(See report at agenda item 6 (pages 43 to 65) of the Cabinet agenda of 7 March 2017, pages 1 to 170 of the first agenda supplement and the second agenda supplement containing the background papers for this item (both available to be viewed on the Chichester District Council website or in the Members’ Room)
DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS
1) Approves the proposed responses to the representations received and subsequent modifications to the Infrastructure Business Plan as set out in appendix 1 to this report;
2) Approves the amended Infrastructure Business Plan including the Community Infrastructure Levy Spending Plan in appendix 2.
Minutes:
Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Planning Services), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet.
Mrs Taylor introduced the report, stating that the Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) was in place in order to prioritise and select infrastructure that was most needed to ensure that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was spent to best effect. The results of the consultation had been discussed by the Joint Member Liaison Group which comprised officers and members from both the council and WSCC and modifications had been agreed.
The group had agreed that CIL monies allocated to school places be reduced from 50% to 40% of the total cost, subject to further detail and evaluation and after a schedule of unspent education related S106 payments had been submitted by WSCC.
The ‘Bike It’ projects had been deleted from the CIL spending plan to be replaced by new bicycle infrastructure, detail of which was awaited from WSCC. The CIL funds of £1.3m requested by the West Sussex Coastal Commissioning Group to be allocated to the Medical Centre West of Chichester Project 398 would remain as it related to strategic site infrastructure. However, further justification from the group for this level of funding was awaited.
Since the implementation of CIL on 1 February 2016, £547,250 had been collected and another £250,645 demanded. In the early years of CIL collection, it was expected that the amount collected would be lower than subsequent years but as the housing delivery increased throughout the plan period, the amount of CIL collected would increase. There would be insufficient CIL monies to cover every project proposed therefore the projects had been categorised into essential, policy high and desirable. A robust approach would be required in selecting projects which assisted development.
Mr Shaxson, referring to an appeal by a developer against payment of CIL, asked whether this was likely to become more commonplace. Mrs Taylor responded that, because it was a new tax, certain developers were not fully aware of the implications. Mrs Dower confirmed that this was not unusual e.g. Southampton City Council had experienced similar issues and developers often needed to be pursued through the courts to pay CIL monies.
Mr Oakley wanted to be reassured that resources would be made available to ensure developer compliance with CIL. Mrs Taylor, supported by Mr Dignum, both confirmed that sufficient resources would be made available.
Mrs Westacott asked whether the council was able to recover the costs from developers when we take court action. Mrs Dower advised that we were able to retain 5% of CIL monies for the administration of CIL. Mrs Tull confirmed that the Corporate Governance and Audit Committee would continue to have a role in reviewing the current S106 expenditure and CIL allocations in future.
On the recommendations being put to the vote, they were declared carried.
RESOLVED
1) That the proposed responses to the representations received and subsequent modifications to the Infrastructure Business Plan as set out in appendix 1 to this report be approved.
2) That the amended Infrastructure Business Plan including the Community Infrastructure Levy Spending Plan in appendix 2 be approved.