Agenda item

The Committee were first addressed by two members of the public:

Mrs L Whitsun-Jones, a resident of East Coker, said that evidence put forward by consultees had been largely ignored.  She said the infrastructure proposed for the Keyford site had not been revised since the number of houses had been reduced from 2,500 down to 1,600 and that infrastructure requirement made both the Yeovil Sustainable Urban Extensions (SUE’s) virtually unviable.  She also referred to the independent inspection where the public could only speak regarding the main modifications and there would be no opportunity to put forward additional information.  She concluded that East Coker Parish Council would have no benefit from the houses and she urged the Committee to reconsider the zero rating of SUE’s. 

Mr A Burrows said he was a specialist in economics and planning and he had been engaged by Mudford Parish Council to advise them.  He said there had been a serious procedural issue as a development viability appraisal of the 800 houses dated 30^th March 2016 was after the public consultation had taken place. 

The Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning (Place Making) said the proposed modifications to the draft charging schedule for Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) were the result of public consultation and she expressed disappointment that the public did not feel the process was open and transparent.  She said the proposed changes were evidenced and the next step was confirmation by Council before submission to the Examiner. 

The Principal Spatial Planner, in response to the public comments, clarified that CIL was not intended for community benefit but was to pay for infrastructure that was necessary for development.  He did not accept that there had been any procedural issues as all the statutory processes had been completed and all information was publically available.  He noted that Mudford Parish Council had not sought to be represented at the Planning Inspection. 

The Principal Spatial Planner then outlined the 4 main issues which had been raised in the consultation process which had led to the two proposed modifications.  One modification to remove reference to C2 uses in the charging schedule and, a second modification to remove retail (A1-A5 uses) in town centres and primary shopping areas from the charging schedule.  It was explained that supplementary evidence on a development typology of 800 dwellings in Yeovil would be submitted to the Examiner.  Also, that the concept of delivering additional cemetery space around Yeovil was to be added to the draft Regulation 123 List.  He then explained that the next step was to advertise the modifications prior to submitting the charging schedule to the Examiner, and that anyone wishing to speak on the modifications would be able to request to be heard, but only in relation to the modifications.

In response to questions from Members, the Principal Spatial Planner advised:-

·         C2a use as well as C2 was excluded as the current viability evidence showed it could not be tolerated.

·         Retail property converted into a new dwelling would be subject to the £40 per sqm levy rate.

·         It was anticipated to revisit the CIL rates in 2 to 3 years to see if the market had changed and to allow the scheme to bed in. 

·         A CIL implementation date had not been specified as the Examination had not yet taken place.  The Council would also want to conclude some Section 106 negotiations before implementing CIL.

·         There was a perception by Parish Councils that zero rating the SUE’s was deliberate but to impose CIL on top of Section 106 contributions would render the schemes unviable. 

·         Many other Local Authorities had designated zero rated CIL areas.

·         To consider providing an automatic 5% payment to parishes where development takes place (but where no levy will be charged) would be tantamount to community benefit and would be unlawful. 

·         The £40 per sqm CIL payment together with a £40 off site affordable housing contribution would have to be borne by developers, however, self-builds were exempt from this charge. (N.B. The recent Government announcement affects this consideration).

·         The Infrastructure Delivery Plan concluded that there would be a funding gap of £124 million (not £128 million as stated on Agenda page 21).

·         CIL was never intended to fully bridge the funding gap in the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.  On site infrastructure could still be provided via Section 106 funding to help ameliorate the impacts of a development.

·         The CIL receipts would come in tranches linked to the build out of developments.

At the conclusion of the debate, the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning (Place Making) said she was confident that all the proposals were evidenced for the inspection and that officers had followed due process.  Members were content to propose the recommendations to full Council for confirmation.