Issue - meetings

Cabinet received a report which sought its approval for the proposed changes to the way developer contributions (S106 Agreements) would be negotiated in the future.

The proposed changes responded to statutory and regulatory changes by Government and were also set in the context of the anticipated adoption of the Peterborough Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). 

Councillor Hiller introduced the report and provided an overview of the CIL draft charging schedule stating that it had been approved for public consultation by Full Council.  It was further highlighted that although CIL would be the main mechanism for funding future infrastructure, S106 planning obligations would still be used to fund any necessary on site related infrastructure i.e. open space provision. The provision of affordable housing was also outside of the CIL process and could therefore only be delivered via the use of S106 agreements.

The draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document had therefore been produced in order to sit alongside the CIL and to set out the relationship between planning conditions, S106 agreements and CIL in order to make it clear what infrastructure would be funded by those different mechanisms. The SPD document did not set new policy, but provided a framework for the implementation of existing policies.

An overview of the main aspects of the CIL was provided and it was advised that should the SPD document be approved, it would be subject to a four week consultation alongside the CIL document. It was assumed that the SPD would be adopted at the same time as the CIL with a new developer contributions system being in place from April 2015.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED to:

Approve the Peterborough Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) for the purposes of public consultation to take place in August and September 2014.

          REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Government had introduced changes to the way developer contributions could be collected and spent. From April 2015, the use of existing methodology for collecting and pooling developer contributions (POIS) would become unlawful and so unless a CIL was adopted, the collection and use of developer contributions would be severely limited from that date.

To support CIL and to secure the provision of on-site infrastructure there was a need for a Developer Contributions SPD to clearly set out the difference between CIL and S106 agreements.

Cabinet was recommended to approve the Developer Contribution SPD for public consultation in August and September 2014.

          ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

From April 2015 the Council would not be able to secure developer contributions through the POIS system and therefore the Council was proposing to introduce CIL. However, CIL did not cover affordable housing and would not be used to secure site specific infrastructure, particularly on strategic sites. Therefore there was the need for an additional document which supplemented the CIL process and set out how affordable housing contributions and other on-site infrastructure would be secured.

Without a Developer Contributions SPD in place to set out clearly how this process would work, there could be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 5

The report was introduced by the Principal Strategic Planning Officer which provided the Committee with an update on the proposed changes to the way developer contributions (S106 agreements) would be negotiated in the future.  The Committee were asked to comment on the Peterborough Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) before being presented to Cabinet.

Questions and observations were made around the following areas:

·         Members asked why the council had decided to adopt a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The Director of Growth and Regeneration responded that the current POIS system could not be continued post 2015 as it would not be a legal process. Most councils did not have POIS or CIL in place. Peterborough was one of the few Local Authorities that had collected money towards the cost of new infrastructure. In the future only councils where it would not be viable, in that it would threaten the viability of new development, would not be pursuing CIL.

·         Members referred to the Integrated Development Schedule and stated that members of the public may be interested in the 20 pages of individual projects which the council was spending money on.  Why was this not being consulted on. The Director of Growth and Regeneration stated that CIL could not be charged unless new infrastructure was needed to support growth. The other aspect of CIL was that you had to be able to evidence that you could not afford the infrastructure that was needed to deliver growth.  Therefore the list of projects was there to evidence the gap between what the council had and what the cost of infrastructure would be to enable growth. Many of the individual projects listed sat within other strategy documents which the council had. The strategies were pooled together in terms of capital investment within the list. There would need to be a separate conversation about what projects would be funded, but it would have been confusing to have it as part of the Peterborough Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD). Elements of the list had been to full public consultation. The Principal Strategic Planning Officer stated that the document was a live document which would be added to and updated over time.

·         Members referred to page 68 of the report for some clarification regarding the Lifetime Homes Standards element of the report. The Principal Strategic Planning Officer stated that for a scheme of 15 or more dwellings there was a target to provide 20% of homes built to Lifetime Homes  Standards, and for a scheme of 50 or more dwellings, 2% of dwellings would be required to be built to a wheelchair home standard, and the figures represented this requirement.

·         Members asked how community involvement was being delivered within these projects e.g. open space development. The Director of Growth and Regeneration stated that councillors could assist with this through the work being carried out by the Community Development Manager which would provide an evidence base for projects being undertaken. Parish plans were however very useful  ...  view the full minutes text for item 7

The Committee received a report which outlined changes to the way local authorities could collect and distribute developer contributions and the proposed introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The report sought the views of the Committee of the before the report was presented to Cabinet on 28 July, for approval.

The Principal Strategic Planning Officer provided an overview of the application and raised the following points:

·         The current Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme (POIS) would become unlawful as of April 2015.

·         The CIL would cover most contributions but not all (e.g. Affordable housing).

·         Planning Obligations would still be used in those instances.

·         For developments of over 500 dwellings a lower CIL charge would be sought, and a Section 106 Legal Agreement would be used.

·         The CIL scheme would ensure that developers knew what they would be charges and no double charging would occur.

·         No CIL charge would be imposed on officer developments, as this would make such developments unviable.

·         CIL charges where placed on the land, so would be passed on to buyers if the land was sold.

·         Concern had been raised by some developers regarding the different changing zones across the Peterborough area. These zones had been a result of an independent viability study.

The Committee commented that a glossary of terms would be useful, for such reports. In response to a question raised, the Principal Strategic Planning Officer clarified that CIL was a fixed charge, which is non-negotiable. No other comments were made on the Peterborough Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD).

RESOLVED that:

The Committee considered the Peterborough Draft Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) before it was presented to Cabinet on 28 July for approval for public consultation.