To receive any questions or petitions from members of the public, notice of which has been given in accordance with Procedure Rule 14.  Deadline for notification for this meeting is 5.00pm on Friday 10 November 2017.

a) The following question was submitted by Mr Malcolm Andrew, Vice Chair of Trefonen Rural Protection Group and the response was provided by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services:

Question:

Do Members believe it is right and appropriate that the community are being denied the right of consultation on such a key document of proposed Policy affecting many settlements?

Response:

Whilst the methodology used within the approved Hierarchy of Settlements is not the subject of the current consultation, having been supported by 73% of respondents during an earlier consultation, the way in which the methodology has been applied in order to identify proposed Community Hubs is. Question 7 of the proposed Scale and Distribution of Development Consultation specifically asks for respondents views on the suitability of the proposed Community Hubs.

If respondents have concerns about any of the proposed Community Hubs, including thoughts on the way in which the Hierarchy of Settlements assessment has been applied to identify thresholds or consider that there are factual inaccuracies about local services and facilities, then they should identify these concerns within their consultation response.

When responding to the consultation, respondents are of course entitled to make reference to relevant evidence base documents, including the Hierarchy of Settlements Assessment. Shropshire Council will ensure that all consultation responses received are given due consideration and will help to inform the ongoing Local Plan Review.

Mr Andrew asked a supplementary question in which he suggested that it was illogical and wrong for communities not to be consulted on the way in which the Hierarchy of Settlements assessment had been applied to identify thresholds and urged for reconsideration of decisions made at the previous Cabinet meeting.  Responding, the Porfolio Holder stated that the supplementary question covered the same issue as the initial question and stated that he would have a discussion with Mr Andrew outside of the meeting.

b) The following questions were submitted by Mr Stephen Mulloy and the responses were provided by the Portfolio Holder for Planning and Regulatory Services:

Question:

There has always been the legal duty for the applicant to provide the information supporting a claim for 'demolition deduction' for lawful use, can he explain how the submission of photos (which from my experience were sought before) deals with the problem?

Response: 

The requirement to provide photographic evidence alongside any claim for deductible floorspace ensures that officers within the CIL Team have documentary evidence in order to support its decision as to whether existing floorspace is ‘in use’.

Photographic evidence was only previously requested in circumstances where there was inconsistent information provided about whether an existing building was in use, in accordance with the CIL process utilised at that time.

-----------------

Question: 

As the problem lies with officers not checking the submitted evidence correctly, I repeat the original question in a simpler manner:  

In view of the Statutory Notice with a recommendation under S27(6) of The Local Audit & Accountability Act 2014 by the External Auditor, what has the council done to document its consideration of the available evidence as to whether or not the premises have been 'in lawful use', and what checks are now carried out that were not done before?

Response:

Shropshire Council does not consider that there was an issue with officers not checking the submitted evidence correctly, they complied with the agreed process. Specifically it was considered appropriate to use the information provided within CIL Form 0: Determination of CIL Liability, unless this information was contradicted by other submitted information. This is because CIL Form 0: Determination of CIL Liability includes a disclaimer which explains that “It is an offence for a person to knowingly or recklessly supply information which is false or misleading in a material respect to a collecting or charging authority in response to a requirement under the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations (2010) as amended (regulation 110, SI 2010/948). A person guilty of an offence under this regulation may face unlimited fines, two years imprisonment, or both”. Therefore it was considered that the information provided within CIL Form 0: Determination of CIL Liability should be accurate and in most circumstances relied upon.

As explained above, Shropshire Council now requires the submission of photographic evidence in support of any claim for deductible floorspace. This ensures that officers within the CIL Team have a greater amount of information in order to make a decision as to whether existing floorspace is ‘in use’.

-----------------

Question: 

With regard to the Besford House false CIL declaration, in replying to the External Auditor, the Council wrote:

“In addition, the CIL Team officers have further assessed the Regulations and have concluded that even if it was thought appropriate (and in my opinion, it is not) to pursue the landowners for the CIL Liability, the provisions in Regulation 65 actually prevent the Council from taking such steps.  This is on the basis that our interpretation of the Regulations is that the Council is no longer able to revise the CIL Liability because the CIL Liability has been paid in full and the CIL Liability Notice has ceased to have effect.  Consequently, whilst there may still remain some uncertainty around whether the existing building(s) were or were not ‘in use’, the CIL Liability for the development in question cannot now be revised in any event.”

The Council’s interpretation of CIL regulations is incorrect. Regulation 65(5) says: “A collecting authority may at any time issue a revised liability notice in respect of a chargeable development.”

There are no caveats with this regulation i.e. such as to say that ‘up until such time as all outstanding amounts due have been paid’, it simply says ‘at any time’. Therefore there is no reason why a revised liability notice, to include the £39,200 should not be issued to SHG. In fact, the Regulations require that once I had notified the Council of the false declaration on 27^th May 2015 they should have revised the CIL liability notice.

CIL Regulation 65(4) says: “The collecting authority must issue a revised liability notice in respect of the chargeable development if the chargeable amount or any of the particulars mentioned in paragraph (2)(e) or (f) change.”

In light of the above, will the Council be pursuing the £39,200 CIL money from Shropshire Housing Group, and if not, why not?

Response:

Consistent with the external auditors’ conclusion, Shropshire Council will not be pursuing this matter further.

Mr Mulloy asked three supplementary questions relating to the responses received from the Portfolio Holder.  The Porfolio Holder stated that a written response would be provided to the supplementary questions.