Newark and Sherwood, not surprisingly, is the first authority to receive the examiner's report on its charging schedule. Here is the link.

One of the interesting points to come out of it is in relation to the treatment of small vs large retail development. I know this has exercised and is exercising other charging authorities but the N&S experience sounds a note of caution. Here the examiner did not accept there was justification for a differential rate as between small/large retail. That is not to say there could never be such a justification  - but the case must be clearly made out on viability evidence or there is a risk the differential may be seen as a way of encouraging a particular form of development over another. This runs against CLG guidance (to which the Planning Act 2008 requires regard to be had) and may present state aid difficulties in any event.