Agenda item

(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 Holder for Governance & Development Management felt that the Council should look to encourage the building of the right number of houses for the District, and should not try to compete with neighbouring authorities to build the most houses through having the lowest levels of Community Infrastructure Levy.

Further clarification was requested on where the responsibility for providing infrastructure lay. The Planning Policy Manager stated that Section 106 agreements would still be appropriate for certain developments, and the Community Infrastructure Levy was designed to work in tandem with them. The Council would need to provide a list of infrastructure elements for which the Levy could be charged.

Decision:

(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.

Reasons for Decision:

It was necessary to produce economic viability evidence as part of the Council’s evidence base needed to underpin and inform policies in the emerging Local Plan, to ensure that the Local Plan was founded on a robust, credible and up-to-date Evidence Base, and facilitate the potential introduction of a Community Infrastructure Levy Charging Schedule. The Community Infrastructure Levy came into force in 2010 and was the Government’s preferred approach to help deliver the infrastructure needed to support the development of an area.

Other Options Considered and Rejected:

To decide not to progress the Community Infrastructure Levy. However, the implications of this would be that the Council would need to solely rely upon pooling up to a maximum of five Section 106 contributions to fund a piece of infrastructure.

To delay a decision on whether to introduce the Community Infrastructure Levy. However, although it was the Government’s preferred approach, there was not a statutory obligation to introduce the Levy, nor any deadline set for making such a decision. 

To not request the Consultants to undertake Stage 2 of their economic viability work. However, irrespective of the Council’s decision on the Community Infrastructure Levy, economic viability work was needed to inform how Local Plan policies were couched, including the policy approach taken in respect of affordable housing.