Agenda item

The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development will be in attendance for this item. The report and appendix for this item are attached.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee:

(a)  AGREED:

·         That communication to parish councils regarding CIL should be refined in order to avoid misconceptions and ensure they had the greatest opportunity/encouragement to respond fully to the consultation, and to ensure that parish councils could put forward specific infrastructure of strategic importance as items they particulary wanted to see included as part of  the Regulation 123 List.

·         That communication was needed with parish councils to clarify the purpose of Neighbourhood Plans and the benefits in terms of CIL contributions of having such a plan.

·         That Sawston developments should come under Section 106 rather than CIL and that this should be amended in the report to Cabinet.

(b)  NOTED the infrastructure items highlighted on the CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

(c)  RECOMMENDED the draft Regulation 123 infrastructure list to Cabinet.

Councillor Nick Wright, Portfolio Holder for Planning and Economic Development, presented the report regarding the draft Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Infrastructure List.

The Section 106 Officer clarified that under the regulations, infrastructure items that appeared on the Draft Regulation 123 list could not, in addition, be funded through section 106 contributions. Exempting items from the Regulation 123 list would mean that funding contributions could be secured via s106 agreements.

Members were informed that the Draft Regulation 123 List outlined in the report would be subject to a six week public consultation and parish councils would be encouraged to propose any items of particular and significant importance to them, such that consideration could then be given as to whether it was suitable to add particular items to the Regulation 123 List.

Concern was raised over the public consultation potentially bypassing some parish councils, particularly smaller ones. Members proposed that all parish councils were written to regarding the importance of their participation in the public consultation on the Drat 123 Infrastructure list.

Members were informed that the Council did not want to restrict its ability to secure funding from other sources. Primary education was not included in the Draft Regulation 123 list and as such, contributions could (subject to the ‘Rule of 5’) be secured from S106 payments, irrespective of the size of the development for which the primary education contributions would be.

Following consultation on and finalisation of the Regulation 123 List, this list could be amended at any time. However any amendments would be subject to public consultation. It was proposed that once the Regulation 123 List was finalised, it would be reviewed after two years, but it could be reviewed sooner if circumstances warranted particular amendments to the list.

Members were apprehensive that CIL did not generate the same level of funding for Parish Councils as traditional s106 agreements. That was a particular concern to the Local Member for Sawston due to the large number of houses being proposed through the Local Plan. The Planning and New Communities Director suggested that the three Sawston developments could be treated in the same way as the strategic developments i.e exempt them entirely from CIL and secure all infrastructure through a section 106 agreement.

Neighbourhood Plans were discussed. Members were informed that parishes would receive a larger CIL contribution if they had a Neighbourhood Plan. The misconception of the purpose of Neighbourhood Plans by some parish councils was discussed, with some seeing such a plan as a means to preventing development within their parish when the purpose was to enhance development. Members of the committee advised that this needed to be communicated more clearly to parish councils. It was suggested that an invitation to find out more about Neighbourhood Plans should be put in the Parish Bulletin.

Members were informed that feedback on CIL from other local authorities had been used to inform the Council’s own strategy and approach to CIL. Feedback had been used from Huntingdonshire District Council and developers in Huntingdonshire, where CIL had been in place since 2012. This feedback helped inform the proposal being recommended where strategic sites such as Northstowe were exempt from CIL.

Officers were asked whether parish councils had a duty to cooperate with each other, and were informed that they did not. Members proposed that this was looked at, to which officers agreed.

The Scrutiny and Overview Committee:

(a) AGREED:

·         That communication to parish councils regarding CIL should be refined in order to avoid misconceptions and ensure they had the greatest opportunity/encouragement to respond fully to the consultation, and to ensure that parish councils could put forward specific infrastructure of strategic importance, as items they particularly wanted to see included as part of the Regulation 123 List.

·         That communication was needed with parish councils to clarify the purpose of Neighbourhood Plans and the benefits in terms of CIL contributions of having such a plan.

·         That Sawston developments should come under Section 106 rather than CIL and that this should be amended in the report to Cabinet.

(b) NOTED the infrastructure items highlighted on the CIL Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule

(c) RECOMMENDED the draft Regulation 123 infrastructure list to Cabinet.