To receive any questions, statements or petitions from the public of which members of the public have given notice.  Deadline for notification for this meeting is 5pm on Monday 18^th September 2017.

Mr Steven Mulloy submitted the following questions and the written responses were tabled at the meeting.

i)      That the existing Developer Contributions SPD and the Type and Affordability of Housing SPD be reviewed.  With regard to the Type and Affordability of Housing SPD  this should seek to incentivise individual landowners and parishes to bring forward land for affordable housing use;

Question: It is my understanding that this was being reviewed last year, but can I ask if any consideration has been given to the Dynamic Viability Index (DVI) which is appended to the SPD, and whether it serves any useful purpose given the issue that was highlighted at a meeting a few years ago with the Head of Planning and portfolio Holder? (See Appendix 1).

Response:  No further consideration has been given to the use of the DVI at this time, but this will form part of the work needed to review the Type & Affordability of Housing SPD in due course;

ii)                That increased effort be directed into promoting Community-led affordable housing schemes;

Question: Has any consideration been given to para 4.66 of Policy CS4 (below) and the lack of use of the 'interactive toolkit' which has only been used by less than 10% of parish councils? Unfortunately, some parish councils are little more than private clubs, so if you want community led affordable housing schemes, surely you need to encourage PC's to carry out intelligent analysis of their communities?

Response: This issue was previously addressed in a response which Mr Mulloy received from Eddie West on 4^th May 2017. Shropshire Council has actively supported a ‘bottom-up’ approach to capture local information about housing need, including through extensive use of the interactive toolkit (in 43 parishes). As a direct result, there are now a number of successful community led schemes throughout the County which have generated tangible outcomes which make additional local provision for affordable housing. In response to demand Shropshire Council is currently advertising a new post to assist communities in developing and promoting community led schemes which accurately reflect local affordable housing need.

iii)               That the Local Plan Member Group be recommended to consider the need to review existing countryside planning policies (CS5 / CS11 / MD7a & b) in relation to the delivery of affordable housing as part of the current Local Plan Review;

Question: Is the committee aware that the main evidence base for AHC and CIL is the 'Affordable Housing Viability Study 2010 (AHVS 2010) which was carried out by Fordham Research, and that the company came out of liquidation to conduct the survey (albeit with a slight name change), then returned to liquidation once the study was completed (see Appendix 2)?The report has a number of errors which really questions its credibility as an evidence base for developer contributions, but when pointed out to the Council is was dismissed as 'death by a thousand details' (see Appendix 3). 

Response:  Shropshire Council is aware of the potential inadequacies of the Fordham research. However, that research is now dated and development viability is kept under constant review. In this context, we are satisfied that the prevailing target rates reflect development viability in the Shropshire context.  Planning appeal decisions reinforce this confidence.

iv)              That arrangements for allocating CIL revenue should be clarified to ensure that available funding is used to support the highest investment priorities. The Portfolio Holder for Planning should be asked to agree any spending decisions made by the officer level Internal Infrastructure Group.

Question:  An objection was raised to the Councils Statement of Accounts 2015/16 about the way the Council dealt with CIL exemptions. The objection focussed on the Exceptional Circumstances Relief from CIL for Brogyntyn Hall of £860k, and a false CIL declaration for Besford House that slipped through the system. The External Auditor reported back in his letter of 19th June 2017 and issued a Statutory Notice with a recommendation under S27(6) of The Local Audit & Accountability Act 2014 as follows:

"The Council ‘should formally review’ its arrangements in respect of CIL and in particular should ensure that when calculating CIL liability in relation to future development schemes, it documents its consideration of the available evidence as to whether or not the premises have been 'in lawful use' and therefore qualify for a 'demolition deduction' from CIL, taking account of the Hourhope case and any other relevant case law and guidance." 

Can I ask what consideration, if any, was given, or will be given to this by the Task & Finish Group or this committee?

Response:No specific consideration was given to this matter by the Task & Finish Group. However, in response to the external auditors recommendation, Shropshire Council has recently updated its CIL Form 0: Determination of CIL Liability, to require photographs to be provided as evidence to corroborate whether a building has been in lawful use for the specified time period where there are any buildings to be demolished or converted as part of the development.

v)               That a letter be sent to all Shropshire Council Councillors and all Parish and Town Councils clarifying who the responsible authorities are for various parts of the CIL revenue, and Shropshire Council’s expectations on how the CIL revenue will be prioritised.  This letter will be circulated alongside the annual Place Plan letter.

Question: Can I ask that this letter also emphasises the importance of intelligent analysis of their communities as described in Core Strategy policy CS4 and that since the Localism Act, we have moved from representative democracy to consultative democracy?

Response:  Shropshire Council will consider this request when drafting the letter.

Mr Mulloy responded to each of the answers:

Answer 1: Consideration needs to be given to the timescales for the use of the DVI in the review of the Type and Affordability of Housing SPD.

Answer 2: Mr Mulloy expressed concern that five years after the implementation of the Localism Act, only 43 out of 170 Parish Councils had engaged with the rural interactive toolkit.  He advocated a more proactive approach to encourage Parish Councils to engage in the process.

Answer 3:  Mr Mulloy re-iterated his concern that the use of the Affordable Housing Viability Study 2010 had been supported on appeal when the evidence base was poor. 

Answer 4:  Mr Mulloy asked Members to note that lack of consultation of developer contributions had led to unexpected high fees and that he had requested a variation in S106 fees 7 months previously but had not received a response.  He continued that the External Auditor had made a statutory declaration regarding the use of available evidence when determining if premises had been in lawful use and the S106, CIL & NHB Task and Finish Group had failed to appreciate the gravity of this, he continued that more work should be done on this matter. 

Question 5: Mr Mulloy said that he was pleased with this response.

Finally Mr Mulloy requested that the 29 responses to the Statement of Community Involvement consultation be viewed as a low turnout and asked that consideration be given to whether this complied with Council policies.