion

8.A

t Hav

re d

es P

as, n

ear

the

bath

ing

pool

, bef

ore

For

t d’A

uver

gne

For

the

purp

ose

of th

e su

rvey

, cyc

lists

incl

uded

thos

e on

ele

ctri

c bi

cycl

es a

nd o

ne-f

oot s

coot

ers.

Tw

o pe

ople

on

a ta

ndem

wou

ld b

e co

unte

d as

two

cycl

ists

.

Vol

unte

ers

wer

e pr

ovid

ed w

ith ‘

clic

ker’

tally

-cou

nter

s an

d as

ked

to r

ecor

d th

e w

eath

er, t

he n

umbe

r of

cyc

lists

cou

nted

, and

any

com

men

ts o

r an

ecdo

tes.

Re

sult

sT

he w

eath

er w

as m

ild

and

clou

dy w

ith o

ccas

iona

l sun

ny p

erio

ds, 1

6 to

18

degr

ees

C, w

ith n

o ra

in

and

littl

e w

ind.

The

che

ckpo

int c

ount

s w

ere

as f

ollo

ws

Ch

eck

poi

nt

Cou

nt

of c

ycli

sts,

8 –

9 a

m

Jan

uar

y 20

17Ju

ly 2

017

Incr

ease

Cyc

le p

ath

at W

est P

ark

199

312

57%

Inne

r R

oad

2233

50%

Que

ens

Roa

d13

2912

3%

Tri

nity

Hill

5479

46%

St S

avio

urs

Hill

1227

125%

Mon

t Mill

ais

1221

75%

Rou

te d

u F

ort

3752

41%

Hav

re d

es P

as37

6370

%

Tot

al38

661

660

%

Imp

ress

ion

s an

d a

nec

do

tes

The

vol

unte

ers

at W

est P

ark

bus

shel

ter

on th

e In

ner

Roa

d, o

n th

e W

este

rn C

ycle

Pat

h at

Vic

tori

a A

venu

e an

d on

Que

ens

Roa

d no

ted

larg

e nu

mbe

rs o

f pe

dest

rian

s w

alki

ng in

to to

wn,

som

etim

es

sign

ific

antl

y m

ore

than

the

cycl

ists

. Vol

unte

ers

at Q

ueen

s R

oad,

Mon

t Mill

ais

and

Hav

re d

es P

as

rem

arke

d on

the

heav

y m

otor

ised

traf

fic.

Air

qua

lity

was

men

tione

d by

vol

unte

ers

at V

icto

ria

Ave

nue

and

‘fum

es a

nd th

e sm

ell o

f pe

trol

’ on

St S

avio

urs

Hill

.

Sev

eral

vol

unte

ers

note

d th

e no

ise,

bus

tle, ‘

mad

ness

’ and

intim

idat

ory

natu

re o

f th

e bu

sy r

oads

. M

any

cycl

ists

cho

se to

‘ta

ke th

e la

ne’ a

nd c

ycle

in a

mon

gst t

he m

ovin

g tr

affi

c. T

his

mea

nt th

at th

ey

5

wer

e tr

avel

ling

fas

t and

clo

se to

car

s an

d pe

dest

rian

s, d

epen

dent

for

thei

r sa

fety

on

the

deci

sion

s of

m

any

othe

r ro

ad u

sers

. In

othe

r ca

ses,

incl

udin

g th

e co

mpl

icat

ed ju

nctio

n at

the

botto

m o

f M

ont

Mill

ais

arou

nd th

e ga

tes

to H

owar

d D

avie

s P

ark,

and

at H

avre

des

Pas

, in

desp

erat

ion

cycl

ists

wer

e se

en to

use

ped

estr

ian

cros

sing

s an

d pa

vem

ents

to a

void

wai

ting

for

the

light

s, a

nd a

lso

pres

umab

ly

for

safe

ty, f

eeli

ng th

reat

ened

in th

e bu

stlin

g tr

affi

c fl

ows.

Oth

er c

omm

ents

incl

uded

the

larg

e nu

mbe

rs o

f si

ngle

-occ

upan

cy c

ars

and

the

lack

of

cycl

e he

lmet

s on

Tri

nity

Hill

and

at H

avre

des

Pas

, and

the

disa

ppoi

ntin

g to

tal a

bsen

ce o

f ch

ildr

en c

yclin

g on

the

Wes

tern

Cyc

le P

ath.

Man

y of

the

com

men

ts m

ade

appl

ied

on o

ther

rou

tes

too,

but

we

can

only

rep

ort t

he r

emar

ks w

e re

ceiv

ed.

Co

ncl

usi

on

s an

d r

eco

mm

end

atio

ns

We

wer

e su

rpri

sed

that

the

over

all i

ncre

ase

in c

yclin

g fr

om w

inte

r to

sum

mer

was

so

smal

l, on

ly

60%

. We

expe

cted

, with

the

war

mer

wea

ther

and

with

ext

ra d

aylig

ht d

urin

g bo

th d

aily

com

mut

ing

tim

es, t

hat n

umbe

rs o

f cy

clis

ts w

ould

at l

east

dou

ble

if n

ot tr

eble

. It a

ppea

rs th

at J

erse

y ha

s a

stal

war

t gro

up o

f co

mm

itte

d cy

cle

com

mut

ers

who

bra

ve a

ll w

eath

ers

and

seas

ons,

and

not

that

m

any

fair

-wea

ther

cyc

lists

who

wai

t for

the

mild

mor

ning

s an

d lo

ng w

arm

eve

ning

s.

The

larg

e in

crea

se in

ped

estr

ian

com

mut

ing

in th

e su

mm

er w

as in

tere

stin

g. F

or a

giv

en jo

urne

y le

ngth

, the

re is

mor

e ex

erci

se to

be

had

wal

king

than

cyc

ling.

Ped

estr

ians

are

als

o fe

el n

atur

ally

sa

fer,

bein

g in

here

ntly

allo

wed

on

the

pave

men

ts a

nd b

eing

pro

vide

d w

ith s

afe

and

esta

blis

hed

road

cr

ossi

ngs.

The

ran

king

of

the

rout

es, i

n te

rms

of c

yclin

g po

pula

rity

, did

not

cha

nge

from

win

ter

to s

umm

er.

Mon

t Mill

ais

and

St S

avio

urs

Hill

are

the

leas

t cyc

led,

but

sin

ce th

ey c

ombi

ne a

t Fiv

e O

aks,

they

ac

tual

ly s

erve

the

sam

e se

ctor

of

the

isla

nd a

nd s

o th

at is

pro

babl

y no

t sur

pris

ing.

In d

istin

ctio

n to

the

Wes

tern

Cyc

le P

ath,

mos

t of

the

nort

hern

and

eas

tern

rou

tes

into

St H

elie

r ar

e bi

g, d

ange

rous

hill

s an

d ro

ads,

with

litt

le p

rovi

sion

for

cyc

lists

. Res

earc

h ha

s sh

own

that

peo

ple

who

do

not c

urre

ntly

cyc

le s

ay, w

hen

aske

d, th

at th

ey d

o no

t wan

t to

cycl

e m

ixed

with

hea

vy

mot

oris

ed tr

affi

c, th

at th

ey f

ind

heav

y tr

affi

c in

timid

atin

g, a

nd th

at th

ey w

ant s

ubje

ctiv

ely

to f

eel

safe

whe

n cy

clin

g.1 2

Sho

rt o

f co

veri

ng J

erse

y’s

coun

trys

ide

in m

ore

tarm

ac, o

r pu

rcha

sing

pre

mis

es a

nd g

arde

ns to

w

iden

roa

ds, t

he o

nly

way

s to

giv

e cy

clis

ts m

ore

spac

e –

spac

e th

at is

and

that

fee

ls s

afe

– is

to ta

ke

som

e co

nven

ienc

e aw

ay f

rom

som

e m

otor

ists

. Min

or la

nes

in th

e co

untr

ysid

e th

at d

o no

t see

muc

h tr

affi

c ca

n be

clo

sed

alto

geth

er to

mot

oris

ed tr

affi

c an

d tu

rned

into

cyc

le la

nes.

If

thes

e ar

e jo

ined

up

and

ser

ve u

sefu

l rou

tes,

then

cyc

lists

will

use

them

, and

mot

oris

ed tr

affi

c w

ill r

educ

e ac

cord

ingl

y.

1U

nder

stan

ding

wal

king

and

cyc

ling

, Lan

cast

er E

nvir

onm

ent C

entr

e, L

anca

ster

Uni

vers

ity.

201

12

Res

pons

e to

all

-par

ty p

arli

amen

tary

cyc

ling

gro

up in

quir

y, ‘

Get

Bri

tain

Cyc

ling

’, C

ycli

ng E

mba

ssy

of G

reat

B

rita

in. 2

013

6

http://www.its.leeds.ac.uk/fileadmin/user_upload/UWCReportSept2011.pdf

https://www.cycling-embassy.org.uk/sites/cycling-embassy.org.uk/files/APPCGEvidence-9.pdf

Suc

h a

prog

ram

of

conv

ersi

on c

an b

e ph

ased

in. F

irst

of

all t

he c

losu

re to

mot

or tr

affi

c ca

n be

at

peak

tim

es o

nly.

Peo

ple

who

act

uall

y liv

e on

thes

e la

nes

can

be g

iven

res

iden

ts’ p

erm

its

allo

win

g th

em to

dri

ve o

nly

to a

nd f

rom

thei

r ho

mes

, per

haps

with

a s

peed

lim

it s

uch

as 1

5 m

ph. I

f th

e sc

hem

e is

suc

cess

ful,

the

hour

s ca

n be

ext

ende

d up

to 2

4x7,

and

the

resi

dent

s’ p

erm

its

may

beg

in to

re

quir

e a

fee

(aft

er a

ll, th

e re

side

nts

live

on a

cyc

le p

ath:

they

may

con

side

r ta

king

up

cycl

ing)

. T

here

will

alw

ays

be e

xcep

tions

for

em

erge

ncy

vehi

cles

, hom

e re

mov

als,

larg

e de

liver

ies

and

so o

n.

It is

dif

ficu

lt to

see

how

this

can

be

exte

nded

to m

ajor

two-

lane

roa

ds s

uch

as Q

ueen

s R

oad

and

Mon

t Mill

ais

with

hom

es a

nd g

arde

ns a

gain

st e

ach

side

, but

if o

ther

mea

sure

s re

duce

the

volu

me

of

mot

or tr

affi

c, ‘

crit

ical

mas

s’ p

oint

s w

ill b

e re

ache

d, p

arti

cula

rly

at c

erta

in ti

mes

of

day,

whe

n cy

clis

ts a

nd p

edes

tria

ns d

omin

ate

the

road

s, w

ith th

e fe

elin

g of

saf

ety

that

that

bri

ngs.

Thi

s is

kn

own

to h

appe

n fo

r ex

ampl

e in

pla

ces

like

Cop

enha

gen

and

Am

ster

dam

, as

wel

l as

else

whe

re.

Rel

evan

t to

any

long

term

traf

fic

infr

astr

uctu

re p

lann

ing

mus

t be

rece

nt d

ecis

ions

, suc

h as

the

one

by V

olvo

to c

ease

pro

duct

ion

of a

ll no

n-el

ectr

ic v

ehic

les

by 2

040.

Cou

ntri

es a

re a

lso

mak

ing

plan

s;

such

as

Fra

nce

to b

an a

ll p

etro

l and

die

sel v

ehic

les

by 2

040,

Nor

way

to d

o so

by

2025

, and

G

erm

any

by 2

035.

Par

is m

ay b

an a

ll d

iese

ls a

s so

on a

s 20

20, a

nd th

e w

hole

EU

may

ban

all

petr

ol

and

dies

el v

ehic

les

by 2

030.

We

have

see

n ho

w th

e In

tern

et h

as a

ppea

red

from

obs

curi

ty in

the

last

20

year

s an

d tr

ansf

orm

ed

man

y in

dust

ries

and

hum

an a

ctiv

itie

s. S

mok

ing

indo

ors

has

gone

fro

m n

orm

al to

nev

er in

less

tim

e th

an th

at. I

t is

impo

rtan

t tha

t Jer

sey

does

not

app

ear,

to a

wor

ld th

at is

mov

ing

on, t

o be

stu

ck in

a

tim

ewar

p, r

eliv

ing

the

1960

s w

hile

eve

ryon

e el

se is

pla

nnin

g fo

r th

e 20

60s.

7