Issue - meetings

This report outlines the next steps required in the preparation of a Community Infrastructure Levy for Bath & North East Somerset.

Councillor Geoff Ward in an ad hoc statement welcomed the proposals which he said were a big opportunity.  He referred to government guidance and asked for an assurance that the proposals were viable.  He advised the Cabinet that care should be taken to avoid using the Levy as a policy tool to encourage or discourage certain types of development.

David Redgewell in an ad hoc statement observed that the s106 income had been used to fund some bus services, eg no 20), and Cabinet should not forget this when setting up the CIL.

Councillor David Laming in an ad hoc statement asked Cabinet to bear in mind the need for new homes bonuses to be available for residential moorings.  He also emphasised that the social gain benefit must be maximised.

Councillor Tim Ball introduced the item by reminding Cabinet that the Levy would not completely replace the s106 which would be retained for some large scale developments.  He assured Cabinet that proposals had been shown to be viable but assured Councillor Ward that this would be revisited.  He was pleased that there was cross-party working on the proposals in a number of steering groups.  He thanked David Redgewell for his observations and assured him that a steering group would consider his point.  He reminded Councillor Laming that the proposals were still work in progress and that his point about residential moorings would be considered.

Councillor Ball explained to Cabinet that he intended that the plans for the Levy would make progress at the same speed as the Placemaking Plan.

He moved the proposals.

Councillor Paul Crossley seconded the proposal.  He observed that the proposed Levy would be a much more flexible system and would allow the Council to spread the infrastructure charges more fairly.  He was delighted that it would also enable a meaningful amount to be passed to local neighbourhoods.  He reminded Cabinet however that it would be essential to get approval of the Core Strategy if these plans were to succeed.

Councillor Roger Symonds welcomed the plans, which he said would make it clear to developers what they would have to pay.  He asked Councillor Ball to explain however why in the previous 10 years the s106 had brought in £20M, while the CIL was projected to bring in only £21M over 15 years.

Councillor Ball explained that there would still be some income from s106 agreements and that this needed to be added to the projected CIL figures.

On a motion from Councillor Tim Ball, seconded by Councillor Paul Crossley, it was

RESOLVED (unanimously)

(1) To NOTE the work required on preparing a draft CIL Charging Schedule; and

(2) To AGREE the revised programme for the preparation of the Bath & North East Somerset Community Infrastructure Levy and the consequential amendment to the Local Development Scheme.