Recommendation[i]

Cabinet

Member[ii]

Response[iii]

Timetable[iv]

Lead Officer[v]

RESOLVED

That the Committee agree the recommendations, as set out at 1.2.2 and 1.2.3 of the report, subject to the following amended rewording of recommendation 2:  ‘That the PTD OSC recommends that the Cabinet Member for Planning, Transport and Development approves the methodology for guidelines for determining which infrastructure is included on the list of relevant infrastructure as follows:

·           If it is strategic infrastructure;

·           If the cost of the infrastructure is significant;

·           If the number of development sites that should contribute to specific infrastructure exceeds the s106 pooling limit;

·           If infrastructure contributions are determined by set standards;

·           If the delivery of infrastructure is necessary before development proceeds; and

·           If applications are being submitted that require infrastructure based mitigation before the adoption of CIL.

Councillor Paine

Accepted, with commentary on the sixth bullet point.

The sixth bullet point should be read in conjunction with the report. It is a contextual/transition factor as the CIL system is introduced. That is to say that where a scheme is considered appropriate for inclusion on the list of relevant infrastructure, based on bullets 1-5, but CIL has not yet been adopted, s106 could pay for a phase 1 of the scheme, should this be a feasible approach. Later, after CIL has been adopted, phase 2 of the scheme could be placed onto the list of relevant infrastructure, and other developments (not those that had previously paid under s106) could then contribute.

As per the Cabinet member decision.

Rob Jarman/Darren Bridgett

The Committee requests that further information be provided to it on the percentage distribution of CILs payments across the borough and how this will be managed equitably and fairly, especially with regards the relationship between those areas covered by ward councillors, parishes and/or residents associations and those areas where the only representation is through ward councillors

Furthermore, the Committee recommends the dissemination of accurate information on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), by the Council, particularly in areas of the borough where there is no parish council, neighbourhood, resident or community group representation.

Councillor Paine

Accepted in part.

The CIL should not be seen as an equitable method of distributing infrastructure funding. It should be seen as a means of funding necessary infrastructure, usually required to make proposed developments acceptable. The percentage distribution of funds can only truly be considered when the CIL has been adopted and working for at least two years.

It is possible to consider how areas that are not represented by parishes or recognised neighbourhood forums can receive the appropriate funding for necessary infrastructure in their areas, should development be permitted and constructed that is.

This is best addressed at the CIL training session in January.

Prior to the February OSC meeting.

Rob Jarman/Darren Bridgett

That a progress update on CIL be provided to the Committee at its meeting on 18 February 2014.  This should include further information on what the CIL rate may be and comparable rates from other areas.

Councillor Paine

Accepted (for February OSC meeting).

This will be the final CIL report, which needs to be reported alongside the proposed allocations and infrastructure delivery plan. This will be a final report for consultation approval.

Report to be circulated 3 February 2014.

Rob Jarman/Darren Bridgett

That a training session on CIL be provided to the Committee in preparation of its February meeting.

Councillor Paine

Accepted (prior to February OSC meeting).

A 90 minute session outlining what CIL is and how it can be used. This will cover the advantages and disadvantages versus s106. It will also address how this affects the delivery of infrastructure and how the list of relevant infrastructure should be decided in relation to this.

Prior to the February OSC meeting.

Rob Jarman/Darren Bridgett