Agenda item

(i)         Joint Report of the Assistant Chief Executive and Corporate Director of Regeneration and Economic Development.

(ii)        Presentation by Mike Allum, Spatial Policy Manager, Regeneration and Economic Development.

The Chair introduced Glenn Martin and Peter Ollivere, Principal Policy Officers from Regeneration and Economic Development, who were in attendance to speak to Members in relation to the refresh of the Regeneration Statement, the County Durham Infrastructure Plan and County Durham Community Infrastructure Levy (for copy see file of minutes).

The Principal Policy Officer, GM explained that there had been 4 significant pieces of work, the County Durham Plan (CDP), the Regeneration Statement (RS), Infrastructure Delivery Plans (IDPs) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  Members noted that the CDP Preferred Options was out for consultation until 2 November 2012, with Members having received a copy of the Executive Summary. 

Councillors were reminded that the CDP set out a planning framework to deliver positive drive for the economy through creation of, by 2030: 30,000 new jobs; 30,000 new homes of mixed type, size and tenure; approximately 30,000 square metres of new retail floor space; and 300 hectares of general employment land for office, industrial and warehousing purposes.  It was added that consultation on the various stage of developing the plan would continue for the next 2 years, with the final CDP document to be published after agreement at that time, taking on board any new evidence and challenge from the consultation process.

The Principal Policy Officer, GM noted that the RS, originally published in 2009, was refreshed in 2012 to reflect changes in the economy and climate, reacting to the longer and deeper recession, large reductions in public sector finances, Welfare Reform and increased unemployment.  Members also noted that the refresh took into account the progress made since 2009 in respect of: Hitachi; DurhamGate; Seaham; Infrastructure and Transport; and with other schemes.  It was added that the main objectives had not changed, and that the next steps were to embed and disseminate the refreshed statement, refresh the Altogether Wealthier Delivery Plan in order to continue delivery against priorities while monitoring success and to continue to work in partnership.

The Principal Policy Officer, PO explained that IDPs developed in conjunction with partners could help to influence delivery of physical infrastructure such as roads, sewers, utilities, flood defences, fibre optic broadband, schools, primary health care, Fire and Police infrastructure and green space.  It was noted that IDP dealt with most aspects well, with more information being needed in respect of bus services, education and sports provision.  The Committee noted that 21 types of infrastructure were identified within the IDP and while focused on the major planning areas, it was not limited to those areas and were referred to representative maps and tables within the presentation showing the areas and investment schedules that would be from both the DCC Capital Programme and that of partners.

Councillors were asked to note that CILs were one method of ensuring funding for relevant and appropriate infrastructure with benefits including:

·        A standard charge per square metre of development

·        All Developers pay proportionally

·        Developers, landowners and Local Authorities understand the financial implications of infrastructure contribution

·        Legitimate pooling of contributions to fund infrastructure

·        Freedom to spend appropriately to make development more attractive

Members learned that there was a balance to be struck between desirability to fund infrastructure and the economic viability of development across an area and that this would be assessed through a viability study, which would look at:

·        Understanding viability areas across County Durham

·        Running viability appraisals

·        Recommending CIL rates for residential and non-residential

·        Understanding the impact of affordable housing on viability

Members noted that areas such as Durham City would have a high CIL, with more rural areas such as Lanchester having a low CIL.  Councillors noted that maps showing the distribution indicated that the majority of the County fell within the lower tariff and that for those areas the CIL of £15 per square metre would roughly equate to £1,500 per house, and of £250 per square metre in higher tariff areas equating to £25,000 per house.  The Principal Policy Officer, PO noted that Policy 64 set out the approach to CIL and Section 106 Agreements (s106) and added that a proportion of CIL could be allocated to communities based on area or whether a Neighbourhood Plan was in place, with AAPs being a possible mechanism for allocation.  The Committee noted proposals of 20% within the wider county, 10% in the Durham City and Chester-le-Street “zone”, 5% within the Durham City “strategic zone” and 50% where a Neighbourhood Plan was in place.

It was highlighted that the CIL proposals are out to consultation running from the 10September 2012 to the 2 November 2012.

The Chair thanked the Officers for their presentation and asked Members for their questions.

Members asked several questions in relation to the number of houses allocated for green belt land rather than within existing settlements; whether 2 years until the CDP was in place could potentially damage development and investment; would CIL replace s106; at what point was the CIL made; whether AAPs were the correct mechanism not being comprised entirely of elected representatives; and whether local Councils and community groups would be able to cope with the demands of handling potentially large sums that could result from CILs.

The Principal Policy Officers noted that in cases where applications were currently in the system, Officers would look to secure local benefits via s106 on a site-by-site basis.  It was added that CIL would not replace s106 entirely but would provide an uplift in value when planning was granted, with s106 looking at issues such as affordable housing and CIL towards wider infrastructure benefiting more than just one particular site.  Members concerns were noted as regards potential financial benefits of development being lost to that particular community, and it was explained that issues regarding governance arrangements were still being finalised and Members could discuss the issue further at a special Overview and Scrutiny Workshop scheduled for 4 October 2012 looking at the CDP Preferred Options document.  Councillors noted that Government regulations on CIL stated “a meaningful proportion” would need to be retained for local communities and therefore if a Neighbourhood Plan was in place that “meaningful proportion” would be easier to quantify.  Officers also noted that while s106 was negotiable between the Authority and Developers, CIL would be mandatory once the rates were set.  It was added that CIL was not “taxing” Developers; rather the long term cost would be met by landowners not Developers.  As regards issues of the mechanism for how CIL distributions would be allocated, Members would be asked for their guidance on this and feedback on the percentage levels for CIL and issues of how smaller local Councils may cope with the responsibility of CIL funds would be fed back into the consultation process.

Resolved:

(i)         That the report be noted.

(ii)        That Members’ comments in relation to the CIL be fed into the ongoing consultation as the Overview and Scrutiny response.