MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
RECORD OF DECISION OF THE Cabinet
|
|
Decision Made: |
16 May 2012 |
LOCAL DEVELOPMENT SCHEME 2012-15
Issue for Decision
To consider a review and update of Maidstone's Local Development Scheme as a result of changes to the preparation of local plans and their production programme.
Decision Made
1.
That the inclusion of strategic development allocations for housing and
employment in the Core Strategy within the strategic development locations
identified on the key diagram of the Core Strategy Public Participation
Consultation 2011 (as attached at Appendix B to the report of the Director of
Change, Planning and the Environment) be approved.
2. That the amalgamation of the Central Maidstone AAP and the Development Delivery DPD, to be called the Development Delivery Local Plan, be approved.
3. That the Local Development Scheme 2012-2015 (as attached at Appendix A to the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment) be adopted with immediate effect.
Reasons for Decision
The Local Development Scheme
The Council is required to produce a Local Development
Scheme (LDS), which sets out the range of local plans it is proposing to
prepare over a minimum three year period. There is no requirement to include a
programme for the production of Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) but,
historically, the Council has identified the key SPDs needed to deliver the
Core Strategy.
There is no longer a duty to submit an LDS to the Secretary
of State for approval, but local authorities are charged with keeping their LDS
up-to-date and to review its progress through annual monitoring reports.
The Council’s current scheme was adopted in 2011 and the
target date for public participation consultation on the Core Strategy was
successfully met in autumn 2011. Since then a number of events have resulted
in delays to the Core Strategy timetable and led to the need to review the
scheme. The delays to the programme predominantly relate to the publication of
the national planning policy framework, the requirement to undertake more
detailed transport modelling and further work that has been commissioned in
response to the representations that were received.
However, this slippage has also presented the Council with
an opportunity to go forward with a more robust Core Strategy that will be
produced under new plan making regulations[1].
Furthermore, the publication of the National Planning Policy Framework (NPPF)
in March 2012 enables the Council to test the conformity of its Core Strategy
with national planning policies.
Strategic Sites
A report summarising the Core Strategy public participation
consultation representations, together with officers’ recommended responses,
will be presented to a subsequent meeting of Cabinet. Meanwhile, one of the
key issues raised by respondents from the development industry calls for the
allocation of strategic development sites in the Core Strategy.
The NPPF states that local plans should indicate broad
locations for strategic development on a key diagram and land use designations
on the policies map. The draft Core Strategy identifies strategic development
locations on its key diagram but specific site allocations are currently
planned for subsequent local plans (known as development plan documents and area
action plans under the Act[2]).
The NPPF makes clear that there is a presumption in favour
of sustainable development where development plan policies are out-of-date.
The weight given to policies in adopted plans when determining planning
applications depends on their degree of conformity with the NPPF and their date
of adoption, but the weight that can be afforded to emerging local plan
policies depends on their stage of preparation. The more advanced the
preparation of the local plan, the greater the weight given. The transitional
period for local authorities to update their plans is one year to March 2013.
Consideration has been given to the benefits and
disadvantages of allocating strategic sites in the Core Strategy, and the
impact on the Core Strategy programme.
Benefits
· It is good planning practice, rather than continuing to rely on the development management process and its inherent incremental nature.
· It gives certainty to all in that how much development and where is known. Strategic locations are vague and provide confusion.
· If a number of housing sites can be allocated and eventually adopted in the Core Strategy, this would improve the control that the authority has over the release of these sites.
· As the emerging Core Strategy gets nearer to formal adoption, the strategic sites can be given more weight in the decision making process.
· The process would give the Council an increased ability to dictate the order in which sites might come forward.
· The sites would underpin and give weight to the Council’s 5-year housing land supply.
· The process would bring forward the most sustainable sites.
· The sites would have local criteria attached to them enabling the Council to shape development.
· It reduces the risk of “planning by appeal”.
Disadvantage
· Introducing strategic sites in the Core Strategy will delay its adoption and the length of time in which a policy vacuum prevails.
There are clear advantages in allocating strategic sites in
the Core Strategy, not least giving control to the Council and clarity to the
public and developers. The prime disadvantage is the impact on the Core
Strategy programme, which will delay Publication consultation by a further 6
months (December 2012 instead of June 2012) because of the need to undertake an
additional consultation stage on strategic site allocations.
On balance, it is considered that the advantages of this
approach outweigh the disadvantages. The revised timetable will lead to the
submission of the Core Strategy to the Secretary of State in March 2013, which
is the end of the transitional period for local plans, at which point
considerable weight will be afforded to the local plan as a material
consideration in the determination of planning applications. There are similar
benefits of control and clarity for the allocation of a strategic employment
site in the Core Strategy.
A call for sites was issued on 11 May 2012, inviting
landowners, developers and their agents to submit available sites that lie
within the two strategic housing development locations and one of the strategic
employment locations illustrated on the key diagram attached at Appendix B to
the report of the Director of Change, Planning and the Environment:
· North west of the urban area (in the vicinity of Allington for approximately 975 dwellings)
· South east of the urban area (in the vicinity of Park Wood and Otham for approximately 1,000 dwellings)
· Junction 8 of the M20 motorway (for approximately 11 ha net).
The strategic development location at junction 7 of the M20
motorway relates to a specific use in association with the approved clinic.
Confining the call for sites to the identified strategic development locations
is consistent with legal advice received.
All sites within the strategic development locations will be
appraised and will be subject to SA/SEA. Consultation on the preferred
strategic allocations will be undertaken in August/September before the next
round of consultation on the entire Core Strategy in December. The balance of
non-strategic housing and employment allocations will be made in a subsequent
local plan. The timetable for the Core Strategy is set out below and special
Cabinet meetings will be arranged to keep the programme on track.
|
Stage |
Date |
|
Call for sites |
11 May to 15 June 2012 |
|
Cabinet approval of strategic site allocations |
25 July 2012
|
|
“Preparation” consultation on strategic site allocations (Regulation 18) |
17 August to 1 October 2012 |
|
Cabinet approval of Core Strategy |
21 November 2012
|
|
“Publication” consultation on Core Strategy (Regulation 19) |
14 December 2012 to 1 February 2013 |
|
Cabinet and Council approval of “Submission” of Core Strategy (Regulation 22) |
March 2013 |
|
Independent Examination (estimate) (Regulation 24) |
July 2013
|
|
Adoption (estimate) (Regulation 26)
|
December 2013 |
Development Delivery Local Plan
Updating the LDS to reflect changes to the Core Strategy and
its programme offers the Council an opportunity to review the appropriateness
of its scheme as a whole, particularly in the context of the NPPF and new plan
making regulations.
The current scheme includes two further documents that will
follow the adoption of the Core Strategy: Development Delivery DPD and Central
Maidstone AAP. The NPPF gives a clear steer for local authorities to move
towards a single local plan for their area. Merging these two documents into a
single plan, called the Development Delivery Local Plan, will not only meet the
thrust of the NPPF but will also have a positive impact on the Council’s
staffing and budgetary resources. Regeneration of the town centre, which is a
priority for the Council, can be given prominence in this local plan by
including policies and land use proposals for the town centre at the beginning
of the document. Work on the Development Delivery Local Plan will commence
next spring, although public consultation cannot be undertaken until the Core
Strategy is adopted.
There are no proposals to amend the list of key
Supplementary Planning Documents (SPD) identified in the current LDS, which are
still required to offer detail on Core Strategy policies. These include the
Parking Standards SPD, the Landscape Character Guidelines SPD and the
Affordable Housing SPD. The SPDs will be prepared following submission of the
Core Strategy, so their adoption dates will very shortly follow the adoption of
the Core Strategy.
Alternatives considered and why rejected
The Council could continue with the current LDS programme,
but this is inadvisable given the advice contained in the NPPF and the stage of
preparation of the Core Strategy. This approach is likely to result in the
early submission of planning applications for large development sites with a
high risk of appeals, at a time when planning resources should be focused on
plan making.
The revised LDS programme gives the Council better management
of the development and release of strategic sites, and also provides clarity
and transparency of the Council’s objectives to the public.
Background Papers
None
|
Should you be concerned about this decision and wish to call it in, please submit a call in form signed by any two Non-Executive Members to the Head of Change and Scrutiny by: 25 May 2012 |
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
RECORD OF DECISION OF THE Cabinet
|
|
Decision Made: |
16 May 2012 |
PROVISIONAL REVENUE AND CAPITAL OUTTURN 2011 12
Issue for Decision
To consider the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services summarising the provisional revenue and capital outturn figures for 2011/12 and provides some initial consideration of the impact of these figures on future financial planning.
Decision Made
1.
That the provisional outturn figures for revenue and capital for 2011/12
be noted.
2.
That the provisional funding of capital expenditure in 2011/12 as set
out in paragraph 1.6.3 of the report of the Head of Finance and Customer
Services and the resulting carry forward of revenue resources, set aside to
finance the capital programme in future years, of £2.304m as set out in
paragraph 1.6.5 of the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services, be
agreed.
3.
That the carry forward of grant funding as detailed in paragraph 1.5.8
of the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services be noted.
4.
That the revenue carry forward requests as detailed in Appendix B of the
report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services from 2011/12 into 2012/13
be approved.
5. That the impact on the balance sheet of the provisional outturn 2011/12 be noted.
6. Agree to consider proposals for the use of the resulting net under spend at its meeting in July 2012.
Reasons for Decision
The purpose of the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Service is to facilitate good financial management. It gave Cabinet provisional figures for revenue and capital outturn to allow early consideration of any issues resulting from them, not only in the current financial year but in terms of any impact on the Medium Term Financial Strategy for 2013 onwards.
In 2011 the Council implemented a series of changes to the
medium term financial strategy and a four year plan to deliver savings that
would meet the Government reductions in funding whilst delivering the outcomes
required by the strategic plan. The Council has successfully delivered these
changes for 2011/12 and this provisional report sets out the positive effect on
the financial resources under the control of the Council.
If the provisional outturn detailed in the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Service is further amended then final expenditure figures for revenue and capital will be reported to the June 2012 Cabinet meeting. At the same time financial planning and strategy reports for 2013/14 will be considered.
Impact on Future Financial Planning
The Council has ended 2011/12 with a net positive variance on the revenue account of £1.113m. This shows a high level of preparation for the future financial pressures the Council is expecting to face. A small number of service areas have significant adverse variances that will require additional monitoring in 2012/13. In summary the £1.113m surplus is a result of the following proposals set out in detail below:
|
|
£000 |
|
Variance on net service spending (as per Appendix A of the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services) |
4,653 |
|
Less: |
|
|
Revenue set aside to finance capital expenditure |
-2,304 |
|
Grants required to be carried forward |
-550 |
|
Carry Forward request set out in Appendix B of the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services |
-687 |
|
Variance against budget requirement |
1,113 |
The Capital Programme remains significantly on target and is fully funded.
By the end of 2012/13 general balances are expected to be £2.096m above the working minimum set by Cabinet in February 2012. In addition resources of £0.514m exist for invest-to-save proposals and £0.798m remains of the VAT reimbursement arising from the “Fleming” claims made by the Council.
The rate of collection of Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates is at an acceptable level and an adequate provision exists to cover bad debt.
Considered together, these factors enable the Council to begin 2012/13 on a financially sound basis with the ability to consider options for the most appropriate use of the increased level of balances.
Revenue
Attached at Appendix A to the report of the Head of Finance
and Customer Services is a summary of the provisional revenue outturn for
2011/12 compared to the revised estimate approved by Cabinet and Council in
February 2012. Also shown is the amended revised estimate, taking into account
any changes in capital financing costs necessitated by changes in actual
capital expenditure. This is provided to ensure a more accurate comparison
with the outturn position, as it eliminates fluctuations in capital spend.
Appendix A to the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services shows a
net unadjusted under spend of £4.653m.
Appendix A to the report of the Head of Finance and Customer
Services also summarises the variance by portfolio and the major reasons for
the variances are detailed in the following paragraphs.
The Leader’s portfolio shows an under spend of £0.877m.
This is the result of the issues detailed below:
a) Contingency budgets
exist for extra cost pressures and new legislation, totalling £0.16m and
concessionary fares of £0.2m. The concessionary fares contingency is a budget
strategy saving in 2012/13. These resources were not required in 2011/12.
b) The Leader’s portfolio
holds the budget strategy savings that have been achieved in advance of
requirement. These are budget strategy savings for 2012/13 and total £0.35m.
c) A carry forward
relating to Housing & Planning Delivery Grant of £0.137m is detailed below.
The Community & Leisure Services portfolio is reporting
a minor over spend of £0.061m. The major individual variances are as follows:-
a) Homelessness temporary
accommodation has overspent by £0.17m due to a significant increase in demand.
A small growth item has been included in the budget for 2012/13. This service
will be carefully monitored in 2012/13 and may require further action in year.
b) A number of minor carry forward requests totalling £0.09m are detailed below.
The Corporate Services portfolio is reporting a significant
under spend of £2.684m. This includes the under spend of £2.304m relating to
future revenue funding of the Capital Programme. This matter is dealt with in
more detail in the Capital section below but is the result of the revenue
resources set aside over recent years to finance future years of the Capital
Programme. This resource must be carried forward for this purpose to ensure the
Capital Programme remains fully funded. The balance of the under spend on this
portfolio is £0.38m, the major variances include the following issues:
a) Rent allowances are
reporting an under spend of £0.051m which is mainly due to variations in the
level of claimants transactions along with the resulting grant from the DWP
being more than predicted.
b) Interest and
investment income is reporting an excess of income over budget of £0.063m due
to the Council achieving a better than estimated average rate of interest.
c) Park Wood Equilibrium
Unit rents were under recovered, as previously reported to Cabinet, by £0.1m
due to under occupancy.
d) Council Tax
administration and Council Tax benefit costs were both under spent. The under
spend on both activities totalled £0.154m. Benefit activity in this service
area has varied in a similar way to Rent Allowances detailed above. The
collection service has benefited from effective use of court procedures and the
resulting higher levels of legal costs awarded.
e) This portfolio holds
the budgets for the majority of central service support sections and in total
an under spend in excess of £0.201m is reported. As these service areas are
subject to future budget strategy savings a number of vacancies have been held
long term even though, at this stage, revisions to the structure are not
approved. Examples include the IT Section, Finance Section, Overview &
Scrutiny and Corporate Support Section. All of these sections have not used
permanent recruitment to fill vacancies as this would not be in the best
interests of the Council.
The Economic Development and Transport portfolio has an
under spend of £0.598m which includes two major carry forward requests dealt
with below. One for Development Management Enforcement totalling £0.181m and
one for £0.225m from Business Development relating to the balance of the Growth
Point Revenue Grant. These service areas have under spent by sums greater than
the carry forward requests. In addition the portfolio contains the following
major variances:
a) Park and Ride is
reporting an over spend of £0.081m. The situation regarding this service has
previously been reported to Cabinet. The service manager along with the
Cabinet Member, are actively pursuing a long term solution at this time.
b) Development Management, including appeals but not enforcement, is reporting a total under spend of £0.125m due to vacancy levels and reduced use of professional services budgets. The services underwent a recent Peer Review, the results of this review are being considered for action and it is expected that the Cabinet Member will consider this resource, activity levels and the effect on service delivery early in this financial year.
c) The Land Charges
trading account has made a surplus of £0.095m. This variance is partly due to
a government grant that was received to support changes to the service. As
this is a trading account and the surplus may be required in future years, this
sum will be ring-fenced within balances as is the usual practice of the
Council.
The Environment portfolio is reporting a net under spend of
£0.705m. Of this sum £0.381m is detailed elsewhere in this report as carry
forward requests or ongoing grants. In addition, the outturn figures for the
on-street parking agency agreement with KCC have returned a surplus in excess
of the agency agreement. The agreement allows for a maximum surplus that is
index linked and currently stands at £0.074m. The surplus achieved is £0.192m.
The Parking Services Manager has requested the carry forward of £0.117m of this
surplus and this is detailed below. The use of the excess surplus is subject
to confirmation from KCC and this permission is also being sought by officers
at this time. A number of lesser positive variances, combined, produce the
remaining under spend.
The Council makes best use of funding available from other
agencies through grants and contributions. Often these grants are given for a
specific activity. In some cases this activity is carried out over a number of
years or may be received in one financial year and used in a future financial
year. In such cases the budget to be utilised must be carried forward to
maintain the link between the grant and the expenditure for which it is used.
Grants of this type, within the 2011/12 budget, that have not been utilised in
year total £0.551m and are detailed below. In all cases these grants are for
committed schemes that had been identified and agreed as part of the 2011/12
budget.
|
Service |
Balance of Grant £ |
Description |
|
Waste & Recycling |
97,850 |
Balance of WRAP grant for weekly food waste introduction |
|
Planning |
136,664 |
Balance of Housing & Planning Delivery Grant |
|
Economic Development |
224,640 |
Balance of Growth Point Revenue Grant |
|
Olympics |
10,000 |
Grant from KCC |
|
Park Wood |
19,310 |
External funding for Park Wood environmental improvements |
|
Sports |
4,000 |
KCC disability sports funding |
|
Air Quality |
48,000 |
DEFRA grant |
|
Food Hygiene |
6,560 |
Rating scheme grant from Food Standards Agency |
|
Environmental Enforcement |
2,950 |
KFRS and Clean Kent grant for school litter initiative |
|
Museum |
2,000 |
Funding for Iron Age collection |
|
|
550,974 |
|
Attached at Appendix B to the report of the Head of Finance
and Customer Services is a schedule of provisional carry forward requests, into
2012/13, totalling £0.678m. In previous years, requests relating to
contractual commitments have been considered before other requests. On this
occasion no requests have been received that relate to contractual commitments
and all requests detailed are for schemes to which the Council is not yet
committed. It was recommended that Cabinet consider the requests in Appendix B
to the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services and give approval as
required
As Cabinet agreed all of the carry forwards proposed, the net under spend to be transferred to general balances is £1.113m. The result is set out under balances below.
It is appropriate, as part of the development of the medium
term financial strategy for 2013/14 onwards, that Cabinet consider options for
the use of this resource in furthering the required outcomes of the strategic
plan. It was recommended that Cabinet receive a report, from Corporate
Leadership Team, to its July 2012 meeting on options to utilise this under
spend.
Capital
Attached at Appendix C to the report of the Head of Finance
and Customer Services is a summary of capital spend against the revised
estimate. Further slippage of £0.163m has been identified since the programme
was agreed by Council in February 2012. This figure is the net effect of
slippage to and from 2012/13 as funding for Mote Park Regeneration in 2012/13
will need to be used in 2011/12.
The over spend on the Software Upgrade programme is funded from specific grant. The Revenues and Benefits Partnership software is funded from the set up costs budget agreed by Cabinet when the partnership was initially approved. The schemes asterisked in Appendix C to the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services are funded from s106 developer contributions.
Cabinet were reminded of the arrangements surrounding the
schemes for the Hazlitt Theatre and the Museum East Wing. In both cases an
arrangement exists to repay resources into balances over a set period following
completion of the work.
The expenditure outlined in Appendix C to the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services can be funded mainly from capital resources. Proposed funding is summarised in the following table:
|
Resources |
£000 |
|
|
|
|
Capital Receipts |
2,500 |
|
Capital Grants (incl. s106) |
2,592 |
|
Revenue |
2,489 |
|
TOTAL |
7,581 |
This funding proposal is developed on the basis of using the most flexible resources last. This means that grants and capital receipts have been utilised in preference to revenue support. The consequence of this decision is detailed below and recommended the carry forward of revenue resources set aside to finance capital expenditure. It was recommended that Cabinet consider and approve this provisional financing of the capital programme.
In line with this policy, of using capital resources first,
some of the resources identified from revenue budgets to finance capital
expenditure will not be required until 2012/13 or later years. This creates a
revenue variance of £2.304m which is essential to the financing of the future
capital programme. This variance is reported under the Cabinet Member for
Corporate Services’ Portfolio above. It was recommended that this money is
carried forward for this use in 2012/13, in order for the capital programme to
remain affordable.
Balance Sheet
The provisional outturn figures have an impact on various
elements of the Balance Sheet and these are summarised as follows.
Asset Sales
The revised estimate assumed asset sales for 2011/12 of £0.713m. The
provisional outturn figures show cash backed Capital Receipts, net of costs of
£1.115m. This is £0.402m greater than estimated, due to additional receipts
from Golding Homes Right-to-Buy sales and the disposal of land at Church
Street. Not all available receipts have been utilised in the financing of the
capital programme, these receipts will be required to finance future years’
expenditure.
Collection Fund
The outturn collection rates for Council Tax and Non-Domestic Rates were close
to target at the end of the financial year. This is a considerable achievement
given the economic circumstances and the fact that the service was in its first
year as a shared service in 2011/12. At this time it is predicted that there
will be a small surplus on the collection fund at the year end. This surplus
will be formally shared between preceptors during 2013/14. For this Council it
is expected to be less than £0.02m. The collection rates, compared to target,
are as follows:
|
Collection Rates |
Target % |
Actual % |
|
NNDR |
97.0 |
97.4 |
|
Council Tax |
98.7 |
98.3 |
Investments
The Treasury Management Strategy 2012/13 agreed by Council
in February 2012 anticipated year end investments of approximately £17m. The
actual investment at 31 March 2012 totalled £13.6m. The provisional assessment
of the reduction shows the following over estimates of likely resources:-
|
Reason |
£000 |
|
Collection Fund |
1,000 |
|
Council Tax Benefit Grant |
1,200 |
|
Other Income |
1,200 |
|
|
3,400 |
The overall changes to the level of investments will have no impact on the
Strategy itself and only a short term impact on the revenue account during the
course of 2012/13 of no more than £0.002m. Daily monitoring of cash-flow has
confirmed that the Prudential Indicators that Council set for 2011/12 have been
complied with.
Fixed Assets
The capital investment achieved in 2011/12 resulted in
investment in the Council’s property portfolio of £3.435m out of a total spend
of £7.581m. The balance of the spend is in areas such as support for social
housing, renovation grants, etc which do not contribute to the Authority’s
asset base and have been written off, through the revenue account, as revenue expenditure
funded from capital under statute.
Useable capital receipts
As a result of the level of capital investment and the level
of capital receipts received in 2011/12, the level of useable capital receipts
at 31st March 2012 is £0.057m. It was noted that the disposals of
Hayle Place and 13 Tonbridge Road in April 2012 have subsequently added a
further £2.8m to useable capital receipts.
Balances
Balances are set out in Appendix D to the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services. The overall level of balances at 31st March 2012 will be £10.146m, compared to £9.933m at 31st March 2011. However, after allowing for the commitment to carry forwards and the planned use in 2012/13, the provisional level of uncommitted balances is £4.396m. The estimate for 2012/13 as approved at Council in February 2012 reported an expected balance of £3.241m.
There is therefore an increase in balances of £1.155m over
the revised estimate. This means balances will be above the minimum level of
working balances by £2.096m along with other resources, provisionally allocated
but not committed, of £1.312m.
Alternatives considered and why rejected
The reporting of revenue outturn could wait until Cabinet in June 2012 when final figures are available in the Statement of Accounts prior to external audit. Providing provisional outturn to Cabinet at this time facilitates good financial management and aids consideration of issues within the current financial year and helps inform future budget strategy.
Background Papers
Budget Monitoring report 2011/12
Cabinet quarterly monitoring report 2011/12
Agresso General Ledger system reports
|
Should you be concerned about this decision and wish to call it in, please submit a call in form signed by any two Non-Executive Members to the Head of Change and Scrutiny by: 25 May 2012 |
MAIDSTONE BOROUGH COUNCIL
RECORD OF DECISION OF THE Cabinet
|
|
Decision Made: |
16 May 2012 |
COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY
Issue for Decision
To consider the report of the Head of Finance and Customer Services informing Cabinet about the opportunity available to the Council to act upon its status under the Planning Act 2008.
Decision Made
That Cabinet confirms their commitment to develop and charge a Community Infrastructure Levy.
Reasons for Decision
The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced by the Planning Act 2008 and came into force on 6th April 2010 through the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010, which were amended in 2011.
CIL allows local authorities to raise funds from developers that are undertaking building projects in their area. The funds can be used for a wide range of infrastructure such as roads, schools, flood protection and green space but only if it is needed as a result of development.
The CIL is calculated as a fixed charge per square metre of development and is the product of three considerations:
· The expected level of development;
· The financial need that the expected level of development creates, in relation to the provision of infrastructure; and
· An assessment of the viability of the charge once calculated.
CIL charging authorities in England are the bodies that prepare development plans for their area as these are informed by the assessment of infrastructure needs. For this area the CIL charging authority would be Maidstone Borough Council.
The majority of development in an area has some impact upon the infrastructure needed and, in fairness, the development should support that cost. The Government’s opinion is that there must be a balance between that need and certainty for the developer. Funds could be raised through developer contribution without setting a CIL but the Government sees CIL as a statement of need in advance, which aids the developer’s decision making and speeds up the process of development.
Developer contributions are also known as section 106 contributions. They are raised through agreement with a developer to provide for infrastructure and will not be completely replaced by CIL. If, and only if, an authority chooses to set a charging schedule for CIL, the regulations will create a limitation on developer contribution in two ways. The contributions will only be for matters not covered by the CIL charge and such contributions will only have limited local pooling abilities, meaning that the Council could no longer use developer contributions to provide infrastructure that is not local to the area of the development.
In order to ensure that an effective balance is struck, the charging schedule will be subject to independent public inspection. As part of that inspection the Council will need to evidence the viability of development in the area once such development is subject to CIL.
The viability assessment could be completed in a number of differing ways but the DCLG has funded the development of a viability model through some Kent district councils. It would be prudent to await the completion of that development work and to consider the possible adoption of the viability model developed. At this time it is expected that the model would be available for consideration by July 2012.
In the meantime the Council is considering the employment of a CIL development officer. This post would be a fixed term position on a shared basis with Swale Borough Council. It would enable the Council to prepare the data for the viability model and to assess the results. This appointment would be at no extra cost to the authority as it can be funded from existing resources.
Although the Council will be the charging authority it may need to pass money to other bodies. In some cases it is acceptable to support infrastructure delivery outside of the borough where such infrastructure will benefit the development within the borough. The scheme also makes collaboration between charging authorities possible including the pooling of funds.
Setting the charge must be completed as prescribed in legislation and follows a series of steps. To commence with, this authority is a charging authority as set out above enabling it to set a charge for the purposes set out above. This status is conferred upon it by the Planning Act 2008. If Cabinet confirms a commitment to the development of a CIL, a summary of the process then followed is:
· Identify infrastructure need
· Identify funding available from other sources
· Identify funding gap
· Test viability of development in area
· Produce a charging schedule that matches funding need and viability
· Consult with developers, infrastructure providers and the public
· Assess consultation responses and revise as necessary
· Set up independent inspection
· Revise as necessary following the inspection
· Adopt charges, publish the schedule and commence charging
These tasks are complex and must be completed accurately as the charging schedule cannot be amended once published without returning to consultation and inspection.
The Government has not specified a recommended lifetime for charging schedules and there is no requirement for charging authorities to review their charging schedules. To ensure that a charging schedule remains realistic it is appropriate to review the schedule periodically. The Planning Act 2008 allows charging authorities to revise a part of their charging schedule. However, any revisions, in whole or in part, must follow the same process as that applied to the preparation, examination, approval and publication of the initial schedule.
Production of an accurate and up-to-date development plan to indicate infrastructure need is ongoing and the identification of available resources is also ongoing. This work requires completion whether the Council produces a charging schedule or not.
An indicative timetable for the work suggests that successful completion would take between 15 and 18 months, dependent upon the level of engagement with stakeholders at each stage.
Alternatives considered and why rejected
The Council could choose not to set and charge CIL. This would reduce the possible options to finance necessary infrastructure work and would influence the robustness of the medium term financial strategy.
Background Papers
Planning Act 2008
Localism Act 2011
Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (2010 No. 948)
Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2011 (2011 No. 987)
The Local Authorities (Contracting Out of Community Infrastructure Levy Functions) Order 2011 (2011 No. 2918)
“Community Infrastructure Levy Guidance, Charge setting and charging schedule procedures” (2010). Published by Secretary of State as guidance under section 221 of the Planning Act 2008. Available from: http://www.communities.gov.uk/documents/planningandbuilding/pdf/1518612.pdf
|
Should you be concerned about this decision and wish to call it in, please submit a call in form signed by any two Non-Executive Members to the Head of Change and Scrutiny by: 25 May 2012 |