Meeting documents

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 different rates did not outweigh the complexity of implementing it. The Senior Infrastructure Consultant reported that in his experience different charging rates did not have any impact. If the new Buckinghamshire Council decided to review the CIL Charging Schedule it may want to take into account, the diversity of the area adjacent to Milton Keynes to the north and Beaconsfield/Gerrards Cross to the south of the County. The Lead Local Plan Consultant reported that CIL charging rates could not be set on a policy basis and that the determining issue was the evidence on viability.

An additional recommendation was proposed as follows:-

"That on site developments of 400 housing units or more where the actual deliverability of the Council’s housing targets is being placed at risk by the failure of the developer to accept liability for the delivery of the approved scheme and  contributions towards specified infrastructure elements, which are directly related to the housing development in question, when there is a compelling need for such in the public interest, and when the Council has provided a clear statement of justification and cost-estimate for the said work or contribution, the Council affirms its intention to use its Compulsory Purchase Powers for proper planning purposes.

Furthermore, on housing development sites where viability calculations rely on forward estimates of sale prices for the market housing units, the Council will incorporate in relevant Section 106 agreements its entitlement to a positive claw-back of a proportion of any sale values in excess of the aforementioned forward estimates."

The PAG was asked to advise the Porfolio Holder and Head of Planning and Economic Development on the following recommendation: