To comment on the report to be considered by Cabinet on the 26 November 2015.

The Chairman informed Members that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was a planning charge, introduced by the Planning Act 2008 as a tool for local authorities in England and Wales to help deliver infrastructure to support the development of their area. It was noted that CIL had come into force on 6 April 2010 through the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and largely replaced the ability of the council to seek developer contributions under section 106 of the Town & Country Planning Act (1990) as amended. 

It was noted that the report sought approval of the CIL Draft Charging Schedule (DCS) rates in Appendix 1 and to submit the DCS for public examination.

The Director of Development and Regeneration, Chris Hilton, explained that since the change in legislation the Council had appointed external consultants (AECOM) to produce the key evidence to support the proposed CIL rates:

•      Viability Report – Viability testing in the context of CIL assesses the ‘effects’ on development viability of the imposition of CIL.

•      Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).  The IDP to be part of the evidence base (on page 25 of the agenda) required for the Borough Local Plan.  In the context of CIL it assesses the funding required to provide the infrastructure to support new development and compares it with the funding available to the council to prove there would be a gap between the two.

The Director of Development and Regeneration went onto explain that the Council was unique as it was progressing CIL before the Borough Local Plan was in place.  It was noted that once the Borough Local Plan was in place the interim rates would be reviewed. 

In the ensuing discussion the following points were noted:

Ø  That whilst the proposed residential rate of £240/sqm was higher than some Local Authorities it was lower than others.  It was noted that the viability study had considered all the factors and produced the £240/sqm figure.  Members were informed that the proposed residential rate was a broad brush approach and therefore could not be compared like for like. 

Ø  Councillor Hilton stated that he felt it would have been helpful to have the information about the proposed residential rate in the body of the report.

Ø  That whilst S106 was on a scheme by scheme basis CIL was administered more like a tax and therefore had to be set so it worked for the majority of developments.

Ø  That under key implications on page 15 of the agenda the ‘Contributions collected from developers to help fund the infrastructure needed to support new development’ should read >£3m rather than <£3m.

Ø  That if the Borough Local Plan was in place by the first quarter of 2017 the rates would look to be reviewed in the third quarter of 2017.

Ø  That it was hoped CIL would be attached to some of the Maidenhead opportunity area sites in 2016 and 2017.

Ø  That most of the CIL delivery would be on small sites.

Ø  That schools were excluded from paying CIL.

RESOLVED UNANIMOUSLY: The Planning & Housing Overview & Scrutiny Panel unanimously agreed to recommend to Cabinet the following:

•      That the Draft Charging Schedule rates be approved.

•      That the Draft Charging Schedule and accompanying evidence be submitted for public examination.