To recommend to Council that the public consultation on the proposed Statement of Modifications be approved and that the Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to compile and submit responses to the Community Infrastructure Levy examiner for examination.

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

1.      That the Community Infrastructure Levy Proposed Statement of Modifications, as attached to the report at Appendix 1, be APPROVED for public consultation.

2.      That authority be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to amend the proposed Statement of Modifications and prepare any further statements of modification that may be required following the JCS hearings and/or any further viability assessments undertaken.

3.      That the Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to agree the date of public consultation(s) with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils.

4.      That the Deputy Chief Executive, following the conclusion of the public consultation(s), be authorised to compile and submit responses received to the CIL examiner for examination.

24.1           The report of the Head of Development Services, circulated at Pages No. 56-71, attached a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Proposed Statement of Modifications and asked Members to recommend to Council that it be approved for public consultation. In addition, the report recommended that authority be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to amend the Statement and prepare any further statements of modification following the JCS hearings and/or any further viability assessments undertaken; that authority be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive to agree the date of public consultation with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils; and, following the conclusion of the consultation, that the Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to compile all responses received and submit them to the CIL Examiner for examination.

24.2           In introducing the report, the Deputy Chief Executive explained that the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) authorities (Tewkesbury Borough, Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils) had been working towards adopting a CIL alongside the JCS. The CIL would allow the Councils to raise funds from developers undertaking new developments for a wide range of infrastructure that was needed to support them e.g. road improvements and schools. CIL would replace the majority of Section 106 planning obligations; however, Section 106 would still be used to deliver affordable housing provision and site specific mitigation measures for strategic allocations. The majority of required infrastructure would continue to be funded through the Section 106 planning obligations process. The proposed CIL rates were set out within the draft CIL Charging Schedule which had been submitted to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination on 29 July 2016. The CIL charges were set out within each authority’s CIL Draft Charging Schedule which provided details on the CIL charges for different types of development. The independent Planning Inspector who was dealing with the JCS had also been appointed to preside over the Examination into the CIL Charging Schedule and the CIL Hearings would take place sometime after the JCS Hearings had been completed.

24.3           The variations made to date on the JCS had seen three sites taken out that had originally been included and three sites that were not originally included being put in. With this in mind, the CIL now needed modification before its examination could take place. The JCS authorities had received legal advice setting out the most appropriate way forward which was to produce a ‘Statement of Modifications’ to each draft Charging Schedule before the examination and to consult on those statements for a period of four weeks; the Statement, attached to the report at Appendix 1, included modifications to add/delete the strategic allocations as recommended by the JCS inspector; included maps showing the boundaries of the strategic allocations; and included a section setting out how the CIL charge would be calculated. Once the three Councils had each approved the Statement of Modifications for their respective Draft Charging Schedules and, assuming all went to plan, it was anticipated that the examination would be held in October 2017 and adoption would be in January 2018. The recommendation before Members would offer flexibility to enable the CIL to be adopted as quickly as possible and ensure the appropriate resources were available. In terms of resources, the JCS authorities would be required to implement a system for collection and administration of CIL, to include the recruitment of two Officers to manage CIL and Section 106 planning obligations; the financial costs of those posts were estimated to be £60,000 for each authority. The CIL Regulation allowed Councils to clawback reasonable costs in preparing and implementing CIL by allowing them to reclaim 5% of the total CIL revenue for the first three years that it was levied. In addition, the CIL Regulations made provision for Councils to use up to 5% of each year’s CIL revenue to offset the administrative costs. The projections for the JCS authorities for CIL income was in the region of £13 million in the first three years and therefore the additional cost of a new system and staff resources should be retrieved during that period. 

24.4           A Member questioned whether Tewkesbury Borough Council would have its own CIL or whether it would have a joint one with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils. She also questioned whether the CIL would be adopted even if the JCS was not. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that the Council’s charging figure was slightly different to that of Cheltenham and Gloucester as it was based on technical house prices, viability etc; however, the CIL on the cross boundary sites within the JCS would need to be worked out through the planning application process. CIL was subject to its own examination process so it could still go forward without the JCS; however, the process would be cleaner if they were adopted alongside each other since one was a large part of the other.  In terms of charges, this would be £35 per square metre for strategic allocations with the figure for the rest of the Borough being significantly higher. In addition, the Deputy Chief Executive advised that the documents before the Committee only presented the changes as the rest of the process, i.e. the charges etc., had already been agreed by the Council. Members felt that it would have been helpful to have received the approved CIL charges as part of the Agenda pack to serve as a reminder and they asked that this information be included with the papers when the report was considered by the Council.

24.5           A Member expressed concern at the amount of CIL that would be lost whilst it remained un-adopted. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that the Council was currently still receiving Section 106 monies and some of that would not come forward when CIL was implemented; this meant that the Council was not losing out completely but it was understood that CIL needed to be adopted as soon as possible. In terms of costs, the wording of the Regulation was ‘reasonable costs’ and Members were offered reassurance that the Council would be gaining all that it could in that regard. In terms of the timing of the CIL adoption, it was hoped the Inspector would not require substantial modifications to the JCS as that would mean further consultation but, on the basis that no further consultation was required, it was hoped the JCS could be adopted by the end of 2017 and the CIL adoption could run concurrently. If there were substantial changes to the JCS then the CIL timetable may have to be reconsidered. The delegations recommended within the current report would allow the Council to move quite quickly with the adoption of the CIL at the conclusion of the consultation period if necessary.

24.6           Accordingly, it was