Meeting documents

To approve the minutes of the Planning and Economic Development PAG held on 9 September 2019.

The minutes of the Planning and Economic Development PAG held on 9 September 2019 were approved.

There were no declarations of interest.

No updates were provided.

The PAG received a report which proposed that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Charging Schedule was adopted for publication and implementation by Council, following the successful examination in public which took place on 5 November 2019 and the Examiner’s report which was received on 13 December 2019.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              

The Lead Local Plan Consultant reported that a consultation on the draft CIL Charging Schedule had run from 7 June to 23 August 2019 and attracted a total of 50 representations. The Councils provided comments to the examiner that no modifications should be made as a result of the representations. At the Examination in Public Hearing on 5 November 2019 the Councils proposed a clarification to the definition of the category ‘large sites’ within the Draft Charging Schedule. On receipt of this the examiner invited all 50 people who had made representations to comment on the clarification. This consultation ran from 11 November to 25 November 2019 and attracted a total of 5 comments. The examiner issued his report on 13 December 2019 which included agreement for the insertion of the clarification of ‘large sites’ into the final Charging Schedule.

Members then discussed the report and appendices. A Member asked about the exemption to CIL with regard to buildings which are self-built and the definition of self-build. The Lead Local Plan Consultant referred to the Chiltern and South Bucks Local Plan 2036 and quoted the following ‘Self-build and custom housebuilding are defined in the Housing and Planning Act 2016 as: ‘…the building or completion by— (a) individuals, (b) associations of individuals, or (c) persons working with or for individuals or associations of individuals of houses to be occupied as homes by those individuals. But it does not include the building of a house on a plot acquired from a person who builds the house wholly or mainly to plans or specifications decided or offered by that person.’

The aim of the policy was to help encourage sufficient self-build and custom housebuilding to come forward to meet demand, to support community-led housing, but this would need to be closely monitored to ensure that the exemption should apply. A Member asked for further details on what would qualify for a self-build and it was agreed that the CIL/Section 106 officer would provide a written response.

Reference was made to the demise of the high street and re-use of buildings and Members noted that CIL related to new development not existing development and internal conversion works. If the building was knocked down and rebuilt the CIL/Section 106 officer would need to calculate whether a payment was required, as CIL was charged on a £s per square metre basis which related to development of buildings over 100 square metres net new build floor space.

A Member asked whether the implementation of CIL would mean that developers were less likely to invest in the Council area and whether different rates should apply to different areas. The Lead Local Plan Consultant reported that the benefit of applying  ...  view the full minutes text for item 148.

The PAG received a report on the creation of a Joint Spatial Planning Framework which would guide the process of securing the wider gains from the proposed expansion of Heathrow, which did not already form part of the Development Consent Order (DCO), including economic gains and other transport improvements within the region. A Statement of Common Ground on the JSPF was due to be developed with Member authorities for submission to the Examination of the Heathrow DCO. HSPG considered that the JSPF and Statement of Common Ground were important tools for shaping the wider impact of the Heathrow development given that so much land to be impacted was outside the DCO boundary. The Framework would bring Heathrow Airport Limited mitigation and funding outside the current ‘redline’ (the development boundary) of the DCO which was tightly drawn to the Heathrow expansion site. The Framework would be a ‘non-statutory’ guide to future planning to secure gains from collaborative working and was intended to influence the Planning Inspectorate decision on the submitted DCO.

The Senior Infrastructure Consultant commented that South Bucks District Council was just a consultee and had no controls over the development but the Framework would define a wider area that was affected by the proposals and enable joint working between the Councils, Local Enterprise Partnerships and Government to implement the agreed strategy and introduce a mechanism to secure funding that could be spread over the geography of the Framework for infrastructure investment. This was the largest DCO in the UK to date and would have consequences for the District in terms of land use, transport and quality of life. The Framework was currently a draft document and a decision would need to be taken on the final document by the new Buckinghamshire Council.

Concerns had been previously raised in response to the Surface Access Strategy which did not provide sufficient detail on how they would achieve 50% shift from cars to public transport as at the moment only two/three new bus links had been proposed and very few electric charge points. In addition, no information had been given on freight. During discussion Members made reference to the motorway network and that currently if there was a serious accident on M25 this would have a serious impact on M4, M40, M3 and M1 which would increase dramatically with the increase in passengers (80-140 million) from the Heathrow expansion.

Members had also expressed concern about the impact of the closure of Mansion Lane which had been referred to in a different DCO. There were connecting issues in different DCO’s which needed to be addressed through one Framework. The Senior Infrastructure Consultant reported that it was helpful that the Western Rail Link would be undertaken first as the DCO would now have to take that Scheme into account. The Portfolio Holder commented that not only were there concerns about Mansion Lane but the impact of expansion on the whole area including Denham and the north/south connectivity. There needed to be more thought about  ...  view the full minutes text for item 149.