Agenda item

The Chairman introduced Principal Policy Officers Regeneration and Economic Development (RED), Peter Ollivere and Michelle Robinson who were in attendance to give Members an overview presentation in relation to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Policy Officer, P Ollivere thanked Members for the opportunity to speak to the Committee and began by explaining that the County Durham Plan (CDP) set out the planning framework for County Durham up to 2030 and in order to meet the needs of present and future residents, the CDP had the aim to deliver: at least 31,400 new homes; 399 hectares of general employment land; and 9,600 square metres of new retail floor space.  It was noted that in order to deliver against the CDP there was a need for infrastructure to be in place, the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).  Members noted that physical infrastructure included not only the more obvious road and rail links, but also issue such as sewer capacity, flood mitigation and defence, and ICT connections.  It was added that other “social and green” infrastructure included education, medical care, emergency services and areas such as the Heritage coast and the Heart of Teesdale. 

The Committee noted that the IDP Report adopted a spatial approach, with the delivery areas of North, South and West, East and Central being familiar to Members.  Members were referred to an example slide showing the South Durham infrastructure requirements, and highlighting Town Centre Investment Schedules operating a red, amber green system of identifying need.  It as added that an overall funding gap in terms of infrastructure of £96 million had been identified and that this gap helps to provide the rationale for introducing CILs. 

The Principal Policy Officer, M Robinson reminded Members of the benefits of CIL in being able to provide strategic infrastructure needs and the ability to have a proportion of the contribution being made direct to local communities. 

Other advantages that Members noted included the standard change per m², giving clarity and certainty to not only the Local Authority, but also to developers, industry and landowners and the fact that all developers pay proportionally and contributions can be pooled as required for infrastructure projects.  Members noted that for s106 Agreements, the other method of securing developer contributions, where development was small scale, there was often no contribution and no scope to pool s106 monies towards specific projects.  The Principal Policy Officer, M Robinson noted there were limitations, CIL was complex to implement, was some opposition from developers and the relationships between CIL and s106.  Members were aware of the risk of setting CIL at the correct rate to be able to pay for infrastructure without deterring or making development unviable, a balancing act.  It was explained that in coming to the CIL levels as drafted, a Local Plan and Community Infrastructure Level Viability Study (LP&CIL VS) was carried out looking at: understanding viability areas around County Durham; running viability appraisals; recommending CIL rates for residential and commercial development; and understanding the impact of affordable housing and other policy requirements upon the viability of development schemes.  The Principal Policy Officer, M Robinson explained that the implications had knock on effects for other policies and Members were asked to note a slide showing the areas for CIL rates, Durham City and to the North of the City, West Durham and the rest of the County.  Members were given a draft charging schedule for CIL and asked to note the sliding scale of levy with the highest being in the Durham area, then the West, then the rest of the County.  It was added that there was an understanding that CIL rates of 150 per m² were felt to be realistic for large food retail development, however, for other uses under Classes A and B were not viable and the CIL rate was zero.  Councillors noted that a rate of 150 per m² was seen as being very viable for student houses of multiple occupation (HMOs). 

The Principal Policy Officer, M Robinson highlighted that community contributions were 15% in areas with a relevant Parish Council which rose to 25% where an adopted Neighbourhood Plan was in place.  Councillors noted that there was a cap in place at £100 per household per year; however, it was thought to be unlikely that cap would ever be reached.  It was added that in the case of there being no Town or Parish Council or Neighbourhood Forum, DCC would spend the percentage in the area, with mechanisms of dialogue with AAPs being developed.  Members noted that reflecting comments received during the ongoing consultation on the CDP, Policy 5 – Developers Contribution set out the approach to s106 and CIL to ensure no “double charging”, the community proportion of CIL; policy requirements still being negotiable; and there being an approach to unviable sites, adopting an open-book with developers allowing tem to demonstrate where percentages of affordable homes may not be viable.  Members noted that the “Regulation 123 List” would set out priority infrastructure projects outlined in the IDP to be funded by CIL, the list also providing an indication where CIL is sought; therefore s106 monies would not be sought.  It was added that current thinking was for a northern relief road for Durham, the Horden/Peterlee rail station and the Bishop Auckland to Barnard Castle Multi Use Route.

The Chairman thanked the Principal Policy Officers for their presentation and asked Members for their questions.

Councillors asked questions in relation to the Bishop Auckland to Barnard Castle Multi Use Route; the 150 per m² CIL rate for student accommodation, how this would work; CIL rates in County Durham in comparison to our neighbours; how the Town and Parish contribution levels were arrived at; and the CIL rates for sheltered housing and extra care provision.

The Principal Policy Officer, P Ollivere explained the Bishop Auckland to Barnard Castle Multi Use Route operated along the South West Heritage Corridor Route and had been led by local Members and the use was wider range, walking, cycling and equestrian. 

The Principal Policy Officer, M Robinson explained that the 150 per m² rate for student accommodation was felt to be at a “mid-level” and such that it would not deter new student home development.  It was added that CIL did not apply to any existing floor space being remodelled, rather newly created floor space. 

Members noted that Newcastle and Gateshead Councils had charging schedules at the draft stage and there was a meeting at Northumberland discussing issues and it had been noted that neighbouring Authorities were broadly making similar CIL assumptions.  It was added that there had also been a few meetings with the former Tees Valley in not only considering CIL, but wider CDP issues.  The Principal Policy Officer, M Robinson noted that the 15% and 25% contributions to Town and Parish Councils were percentages set by Central Government.  Councillors noted that the issue of CIL had been considered by Cabinet and upon looking at the issues further, there had been no difference in the profits of sheltered housing in comparison to regular residential development and the CIL rate was set at residential accordingly.  It was noted that for extra care provision, the CIL rate was zero and that additional information could be provided to Members as required.

Members noted the updated CIL charges for sheltered accommodation and extra care accommodation.  It was explained that updated evidence suggests that sheltered accommodation will be charged at the same rate as residential and there will be no charge for extra care accommodation.  Mr A Kitching was concerned about the proposed charges and following consideration of the viability evidence, he did not agree that there was justification to add a surcharge on sheltered and extra care housing especially when we were looking at closing care homes.  Mr A Kitching was of the view that DCC had a moral duty to look after and care for our ageing population and felt that charging to build housing for that purpose was not right.

Resolved:   

(i)       That the information within the report and presentation be noted.

(ii)      That the comments made by the Economy and Enterprise Overview and Scrutiny Committee are fed into the ongoing consultation process on the pre-submission stage of the County Durham Plan as the response from Overview and Scrutiny.