Agenda item

A report considering the key issues arising from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) preliminary draft charging schedule (PDCS) (regulation 15) public consultation presented by Darren Bridgett, Principal Planning Officer, Spatial Policy.

Darren Bridgett, Principal Planning Officer, Spatial Policy and Rob Jarman, Head of Planning and Development were in attendance for this item.

Darren Bridgett presented the report and outlined the main points.

The report focused on the key elements of the comments raised during the public consultation exercise for the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which ran from 21 March to 7 May 2014.

During the consultation 34 comments from individuals and organisations were received concerning a wide range of issues.  These comments would be considered and used to shape the emerging CIL.

Mr Bridgett went on to explain the issues raised through the consultation.

During discussions the following points were explored:

·  Concern was raised as to whether 34 comments was sufficient to amend the CIL policies.  Mr Bridgett explained the CIL was a very technical document and the consultation of it ran alongside the consultation for the Maidstone Borough Local Plan.  Events were held to explain the CIL and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan to get people interested.  Mr Bridgett said it would have been preferable to have received more comments but there was no guidance on the minimum responses that should be received.  Mr Bridgett went on to explain all the concerns raised were legitimate and he would have no concerns making amendments to the CIL using them.

·  Mr Bridgett explained the CIL values did not have a sliding scale over the period of time it covered.  The assumptions were considered to be conservative.  The figures are set and would be subject to a monitoring process of annual reviews.  If the funds raised were considered insufficient, a full review of the CIL would be launched, which would mean compiling a whole new set of viability evidence. 

·  Mr Bridgett pointed out that the CIL was usually reviewed before the end of the local plan period but the council would be expected to have an up to date CIL for the emerging local plan.

·  Mr Bridgett and Mr Jarman explained retail outlets were required to pay the CIL (which is an on-going payment) as they generated on-going profitability and are not unfairly penalised.  Warehouse developments would not generate on-going profitability in the way retail would but could still be subject to Section 106 agreements.

·  Mr Bridgett commented that the balance between desirability of funding infrastructure from the levy and the potential effects of the levy on the economic viability of developments across the borough would be tested at examination.

·  The committee discussed the point raised  in paragraph 1.3.16 regarding ‘the increased CIL income could be used to cross subsidise affordable accommodation in the Maidstone urban area where it is suggested the accommodation is needed more’.  There was some concern if this was taken forward.  Mr Bridgett reported that more than one parish had raised this.  It was suggested parish councils should carry out their own housing market assessments of the demand for affordable housing and types in their parish and include in their Neighbourhood Plans.  This could help justify a lower affordable housing figure than the 40% in rural areas detailed in the local plan.

·  Mr Bridgett emphasised the CIL regulations include a duty for the council to pass on the CIL to parish councils using set formulae.

·  Mr Jarman explained the CIL and Section 106 agreements could work together to raised funds for different types of infrastructure provision. 

·  Mr Bridgett explained the projected figure that would be raised through Section 106 agreements was estimated at £32-42m with an estimated requirement of £75m for future infrastructure. 

·  Mr Bridgett further explained that Section 106 agreements were the exclusive way of raising funds for Affordable Housing and that section 106 obligations had three tests to ensure contributions were legal.

·  Mr Bridgett went on to explain the CIL could be a more efficient way of taking development contributions. This was because once the CIL was adopted there was no negotiation of the rates; it was a more efficient way of collection, and; the receipts could be used more flexibly.  It was unclear if the CIL would raise more funds than Section 106 agreements in totality, however, Mr Jarman confirmed the difficulty of agreeing section 106 obligations.

·  Mr Jarman confirmed that Section 106 agreements could be used to enforce provision for water infrastructure and could be made an enforceable condition.

·  Mr Bridgett confirmed the draft charging schedule publication was due to go out to consultation with proposed amendments during summer 2015.  It would be consulted on alongside the Regulation 19 consultation of the Maidstone Borough Local Plan and would come back to the Planning, Transport and Development Overview and Scrutiny Committee with figures compared with other local authorities.

RESOLVED: that

1.  The Head of Planning and Development be recommended to ensure representatives from parish councils and Area Committee Officers are involved in the design of the process for administering the distribution of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), before consulting fully with all parish councils, before the Local Plan is adopted, so parish councils are assured Maidstone Borough Council fulfils its’ duty to pass the appropriate level of CIL receipts to local councils.