To receive training as part of the Community Infrastructure Levy review.

The Panel received a verbal update on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Chris Joyce informed the Panel that CIL was introduced to simplify the system of developer contributions and was applied to any development over 100m², with various exemptions and relief that could be applied. The Borough introduced CIL in September 2016 on residential development and some charges on large retail warehousing. All the money so far had been related to residential development.

The Borough has three charging zones. At the time of the CIL examination, the viability of development in Maidenhead town centre was not able to justify a CIL charge for development, due to higher costs of development. The levy could be used flexibly across infrastructure, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities.

The estimated income of CIL was £2-3million annually, which has been allocated to support the Council’s Capital Programme, based on the principles of how CIL funding would be allocated agreed through a paper that went to cabinet.

Cllr Baldwin asked for the evidence that supported the costs of the brownfield sites in Maidenhead town centre to be unviable for CIL. The Panel were informed that the Council had decided there was insignificant evidence to justify a CIL charge, as it was charged on an area-wide basis rather than individual site basis. It needed to be proven that developments across the whole town centre could afford the CIL charge. The cost and time required to reintroduce a new CIL charging schedule was challenging, so the pragmatic approach was to adopt S106 site-by-site in order to collect the appropriate levels of contribution, whilst the evidence was being reviewed.

Cllr Baldwin asked what percentage of developer’s contribution from the Council had funded the improvements of Maidenhead’s town centre. The Panel were informed that no CIL had been allocated to the Capital Programme and had only started this year, with CIL and other funding used to fund infrastructural needs across all the Borough.

Cllr Baldwin asked if the Council was in receipt of 100% of CIL contributions from unparished areas where there were no adopted local plans or neighbourhood plans. This was confirmed to the Panel, but CIL was allocated separately in the finance system. 75-85% of the CIL was allocated to the Borough’s central pot, with neighbourhood portions available in the finance system for Maidenhead and Windsor. There was a responsibility to ensure the CIL was spent in the local areas, irrelevant of whether they were parish areas or not.

Cllr Sharpe asked how the Council ensured CIL money was utilised in best possible way, as it was spread across developments across the Borough. The Panel were informed that capital investment and CIL should be integrated so that the most beneficial and value for money schemes could be identified.

Cllr Davey said S106 should be deployed if CIL could not be applied on the £400 million Areli Real Estate plan development in the town centre. The Panel were informed that the application was verified on the week of the meeting and therefore S106 was not yet agreed. The Council had secured significant value for its land, in line with an independent evaluation and S123 report. The Panel were informed that further discussion could be taken offline.

The Chairman asked if S106 was placed across the entire Borough, the Panel were informed it was, and was negotiated with the developer to secure contributions in accordance to the scale of the development.

Cllr Bateson asked what the priorities for CIL were in Maidenhead and the Panel were informed of the following principles:

-        Enable delivery of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan

-        Delivery of Council’s Strategic Objectives or Policies

-        Ability to leverage other funding

-        Offer local benefits and have local support

-        Have a clear delivery and ongoing maintenance plan

Cllr Bateson asked if 25% CIL was only given to areas when the neighbourhood plans were in place, and why the percentage of CIL received without a neighbourhood plan was 15% instead of the supposed 17.5%. It was confirmed that 25% CIL could only be applied once the neighbourhood plan was in place and CIL had always been 15% for areas without neighbourhood plans.

Cllr Price asked about updates on the CIL Task & Finish Group (T&FG) and the Panel were informed that this was had been approved but not yet set up.

Cllr Bowden asked if a flat to rent incurred CIL or S106, as no monies were collected for the Imperial House planning application on Alma Road for an office block and flats. The Panel were informed that flats that qualified as affordable housing did not qualify for CIL, irrespective of being to buy or to rent. This planning application was to be picked up offline by Chris Joyce.

Action points:

-       The presentation to be sent to the Panel.

-       The Panel to be sent the original research in 2016 regarding CIL rates, any intermediate research, and the current research undertaken.

-       Chris Joyce to investigate CIL on the Imperial House planning application on Alma Road for Cllr Bowden.

The Panel noted the update.