Agenda item

The Committee considered the report which sought to update Members on Government changes to the CIL system and to provide Members an understanding of issues that had arisen from the public consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule, how the Council had taken into account the responses and subsequent changes proposed. The Service Lead Planning Strategy and Development Management advised Members one key reason for revising the Charging Schedule was to ensure infrastructure delivery at Cranbrook with a revised CIL charging zone.

It was highlighted only 15 responses had been received to the consultation which raised a number of issues, many of which had been addressed in the viability assessment. 

As a result of the responses received the proposed changes were:

·         Changing the boundaries of the Cranbrook charging zone to reflect the Cranbrook Plan area; and

·         Axminster Urban Extension – amending the boundary to reflect the new endorsed Masterplan advocating a larger area for development.

The Committee also considered the revised Instalment Policy which proposed to reduce the number of instalments when small amounts are due to help reduce administration for the council and applicants and for the council to receive CIL from smaller schemes more quickly.  Attention was drawn to how this would be implemented and members noted the proposal was to retain the existing instalment policy for developments that had already been issued a liability notice and implement the new instalment policy on new cases.

Discussions on the report included:

·         Concerns raised on CIL being a failing system of drawing funding and it was questioned whether it was fit for purpose.

·         Disappointment was expressed about the lack of comments received from developers during the consultation.

·         Clarification sought on the outcome of CIL with other authorities.  In response the Service Lead Planning Strategy and Development Management said the main issue was CIL was never intended to be the one source of funding for infrastructure.

·         Concerns raised on paragraph 4.8 and the rebase of Habitat Mitigation.  In response the Service Lead Planning Strategy and Development Management advised rebasing of CIL and Habitat Regulations were separate.  Rebasing CIL focused on reassessing the viability of development whereas the Habitat Mitigation rebasing was about ensuring the necessary funds were collected to deliver the strategy.

·         Concerns raised on paragraph 4.7 whether £147.23 per sq m reduction would be adequate for Winslade Park to achieve the required affordable housing commitments.  In response the Service Lead Planning Strategy and Development Management advised that negotiations were on-going on this site but that the proposed reduced rate would certainly help to address previous liability concerns.

·         It was queried why Pinhoe was included in East of Exeter and why Broadclyst had not been mentioned in Figure 2.  The Service Lead Planning Strategy and Development Management advised he would remove Pinhoe and explained that Broadclyst was a parish in West Clyst.

·         Assurance was sought that the affordable homes target would be met with the proposed changes to the CIL rate.  The Service Lead Planning Strategy and Development Management gave a detailed explanation why the council was not able to give such an assurance.

·         Concerns raised about Section 106 being quashed because it was not legally binding.  It was advised at Development Management Committee very viable contributions had been waived on grounds of viability which had led to developers not paying CIL.  In response the Service Lead Planning Strategy and Development Management explained that as non-policy compliant applications were required to be brought before Development Management Committee this may be obscuring perception of levels of applications claiming viability issues.  It was further advised many applications that were policy compliant do pay CIL.

·         It was claimed in 2010 Mid Devon’s gross profit for each house built was £20k and in 2018 it was £71k.  This was claimed to show developers were making more and more profit at the expense of the residents of East Devon.

·         The retail sector is suffering under the current climate.

·         The need to protect affordable housing.

RESOLVED:

1.    That the consultation responses received on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule be noted and the council response be endorsed;

2.    That the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule consultation document for public consultation over a period of six weeks be approved;

3.    That the revised Instalment Policy be approved.

RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

that the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule for submission to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination together with any consultation responses received during the consultation recommended at 2 above.