The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Improvement introduced a report setting out the Draft Charging Schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  This set out what developers would need to pay in £ per sq m of new buildings and any variations by area or type of development.  If agreed, the Draft Charging Schedule would be published for interested parties to comment on and would then be submitted for independent examination.  If found sound, it was likely that the Council would be in a position to adopt the Charging Schedule in late 2013/early 2014.

The Portfolio Holder reported that one of the main issues with the Charging Schedule was the split between £75/m² and £125/m² for residential development in different parts of the District.  The spilt was the result of differences in the value of development and the consultants that had carried out the Council’s Viability Assessment were confident that £125/m² was a viable charge for the South and the East of the District.

The Chairman reported that he had been approached by a number of Members with a variety of issues which included:

-        Concerns surround a split by ward boundaries rather than parish boundaries;

-        Concerns that development would be concentrated in the areas with a £75/m² charge  as the cost of development would be a lot less;

-        Concerns that vital infrastructure proposed by the Parish had been omitted from the list of infrastructure considered to be required by providers; and

-        Concern that small and medium sized developers had not responded to the consultation.

-        The difference between the amounts that developers would pay through CIL compared with Section 106 agreements.

-        Whether social housing would pay CIL.

In response to the first point, the Principal Planning Officer reported that Ward boundaries had been proposed on the basis that the consultants appointed to undertake the CIL Viability Assessment found data of house prices by ward and house prices per m² by ward readily available. This information was critical in carrying out a viability assessment of this type. Boundaries within CIL Charging Schedules had to be based on viability evidence. The fact that certain ward boundaries probably do not reflect a clear distinction in viability was acknowledged. However, it was considered that boundaries drawn on any basis, such as Parish boundaries, ran the risk of not being able to fully reflect differences in property values and viability. Any proposal to replace an existing dwelling with new dwellings or convert a building that had recently been in use to a dwelling would only pay CIL on the net increase in floorspace. Therefore, the amount of CIL charged in areas with little opportunity for new development may be found to be negligible and the difference in charge between the two areas of little impact. This was something that Officers would monitor.

In response to the second point, the Principal Planning Officer explained that the Viability Assessment sought to identify levels of CIL that were equally affordable within different areas in the District. Therefore, on the basis of prices that developers could expect to sell new dwellings for, which varied across the District, the different charges should prove to be equally challenging but generally affordable in these areas. The CIL Charging Schedule would be just one consideration that a developer will need to take into account when deciding where to seek to develop. Planning policy constraints, including Green Belt, Conservation Areas and Protected Open Space, as well as the availability of development land would all continue to be major drivers of where developments were located.

In response to the third point, the Principal Planning Officer highlighted that Officers believed that no infrastructure schemes that were proposed had been excluded from the Draft Infrastructure Plan. However, the schemes had been separated into different lists. The list on which the calculation of the infrastructure funding gap was based (Appendix A of the Draft CIL Infrastructure Plan – Background Paper 3) primarily included those schemes that the Council expected to deliver or provide funding for other organisations to deliver. A separate list of the majority of schemes that the Council anticipated town and parish councils may wish to fund through the proportion of CIL that would be paid directly to them was also set out (Appendix B of the Draft CIL Infrastructure Plan – Background Paper 3). There was no requirement for the Council to decide what it should fund from CIL in advance of the collection of the money and no restriction on the Council transferring further funds to town and parish councils for infrastructure proposed by them at the time that development came forward. The primary purpose of the Draft CIL Infrastructure Plan was to prove to an Inspector that a funding gap existed that justified charging CIL.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that the Council had consulted all organisations and individuals that were on its LDF mailing list and publicised the document in the same way that other LDF documents had been, including through a press release and public notice. The LDF mailing list included numerous developers and agents that had requested to be on the mailing list, made representations as part of the LDF previously or had proposed developments in the plan. Of those few developers that did respond some raised either general or specific objections to the charges, whilst others did not object to the proposals at all.  Officers did not consider the low response rate to be a result of the failure of the consultation process.

The Principal Planning Officer reported that it was not straightforward to compare CIL and Section 106 contributions.  Whilst CIL is charged on the basis of m² of development, is not levied on affordable housing and is only based on the net increase in floorspace, charges in Section 106 agreements have been negotiated on the basis of all dwellings (market and affordable), are generally calculated on the basis of number of dwellings rather than floorspace and do not take account of existing buildings on the site.  Members were directed to p8 of Background Paper 5, which set out the infrastructure contributions that had been secured through s106 agreements for 5 recent developments and the CIL charge that would be levied on the basis that all dwellings were built at the national average size for new builds and that CIL was only levied on market housing.    Section 106 contributions ranged from £1,608 to £5,369, whilst CIL ranged from £2,850 to £7,600. The CIL calculation did not take account of the floorspace of existing buildings on the sites which would reduce the charges, in some cases substantially.

The Principal Planning Officer confirmed that a 100% relief from CIL for social housing was built into the CIL Regulations.

In response to a further question, the Principal Planning Officer reported that the Charging Schedule could be reviewed at any time.  Any changes that were decided upon would have to be subject to a detailed consultation process.  In addition to this, a decision to stop charging could be taken at any time through a resolution of Full Council.

The Chairman requested that a review of the impact of the CIL by ward boundary be undertaken, following implementation, and that the review incorporate historical data.  Officers were also requested to investigate the possibility of increasing the funding to Parishes within the £75/m² boundary, following the publication of the regulations to introduce the proportion to be paid to town and parish councils.

Members noted that the Environment Select Committee had requested that the Implementation Plan be presented to the Committee for review.

Resolved:

(a)          That Council be recommended to agreed the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule for publication and submission for independent examination;

(b)          That the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Improvement be 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 be published on the Council’s website and made available to purchase in hard copy at a price to be agreed by the Portfolio Holder;

(d)          That the scheme is monitored to understand its impact on development across the District and held under review

(e)          That, subject to the awaited Ministerial Guidance, Cabinet is minded to recommend that the Council provides top up funding to Parishes within the £75/m² boundaries; and

(f)            That the Implementation Plan be presented to the Environment Select Committee for review.