Agenda item

Report of the Leader

The Leader introduced the report which sought Council adoption of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule and supporting policies, alongside approval of a list of infrastructure that may be funded from CIL (Regulation 123 list) for publication and to set a commencement date for charging of 1st January 2019. He explained that this had been worked up over a number of years and formal public consultation and a formal examination in public had taken place. Tewkesbury Borough Council were due to consider the report that evening and Gloucester City Council the following week.

He stated that the CIL was a charge levied on new buildings and extensions to buildings according to their floor area. In this way money is raised from development to help pay for strategic and community infrastructure. This could include schools, leisure centres, older peoples care accommodation, roads and other facilities to ensure the demands arising from the JCS are accommodated sustainably.

CIL replaces only the parts of Section 106 agreements which have previously been used for this purpose. Section 106 should continue to be used for affordable housing and would be used for site specific infrastructure needed to make a specific development site acceptable in planning terms.

The Leader explained that it had been a complicated process and if issues arose then there would be an opportunity for review. The Inspector fully supported it. He reported that there was one change, which did not apply to Cheltenham and which had been circulated that morning in the form of published amendments to Members. One supporting policy included making instalments more flexible in how they were received and the timescale in which they were received.

He informed that implementation of CIL was scheduled for 1 January 2019. It was vital that CIL was implemented since the JCS was in place but it could be reviewed at the discretion of the council.

Members made the following comments to which the Leader/Director Planning responded:

• Recognised it was a far reaching and technical proposal and had been a lengthy process involving experts, surveyors and consultants
• Reference was made to the fact that many other authorities had come to different conclusions about CIL and some had not set it at all in urban areas. Flexibility was key to see how it would suit the town. Concern was expressed about the impact on affordable housing as the levy would make developments less viable. It was felt that this should be monitored very carefully. In response the Leader agreed that affordable housing was indeed essential and the main thrust of policy was to get affordable housing as well as CIL. He said that time would tell if this was justified or not.
• The point was made that there were no allowances to take into account sites which had been empty for three years. Such sites should be encouraged to be developed.
• The impact of CIL on house prices was also of significant concern as the cost to the developer would be passed on to the end user. It was suggested that an intermediate banding be introduced to facilitate smaller schemes undertaken by smaller builders
• Surprise was expressed as to why there was NIL CIL for retail and commercial projects which were just as significant as residential. Whilst aware that the JCS councils were in the process of reviewing retail policy the lack of contribution from commercial development was deemed to be a mistake.
• Members felt that there needed to be a thorough review within 2 years to ascertain what had worked and what had not worked well.
• Whilst welcoming the prospect of having more funds to invest, a Member was unclear as to how any flexibility could be leveraged within CIL to acknowledge strategic objectives such as development of brownfield sites, social housing and stalled housing developments. In response the Director of Planning explained that there were potential exemptions but these were not under discussion at this stage. If an exemption was needed these would be considered on an individual basis. In terms of the instalments policy it was important that there was consistency between the authorities as this was helpful to the development industry. She explained that social housing was not part of CIL and it had to be based on viability evidence.
• One Member called for a more immediate 6 month review of CIL in order to be able to amend/modify accordingly at an earlier stage. The Leader responded by saying that 6 months was too short a timeframe for review.
• A Member questioned why the map on page 5 contained no details of the green buffer zone which could suggest it was available for development and liable for CIL, giving the example of Swindon Village.  The Director of Planning confirmed that in terms of development the JCS maps defined the areas.
• Members identified the risk that CIL would result in large payments meaning developers could not deliver on housing as it would be more difficult to derive a profit. They asked how schemes could be checked for viability in a more transparent way as currently viability reports were not open to public scrutiny. In response the Director of Planning explained that the Government was seeking more transparency on viability of developments. She said that if concerns arose viability reports could be tested independently. All viability work for JCS was in the public domain which the Inspector considered to be appropriate.
• A Member raised the issue of government devolving extra powers in the form of 'devolution deals’ and urged Council to use its voice in demanding such powers for Cheltenham, In response the Leader agreed and said that all areas in the whole country should receive a devolution deal rather than it be ‘hand picked’ and supported the call for CBC to obtain such powers.
• When asked as to whether the ability to review CIL was a CBC decision or whether it had to be done in partnership with Gloucester and Tewkesbury the Director of Planning confirmed this was a Cheltenham CIL and therefore Cheltenham was the individual charging authority. There was a joint governance group but also separate decisions were required from the relevant authority.

The Director of Planning highlighted to Members that the intention was to continue with engagement. The points raised by Members had been debated at the examination. The devil was in the detail and it was indeed important to keep CIL under review.

RESOLVED (unanimously) THAT

1. the Cheltenham Borough Council Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule modified in line with the recommendations of the Independent Examiner, as set out in the Modified Appendix A ‘Charging Schedule’ and ‘Policy Maps’ at Appendix B be approved.

2. the following supporting policies be adopted:

a. Payment by Instalments (Regulation 69b), as set out in the Modified Appendix D ‘Payment by Instalments’ Policy

b. ‘Request for Review and Appeals’ Policy (Part 10), as set out at Appendix E

3. the Regulation 123 List for Cheltenham Borough Council for publication, as set out at Appendix F be approved

4. a commencement date for charging of 1 January 2019 be set, in line with Joint Core Strategy (JCS) partner authorities