The Council received the draft Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) (copy attached to the official minutes). Mrs Taylor (Cabinet Member for Housing and Planning), seconded by Mr Dignum, moved the recommendations of the Cabinet.
She explained that the IBP was reliant on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) being in place by the end of 2015, and its assumptions had been made on the basis that the rates would remain as submitted for Examination. The CIL Charging Schedule was still at the Examination stage. It was unlikely that the Examiner would issue his report before the end of September 2015, and thus it was unlikely that the CIL would be adopted before October 2015.
This was the first time that the Council had prepared a Draft Infrastructure Business Plan. Its purposes were:-
· to ensure that infrastructure was delivered in time to support the development identified in the Local Plan;
· to ensure the CIL was spent to best effect
· to select the priority for projects to be funded.
· to identify infrastructure that will be funded from S106 and other sources besides the CIL.
The draft IBP concentrated on the projects that needed to be funded during the first five years from 2016 to 2021, particularly those that were to be funded from CIL.
The IBP would be a ‘living’ document and would be rolled forward and updated each year to reflect funding availability, development delivery rates and revised infrastructure requirements.
If approved by the Council, the draft document would be subject to six weeks consultation with stakeholders from 1 October to 12 November 2015. Their comments and any modifications would be reported back to the Joint Member Liaison Group on 2 December, then to the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) for consideration on 14 January, before going to Cabinet for approval on 2 February 2016, and Council on 8 March 2016 for budget and CIL allocation approval.
Mrs Taylor explained that the table at paragraph 1.18 was the most important part of the IBP. This showed which projects had been shortlisted for CIL funding in each of the five years. The remaining balance was rolled forward into the following year.
The rest of the IBP set out the methodology for identifying the projects to be funded from CIL and the long list of projects put forward by others. There was a relatively small amount of money to begin with, but parish councils would also have a proportion of CIL that could be spent on smaller projects.
The DPIP had expressed concerns about funding the Smarter Choices infrastructure items that related to behaviour change in order to encourage modal switch away from reliance on the private car. Instead, the DPIP would prefer the money to be spent on hard engineering projects such as new cycling infrastructure, or a combination of Smarter Choices to follow on from the harder measures.
The Joint Member Liaison Group had met on 4 September to discuss the spending plans and had agreed that West Sussex County Council (WSCC) would look at providing a more balanced approach to encourage modal switch away from the private car to accompany a reduced amount of funding for Smarter Choices. This approach could include bringing forward projects originally identified in the long list for the medium/long term such as filling in gaps in the cycle network.
WSCC had also indicated that it was refining the work relating to educational requirements, and might need less of the CIL for school places, owing to the availability of Basic Needs Grant from the Government. WSCC would not be in a position to provide information on the revised projects, nor on the additional transport projects, before the IBP was published for consultation, and would therefore provide this information during the consultation period itself.
She added an additional recommendation to that on the agenda in order to delegate authority to make typographical and other minor amendments to the draft IBP.
Mr Oakley commented that the IBP was an evolving process and the Council was ahead of other district councils in West Sussex. Parish councils had produced a long list of possible projects and would be faced with significant choices between them because there would be a funding deficit. There was, therefore, a need to identify priorities, and also to ensure that infrastructure providers did not off-load onto CIL projects that should be funded from other sources.
Mr Ransley commented about the length and complexity of the IBP and asked that a briefing should be provided to members in order to assist them to explain it to parish councils during the consultation period. The Leader of the Council agreed to this suggestion and pointed out that it was important to manage expectations.
Mr Plowman congratulated officers on drafting the IBP, and commented that it would need to be continually updated. Paragraph 6.4 of the IBP showed the scale of the funding deficit. He felt that there was a need to build houses in the right place and at the right price, and infrastructure was needed to build communities. He believed that the Government’s focus was wrong. There were more than enough planning permissions, but there was a failure by developers to deliver the houses for which permission had been given. He believed that there was insufficient competition and that developers had incentives to maintain high prices through shortage. He believed that planning permission should carry an obligation to deliver.
Mr McAra asked whether the South Downs National Park Authority would be producing a similar document, and Mr Dunn replied that the Authority was currently consulting on its Preferred Options Local Plan. CIL receipts in the National Park were not likely to be great because there would be relatively less development there compared with the rest of the District. He encouraged members with wards in the National Park to keep themselves informed about development in their wards, to respond to the Local Plan consultation and to attend meetings of the National Park Authority. Mr Ransley pointed out that school places in his ward, which was partly in the National Park, were under stress and enquired how the National Park Authority would contribute to delivery.
Mr Barrett reported that the Peninsula Community Forum had held a workshop involving parish councils and would shortly publish a wish-list for its area.
Mr Cullen expressed concern that the CIL would drive up the cost of houses. There should be a sliding scale whereby CIL rates were less for smaller houses. Mrs Taylor reminded the Council that CIL was based on the area of houses and, therefore, reflected different sizes of property, and Mr Dignum commented that regulations did not allow a sliding scale.
Mrs Apel asked why the Council did not provide
loans to pay for the construction of new homes and infrastructure.
Mrs Taylor replied that the Council was considering possibilities,
such as community land trusts. Mr Budge referred to self-build
housing and Mr Dignum added that WSCC were using a company to build
houses to let on their land. These various options would be
explored as part of the current revision of the Housing
Strategy.
Mr Hall asked that officers should produce figures of dwellings
with planning permission, and those started but not complete, so
that the size of developers’ land banks could be understood.
Mrs Taylor said that she would provide a written answer.
Members asked that the South Downs National Park Authority be added to the list of consultees on the IBP.
RESOLVED
(1) That the Council’s first draft Infrastructure Business Plan 2016/2021 be approved for consultation with West Sussex County Council, neighbouring district councils, City, town and parish councils, the South Downs National Park Authority and key infrastructure delivery commissioners for a period of six weeks from 1 October to 12 November 2015.
(2) That the Head of Planning Services be authorised to make typographical and other minor amendments to the draft Infrastructure Business Plan 2016/2021 following consultation with the Cabinet member for Housing and Planning.