Agenda item

For committee to consider the Cabinet paper, and make any recommendations to Cabinet.

Cabinet member, Councillor Debby Hallett, introduced the Cabinet paper being presented on Developer Contributions SPD.

This SPD was updated in line with the CIL charging schedule. SPDs are not subject to independent examination but they were subject to public consultation. This SPD was consulted on for 8 weeks in January / February 2021.

The results are presented here, with our responses as a council.

We recommend that this revised SPD is adopted on 1 November 2021, alongside the CIL charging schedule.

Cabinet had been briefed on the rationale behind the reviews, including the changes to CIL regulations from Central Government, which provided the opportunity to claim contributions towards education. They requested more detail on the S106 protocols, especially on the roles for members, town and parish councils on S106 negotiations.

A separate internal protocol was agreed, as it could be updated easier than an SPD.

The SPD has been updated to reflect comments received at consultation.

There will be a joint affordable housing SPD coming forward as well, which will cover financial contributions for that. Work will continue with Clinical Commissioning Groups (CCGs) for health contributions. Therefore, these are not covered in the SPD presented today. There are no additional requirements to developers in the SPD, as this was set out in our Local Plan.

The SPD has been amended and updated to reflect:

1. Government’s First home scheme.

2. Section 5 amendment – clarity on options for management and maintenance of infrastructure.

3. Section 6 - This was a new section on how S106 agreements and CIL scheme relates to custom build homes.

This SPD is recommended for approval, alongside the CIL charging schedule.

Comments from committee were as follows:

·       An appeals decision on a large leisure application – developer did not want to contribute to affordable housing. Not all of the contributions were obtained due to not all the evidence being presented. Why could we get some sums and not others? It was responded that we have standards, but we have to look at area / site specifics, more depth per application. The provisions were deemed not required in this case. The standards are only a starting point. The SPD cannot go any deeper. Local Plans and Neighbourhood Plans are useful for this, identifying infrastructure needs by local communities, Neighbourhood Plan details can support for evidence.

·       Officer explained that the whole suite of documents should be considered. The SPD expands on the policy. The SPD identifies more of the CIL infrastructure as well. The SPD will assist in securing developer contributions. SPDs were a material planning consideration, to support our case.

·       Cabinet Member suggested whether Planning Committee members would like further training on S106. It was explained that officers set out S106 Heads of Terms to Planning Committee in the officer recommendation, for them to consider and determine an application. When the committee resolve to grant consent, it can be delegated back to officers, who complete the detail, and then share it with committee chair, to make sure the decision is in line with the detailed final negotiations for the S106. Then an application can be granted with a signed S106.

·       DEV12 – Public art was generally sculpture, well designed benches, railings etc. Public realm is ‘on the street’. These are interchangeable categories but provide us with more scope.

A discussion regarding the protocol. A view was expressed that councillors would like to see the draft SPD protocol document.

·       It was confirmed that members will be consulted

·       Early consultation for S106 negotiations is wanted for Parish / Town councils. Note, the term “best practice” is not “mandatory”, to give flexibility if needed.

·       Transparency is key. Officer confirmed it was a two-way process. Officers are there to negotiate, and they feedback to members. There are distinct roles.

·       Officers will provide a template, and a task group will be in place to consult with.

·       A suggestion was that scrutiny could review the draft. Cabinet member explained that internal documentation and procedures need regular changing. If it becomes part of policy, you cannot change it with ease when needed. It was officer responsibility to manage these internal protocols.

·       Councillors want to show Town and Parish that they are considered in the process.

·       The protocol will set out the S106 negotiations process clearly.

·       4.84 – removal of the word “gas”. Do not want to see it promoted as it was unsustainable, even though it was currently used. E.g. could add broadband, as it was a necessity. Could state “fuel providers” instead? Note that gas was still allowed in the local plan.

·       Timely delivery of facilities raised as an issue. It was responded that there was a section on management and maintenance – section 5 of the SPD. Options for management to be decided on a case by case basis. S106 will set this out, the SPD lays out the options. A policy was being worked on for the different circumstances that arise. There were trigger points in S106 for enforcement. The infrastructure team enforces. The process was well established.

·       All relevant CCGs need to be footnoted in the SPD. Work was ongoing to engage all relevant CCGs.

Resolved:

That committee are invited to suggest their key principles and outcomes to the Head of Planning and Cabinet Member by email, within the week.

and:

That early consultation for S106 negotiations is wanted for Parish / Town councils.

Chair thanked everyone involved for their work.