Issue - meetings

This report forms part of the consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule. 

Discussion:

The Assistant Director, Housing, Development and Transport introduced the report to Members and explained that the proposed alternative arrangements to the current Section 106 obligations allowed local authorities to collect money from developers which would be used for infrastructure. The proposals, which were currently out to consultation, included suggested rates for Medway as set out in the report. The Government required local authorities to carry out two consultations, the first running from 1 March to 19 April 2013 and the second would take account of the comments received. The Levy is scheduled for adoption in April 2014,  and a further report will be submitted  to this committee before adoption. He added that the rates being proposed have been compared with proposals from other councils in Kent and fall broadly in line with those.

Members discussed the Levy and raised a number of points including:

·        Concern that Medway might be missing out on charging a levy to major commercial developments that could take place, for example, expansions to the National Grid in Grain and a new power station in Kingsnorth.

·        Concern that the charge being applied to residential dwellings was excessive and that if charges were reduced it could encourage further development.

·        Uncertainty relating to the fact that zone A included Rochester Riverside and yet Strood Riverside, Temple and Strood Town Centre were similar areas and yet had not been split out into zone A.

·        Concern that the current charges being proposed will price out the smaller builders and advantage the bigger companies.

·        Concern that brown field sites and run down sites would not be developed, as the charge might be too high.

·        If the levy is too high it might encourage more opportunistic builds, for example in back gardens.

·        Query as to why the differentiation for zone A between the charge for up to 14 dwellings and 15 plus dwellings was less than the differentiation in zone B.

·        Suggestion that the words “whether a new building or an extension” be amended or removed at paragraph 1.3 of the introduction to avoid confusion.

The Assistant Director, Housing, Development and Transport responded to the queries and concerns raised. With regards to the charges being proposed, these were in line with other local authorities and were based on figures provided from a viability consultant. The levies proposed were generally less than those proposed by the Viability Consultant.  He also undertook to check the issue raised re differentiation with the Viability Consultant.

The Director of Regeneration, Community and Culture alerted Members to the estimated cost of the infrastructure required in Medway being  £747 million, the identified funding currently being £154 million. Up to £574 million is therefore still required to fund infrastructure.

Decision:

The Committee agreed that:

a)   A further report on the Community infrastructure Levy will come back to Committee once consultation processes have been completed and before formal adoption.