Agenda item

To agree that public consultation be undertaken on the Tewkesbury Borough CIL Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) prior to independent examination.

82.1           The report of the Development Services Group Manager, circulated at Pages No. 74-95, sought to draw together all of the relevant threads of information which informed the revisions to the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule, taking account of consultation responses received to the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule along with further detailed viability assessment work. Members were asked to approve the undertaking of public consultation on the Tewkesbury Borough Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging Schedule prior to independent examination.

82.2           The Deputy Chief Executive indicated that approximately one year ago, the Council had approved the Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule for public consultation. The Community Infrastructure Levy was a relatively new model which would be used to capture developer contributions for infrastructure and it was different to the traditional Section 106 contribution model. The Community Infrastructure Levy was not a negotiation it was instead a fixed charge which would be payable on any development regardless of its size and was the mechanism for gaining developer contributions which was favoured by the government. In order to set a charge there was a need to gather a high level of evidence on viability in the area as the charge must be neutral i.e. the charge could not encourage or discourage economic development in the Borough and had to be affordable to developers. As such a lot of work had been undertaken to understand the different typologies of development in the area and the viability of development.  

82.3           The first stage of consultation on the Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule had taken place in the summer of 2015 and the results of which had been fed into the additional viability work undertaken. Much of the work to date had been undertaken with the other Joint Core Strategy Authorities; the reason for this was that, although the charge would be individual to each Council, it would be aligned with growth across the Joint Core Strategy area and to reduce the Council’s costs. The report before Members represented the culmination of the work undertaken which had resulted in an evidence-based and defensible Draft Charging Schedule. Following the consultation period, the Schedule would go through the process of an independent examination; this would not be of the scale of the Joint Core Strategy examination but was likely to be either paper-based or involve a one day hearing at most.

82.4           The charges for residential, non-residential and Joint Core Strategy strategic sites (residential only) were set out at Paragraph 3.2 of the report and accounted for affordable housing requirements as well as mitigation measures on large sites. The charges demonstrated that development for the Borough would remain viable and affordable housing levels would remain sustainable with 40% affordable housing outside of the large strategic allocations and 35% on the strategic sites. Throughout the process to date Officers had worked closely with Members, consultants, Town and Parish Councils and Parish Clerks.  In addition, due to the technical nature of the work to develop the Charging Schedule, developers had been consulted for their views. If the report was supported by Members it was expected that a charge would be in place by the end of the calendar year; although this would be dependent on the examination process.

82.5           The recommendation contained within the report was proposed and seconded. During the discussion which ensued a Member questioned the reason for the seemingly large difference in cost for a 1,000 to 2,000 sq. ft. home. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive explained that this was due to the different requirements for affordable housing between developments of 1-10 units and 11+ units. Another Member questioned whether the Council was proposing to charge a Community Infrastructure Levy for retirement villages/blocks of flats; especially given the large growth being seen in that sector. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive advised that this had been raised previously but she understood that the modelling had shown that they were not currently viable to take a charge. Section 106 could still be used for any mitigation measures around a development but not outside of the site. In terms of the differences between the three authority areas, the Deputy Chief Executive confirmed that the charges were based on land value and, whilst the land values in Cheltenham and Tewkesbury were adequate to pay for the Community Infrastructure Levy charge, Gloucester City was not in the same position. A Member remained concerned that she did not have enough information to make a fully informed decision on the matter; she felt that the Council needed to know which sites would gain a Section 106 contribution; when the strategic sites were likely to come to fruition; and why the levy charge was so high for some sites when the strategic development definition was a minimum of 500 houses. In response, the Member was advised that there had been a long, slow and complicated process to get to this point and Officers had had a huge amount of support to carry out the technical work that had been needed. Consultants had attended the Council to help provide Members with a full understanding of the work undertaken and it was felt that the Council now needed to move forward with its Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule so that it could capture those contributions that it would not otherwise obtain; at the moment it was missing out.

82.6           A Member noted that the consultation to take place would be the second round of consultation and he questioned what developers had thought the first time. In response, the Deputy Chief Executive indicated that the responses had been extremely interesting with 39 comments received. Officers had also run workshops for developers to try and tease out the information from them which had been helpful. It was anticipated that similar responses would be received through the next round of consultation. Another Member indicated that the Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule would be key to developer contributions moving forward and she hoped the Council would agree with the recommendation before it. She explained that Parish/Town Councils with an adopted Neighbourhood Plan would receive 25% of any Community Infrastructure Levy contributions and those without an adopted Plan would get 15% with a ceiling of £100 per house. This meant the Charging Schedule was really important to Parishes. In addition, the Council was currently receiving applications that developers were submitting in order to avoid the Community Infrastructure Levy as the Council did not have one; this made it even more important that the Council move forward as quickly as possible.

82.7           Accordingly, it was

                  RESOLVED          1. That the Community Infrastructure Levy Draft Charging                                          Schedule be APPROVED for public consultation.

                                                 2. That authority be delegated to the Deputy Chief Executive,                                     in consultation with the relevant Lead Member, to prepare                                       the final consultation documents as required based on the                                     information contained in Appendix 1 to the report.

                                                  3. That the Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to agree the                                    date of public consultation on the Draft Charging Schedule                                      with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils.

                                                  4. That, following the conclusion of the public consultation, the                                    Deputy Chief Executive be authorised to compile and                                              submit responses received, along with the Draft Charging                                 Schedule, to the Planning Inspectorate for Examination.