To consider the report of the S106, CIL and NHB Task and Finish Group, and make recommendations to the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services.

Contact:  Adrian Cooper, Planning Policy & Strategy Manager, Shropshire Council, Adrian.cooper@shropshire.gov.uk

The Planning Policy and Strategy Manager introduced the report from the S106, CIL and NHB Task and Finish Group.  He asked Members to note that this was a short report outlining the work of the group so far and that the Task and Finish Group was ongoing.  Members observed that the report concentrated on legal planning agreements rather than the use and distribution of CIL monies.  

The Planning Policy and Strategy Manager explained that CIL income was only received once development was in progress and not when Planning Permission was granted.  During the previous few years many developers had applied for planning permissions but not commenced building work, this had impacted on the amount of funding received from S106 and CIL agreements.  He continued that the group was considering the ways that developer contributions could be used most effectively to deliver necessary infrastructure projects. 

Members noted that Supplementary Planning documents required amendment following changes in Government guidelines, which were to the detriment of rural areas.  Community led development schemes had been instigated to address this, with planning policies making it easier to obtain exceptions for affordable housing in rural areas. The importance of communities having Place Plans to support their aspirations was discussed.  It was observed that the Government view and aspirations for community led housing projects was unclear and further guidance was awaited.

Members discussed where CIL funding should be spent with discussion of the amount being ring fenced to the area where it was generated. The Chief Executive explained that there were strict criteria in the legislation determining what happened to the funding, with communities receiving their statutory portion as the Neighbourhood Fund, and the Council having discretion on the use of the remaining balance.  Only allowing CIL expenditure in areas where it was generated could lead to an unbalanced provision of service and infrastructure.  A Member observed that many smaller parishes were agreeing to development in the belief that the CIL revenue would be used for local projects and this was not necessarily the case as the Neighbourhood Funds received were often insufficient or could not be used as the community had thought due to onerous conditions attached.

The Planning Policy and Strategy Manager confirmed that Place Plans were to be reviewed and that Parish Plans fed in the Place Plans.  Members questioned the value of Parish Plans and suggested that Neighbourhood Plans suited larger settlements and towns and not smaller parishes. 

Members asked if the amount retained by the Council from CIL revenue to cover administration costs could be used to support Neighbourhood Plans and Housing Surveys.  The Planning Policy and Strategy Manager responded that the Council retained 5% of the revenue received and the costs of administering the service were far greater than the contribution retained.  Despite this, the Council still supported the development of Place Plans, Neighbourhood Plans and Housing Surveys. 

In response to a Member’s question regarding which developments were subject to CIL agreements, the Planning Policy and Strategy Manager agreed that the system was operated differently in Shropshire to some neighbouring authorities as when the charging structure had been adopted in 2012 it had not been possible to differentiate between large and small scale commercial premises.  It was thought at that time that the imposition of the CIL charge would stifle commercial development. 

Members observed that the public needed to see the benefits of CIL revenue received as a result of development. 

RESOLVED:  that

i.    the report be received as an interim report and its recommendations be accepted, subject to the rewording of paragraph iv, to read as “The Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services be consulted regarding any spending recommendations made by the officer level Internal Infrastructure Group”.

ii.   the Task and Finish Group continue its work with particular emphasis on the Community Infrastructure Levy and present its final report to the Committee in due course.