At its meeting on 12 July 2017 the Executive Committee considered the Community Infrastructure Levy - Statement of Modifications and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that

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.

At the Executive Committee meeting Members requested that the complete Community Infrastructure Levy charges, as approved by Council on 19 April 2016, be advised to Members and that additional information is provided as an Addendum to the report.

38.1           At its meeting on 12 July 2017, the Executive Committee had considered a report which detailed the need for the Council to undertake public consultation on the proposed Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Statement of Modifications and asked for approval to compile and submit responses received to the CIL examiner. The Executive Committee had recommended to Council that the CIL proposed Statement of Modifications be approved for public consultation; that authority be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive, in consultation with the Lead Member for Built Environment, to prepare any further statements of modification that may be required following the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) hearings and/or any further viability assessments undertaken; that the Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to agree the date of public consultation(s) with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils; and 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.

38.2           The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 6-21. Members had also asked for the CIL charges which had already been agreed to be circulated for information and those were attached to the Agenda at Pages No. 22-34. 

38.3           The recommendation was proposed by the Chair of the Executive Committee and subsequently seconded. During the discussion which ensued, a Member referred to the resource implications section of the report and queried whether the past consultancy costs could be recovered. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive indicated that the Council should be able to clawback the costs of the administration and collection of CIL as was set out within the report. In addition, the Head of Development Services advised that the original consultancy work which had been undertaken by Peter Brett Associates helped the Council to set up the charging schedule and, as such, could not be recovered. The Council was not being asked to approve those rates at this meeting as that had already been done in April 2016. The Head of Development Services explained that the rates would be examined through the CIL process but that was not the purpose of the current report. Members were being asked to look at the modifications which needed to be made and agree that they be the subject of public consultation.

38.4           A Member referred to the resource implications at Page No. 7 of the report and Paragraph 5.1 at Page No. 10. She was of the view that the two paragraphs contradicted each other regarding the funding of the post as the first paragraph indicated that Tewkesbury’s contribution would be £30,000 for staffing costs and £30,000 for the IT System; whereas the second paragraph stated that two officers would be required at an estimated cost of £60,000 for each of the JCS authorities. She questioned whether this meant there were two Officers costing £60,000 with ICT costs on top of that. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that the approximate resource implications were £30,000 staffing costs and £30,000 ICT costs so Tewkesbury Borough Council’s contribution of £60,000 in total, plus £60,000 from Cheltenham Borough and £60,000 from Gloucester City Councils, would most likely cover two Officers overall. In addition, the Member questioned what was meant by the statement, set out at the fifth bullet point on Page No. 13, that “where Tewkesbury Borough Council as a ‘charging authority’ has in this schedule applied a £0m² rate, based on viability evidence, therefore not levying a charge on that intended development due to its use, location or size”. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that the Council only charged for residential/retail development so there were items that would not be chargeable and as such would be £0m². That would also be the case in areas where relief was applied for exceptional circumstances, like charities, or where viability evidence was provided.

38.5           Referring to Page No. 13 bullet point 3, a Member expressed the view that the wording seemed oddly woolly in the statement “where the development is of buildings into which people do not normally go, or which they go only intermittently for the purpose of inspecting or maintaining fixed plant or machinery”, and he questioned what this meant. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that this referred to things such as wind turbines, pylons or electricity sub-stations. In response to a view that the Council was premature in asking for CIL for the Twigworth Strategic Allocation, the Head of Development Services explained the importance of CIL reflecting all of the Strategic Allocations. Currently the Council’s JCS did include Twigworth and therefore it was important that any development was able to gain vital infrastructure as necessary. The recommendations allowed for any changes to be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive so, if any Strategic Allocations were put in or taken out, the necessary changes would be made but, in the meantime, it was important that everything that was currently included as a Strategic Allocation was covered by CIL.

38.6           A Member drew attention to Page No. 27 - Paragraph 1.7.2, bullet point eight – and indicated that concerns had been expressed by people that wanted to build a house for themselves on their own piece of land and whether or not they would be subject to CIL. The bullet point referred to seemed to imply that they would not and he questioned whether this could be made clearer. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive explained that this was an exemption and could be publicised as part of the consultation; the relevant paragraph was “the CIL Regulations provide for certain types of development to be exempt from CIL, which include self-build housing, where a dwelling is built by the person who would normally be liable for the charge (including where built following a commission by that person) and occupied by that person as their sole or main residence”. Referring to the £35m² charge, a Member questioned whether this would change if a developer had a lot of land in their ownership. In response, the Head of Development Services explained that the Strategic Allocations were set out in the charging schedule at £35m² – there would be no ‘deals’ or rounding up or down. The CIL was not negotiable in the same way that Section 106 obligations were. Non-strategic sites were different and those charges were set out within the Charging Schedule. A Member indicated that the CIL had been delayed by the JCS and, as such, the Council had already missed out on a lot of funding and she felt that it was extremely important that Members approved the recommendation before them so that the CIL Charging Schedule could be put into place as soon as the JCS allowed.

38.7              Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          1. That the Community Infrastructure Levy Proposed Statement                                 of Modifications, as attached 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 the responses received and submit them to the CIL examiner for examination.