Agenda item

Report of the Assistant Director (Planning)

The Panel received a report from the Assistant Director (Planning). The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was a way of collecting developer contributions from new developments towards the delivery of necessary supporting infrastructure. It replaced S106 to a large extent so rather than it being negotiated in each case, it was a levy per square metre of development that was fixed, transparent and clear to all parties in advance. Welwyn Hatfield Borough Council had undertaken previous consultation on proposed CIL rates. It was intended that this would come into effect following adoption of the Local Plan but delays with the Plan meant that this did not happen as envisaged; however, adoption of the Local Plan meant this could now be taken forward. It was independently examined so needed a robust evident base. Levies were underpinned by a series of viability proposals. The Council had commissioned BNP Paribas who had done the previous appraisals, so there was consistency with previous work. Three zones had been identified in the borough where development could support different rates, as set out in the report. It was proposed that two areas be excluded (the new strategic development sites in north west Hatfield and the part of Birchall within Welwyn Hatfield) as they were new large scale developments that would need to provide a lot of onsite infrastructure potentially very early on and were complex, so it was considered more appropriate for this to go through the S106 process. There was a caveat around smaller sites that fell below the affordable housing threshold. If the consultation was approved, it was intended to consult in January and February 2024 over a six week period.

There was a small error in the report as adoption was a function of full Council under national legislation so the third recommendation in the report was withdrawn and officers would come back to Members upon receipt of the Examiner’s report. 

The following points were made during the discussion:

·       A Member sought clarity that the process did not apply to home extensions. Officers confirmed it applied only to the creation of new builds.

·       A Member asked where in the report a CIL hierarchy was referenced. Officers explained the report sought to consult on the charging schedule; further reports about governance structures would come to the Panel once the Council started to collect CIL receipts. The Member sought assurance that the proposal would not detract from housebuilding. Officers said this was a key part of the viability assessment which identified the maximum charge; the assessment was robust and they were confident it would not undermine delivery of houses.

·       A Member asked about a comparison in terms of what was expected to be raised via S106s compared to the CIL and felt it was an oversight that this was not detailed in the report which precluded him from making a decision. Officers replied that while this exercise had not been carried out, developer contributions would be collected in a different way; CIL was not ringfenced and was a non-negotiable levy. 

·       A query was raised about why the rates for supermarket superstores had been changed. Officers said the consultant had carried out the same exercise as before but in the interim there had been significant economic change in the country so the level of liability was now much lower; the evidence that had been prepared for the Council suggested that was the rate that should be charged. Another Member noted that out of town retail was still fairly viable and profitable and a number of logistic companies in the area were booming; he wondered if the process should be more specific in specifying types of industry and accurate economic land.

·       A Member noted both part of Birchall and north west Hatfield would be subject to S106 and felt the report should make that clear with reference to the latter. It was clear onsite infrastructure would be needed but he wondered if the balance was right as both these large developments were entirely S106; what was not in place was a developer’s ability to constrain what the money was spent on, or to claw the money back if the development did not happen. Officers said the key difference between these two sites and others was that the scale of infrastructure they needed to deliver onsite was much greater and included schools, community facilities etc; S106 provided a much more straightforward mechanism in these instances.      

·       It was noted there was an error in paragraph 3.13; Woolmer Green was in residential zone 2.

·       A Member asked if there was a projection of how much revenue CIL might raise and whether it would form part of a budget that would come to Council. Officers said a CIL charging schedule needed to be examined. The charging schedule was prepared based on the majority of development coming forward which was linked to the Local Plan. There was strong merit in having a straightforward charging schedule that captured the most amount of infrastructure contributions and an exercise would take place to identify the types of new development coming through and help understand what level of CIL would be generated. This was outside the Council’s budget setting process but governance arrangements would be in place. Another Member commented that CIL would need to be treated as capital rather than revenue and was ringfenced for the type of infrastructure the developments were likely to generate. A single CIL would have a levy on a particular development but would need to cover education which would mean the County Council could ask the borough for a contribution, so it was not necessarily the borough’s money to spend.    

·       A member queried how the plan would be amended and was advised the rate could be changed by going back through the process and evidencing it.

·       The report stated that developments under 10 dwellings did not have to provide affordable housing and that the proposed charge for these was the same across the borough. A Member felt it would be clearer to say the rate rather than the charge was the same.

·       Officers confirmed CIL rates were index linked.

RESOLVED: 

CPPP agreed:

1.     That the CIL Draft Charging Schedule in Table 1 and Instalments Policy in Appendix C should be recommended to Cabinet for agreement for public consultation.

2.     That in the event of there being no changes to the charging schedule as a result of the consultation, delegated authority be given to the Assistant Director of Planning, in conjunction with the Executive Member for Planning, to submit the Community Infrastructure Levy charging schedule and accompanying evidence base for examination.