The Principal Planning Officer explained that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was a mechanism to secure funding from developers to provide infrastructure required to support development.  It was intended that it would replace Section 106 arrangements for the majority of infrastructure required to support development. The CIL Charging Schedule was last considered by the Group on 7 June 2012 and the preliminary draft had gone for consultation between June and August 2012. Consequently further evidence had been commissioned, representations had been considered and amendments had been made.

It was still intended that the CIL would only affect residential and retail development. Residential charges were still proposed at rates of £125 and £75 per sq m across the District based on wards. Supermarkets, superstores and retail warehousing would be subject to charges at £125 per sq m but other forms of development, including all other forms of retail development, would now be exempt. A further viability assessment had found that other forms of retail development could be made non-viable if subject to the CIL.

The Draft Infrastructure Plan had also been revised and now estimated a funding gap of £19million, reduced from £24million. The estimated cost of proposed flood defences in Edenbridge had fallen from £13million to £4.5million following discussions with the Environment Agency, with £1million potentially available as a grant from Flood Defence Aid. The Council did not need to specify projects the money would be spent on at this stage but an Implementation Plan that would address prioritisation of infrastructure would be brought back to Members at a future meeting.

The Government had recently announced that 15% of CIL monies collected would be distributed to the town or parish council in which the development would be taking place. This figure would rise to 25% where the town or parish council had a neighbourhood plan. Officers were not yet clear how these sums would be calculated as the regulations had not been published. They were unsure whether these sums to town and parish councils would be dependent on the rate at which CIL was charged in that area or whether an average may be taken, for example.

A Member raised concern that the residential charges based on wards were overly simplistic and failed to take account of significant differences within these areas. The Group was informed that consultants had assessed the viability of each ward based on incremental steps up to £250 per sq m. Although some areas within a ward could sustain higher figures, the proposals were set at figures a whole ward could sustain. Housing prices differed street-to-street but Government guidance was for the CIL charging schedule to be kept simple and ward boundaries were considered the most appropriate option. The only reasonable alternative was for a single residential CIL charge of £75 per sq m across the District but it was forecast this would reduce receipts by £1million (from £5-6 million in the period 2014-2026 to £4-5 million).

Another Member was concerned the lower CIL rate would incentivise development disproportionately in those wards but the Chairman disagreed and believed it to be a relatively minor consideration when compared to the Allocations and Development Management Plan. The representative from West Kent Housing on the Group considered that the different charging areas were reflective of different housing sub-markets within the District.

It was suggested by a Member, not on the Group, that Homes for Multiple Occupancy should be exempt from the CIL.

Officers agreed that reference to all town and parish councils should be included in the Open Space, Sport and Recreation column of the summary of infrastructure proposals in the Draft CIL Infrastructure Plan.

Public Sector Equality Duty

Members noted that there were no adverse equality impacts arising from the report.

Resolved: That the following recommendation to Full Council be endorsed:

(a)          That the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule is agreed for publication and submission for independent examination.

(b)     That the Portfolio Holder is authorised to agree minor presentational changes and detailed amendments to the Charging Schedule to assist the clarity of the document.

(c)     That the consultation document is published on the Council’s website and made available to purchase in hard copy at a price to be agreed by the Portfolio Holder.