Issue - meetings

(Planning Policy Portfolio Holder) To consider the attached report (C-017-2015/16).

(1)        That the findings of the Stage 1 Assessment of the Viability of Affordable Housing, Community Infrastructure Levy and Local Plan, the Executive Summary for which was attached at Appendix 1 of the report, be noted;

(2)        That the work needed to support the potential introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) along the lines proposed in the Stage 1 Report be agreed; and 

(3)        That Stage 2 of the Economic Viability work be completed to inform the Preferred Option Draft Local Plan and that the consultants retained by the Council undertake and complete this work at the appropriate time.

The Portfolio Holder for Planning Policy presented a report concerning the assessment of viability of affordable housing, Community Infrastructure Levy and the Local Plan.

The Portfolio Holder reported that the Dixon Searle Partnership had been engaged by the Council to undertake an assessment of the economic viability of development across the District and advise on the implications of this for the drafting of Local Plan policies.  The consultants were also asked to consider the scope for the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and the inter-relationship with overall development viability. 

The Portfolio Holder stated that the Community Infrastructure Levy, as the name suggested, was essentially a tax that local authorities could charge developers to help deliver the infrastructure needed to support the development of an area. A proportion of the levy collected was passed onto Parish and Town Councils to spend where development had taken place. The Levy was intended to provide infrastructure to support the development of an area, rather than making individual planning applications acceptable in planning terms.  Therefore, since some site specific impact mitigation might still be necessary in order for a development to be granted planning permission, where the Levy was introduced there was still a legitimate role for development specific planning obligations. 

The Portfolio Holder explained that economic viability work was being undertaken in two stages and the Consultants had now reached the end of Stage 1. Their report reviewed the economic viability of development at a strategic level across the District and introduced potential options for Local Plan policy development, including the proportion of affordable housing and affordable housing thresholds. The Stage 1 report had also considered the prospects for the introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy and had advised on broad parameters for viable levels of Levy for different land uses across the District. 

The Cabinet was reminded that the Consultants had briefed all Members on 19 May 2015 on the economic viability work undertaken so far. They had explained the links with the Local Plan and affordable housing as well as also presenting their findings in respect of the prospects for introducing a Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule across the District, indicating the uses that could sustain a charge and the rates that might be levied. The Cabinet was requested to note the work already completed and agree that the Council continued the work needed to support and inform both the Local Plan and the potential introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule.

A local Member for Loughton St Mary’s opined that the proposed levels of Community Infrastructure Levy were significantly higher than neighbouring authorities, which could have a negative effect on the amount of development undertaken within the District, along with the requirement for developments to provide 40% of their dwellings for affordable housing. The Planning Policy Manager reassured the Cabinet that the Stage 1 Assessment was a high level analysis and the figures quoted were broad parameters. There would be further analysis undertaken during Stage 2. The Portfolio  ...  view the full minutes text for item 33