Venue: Virtual Meeting
Contact: Committee Services
DECLARATION OF INTERESTS BY COUNCILLORS
21.1 Under Section 31 of the Localism Act 2011, all Members were granted dispensation by the Monitoring Officer for all matters relating to the Local Plan.
21.2 There were no further declarations.
Cabinet Member for Planning
22.1 Councillor Humphreys, Chairman of the Council invited Councillor Burn, Cabinet Member for Planning to introduce Paper MC/20/8.
22.2 Councillor Burn addressed some of the key points in the report including the background stages of the Joint Local Plan’s production, the extensive evidence base of the plan, the recommended options, and the principles provided by the plan.
22.3 Councillor Burn went on to explain the amendments required to the Statement of Community Involvement due to the ongoing situation with Covid-19.
22.4 Councillor Burn expressed thanks to the Chief Executive, the Assistant Director for Sustainable Communities, Tom Barker and his teams, especially the Strategic Planning team. He also thanked Phil Isbell, Chief Planning Officer and the Planning Team for their support. Special thanks were given to the Corporate Manager for Strategic Planning, along with the Joint Local Plan Members Working Group.
22.5 Councillor Burn MOVED recommendations 3.1, 3.2 and 3.3 in the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Guthrie.
22.6 In response to Councillor Otton’s question regarding the Neighbourhood Plans, which were still waiting to be sent out to referendum and those which were in the process of being developed, the Corporate Manager for Strategic Planning explained that Neighbourhood Plans would continue to be supported and any alternative views in relations to the Joint Local Plan (JLP) could be put forward for consideration.
22.7 Councillor Fleming asked for reassurance for that the Council’s commitment to local and National environmental and biodiversity policies was taken into account in the JLP and that these policies and commitment were fed into the planning decision taken by the Council.
22.8 Councillor Burn reassured Members that the JLP had been developed around the Councils’ environment ambitions and that the main issues of the plan were the provisions to mitigate carbon neutral and environment ambitions.
22.9 Councillor Mansel asked if consideration had been made for an extension of the minimum consultation period due to the Christmas period and the Covid-19 Pandemic.
22.10 The Assistant Director – Sustainable Communities explained that any extension of the consultation would be during the Christmas period. Consultation had been undertaken in the previous stages of the JLP in 2017 and 2019. The current draft JLP did not contain too many changes and that this consultation was for residents to comment.
22.11 In response to Members’ questions, Councillor Burn said that careful consideration of the distribution and allocation of developments in the area had included not only the Ipswich fringe but also towns, villages and hamlets.
22.12 The Corporate Manager – Sustainable Housing clarified that representation would be online and that information was available on the Council’s website.
22.13 Further responses to questions included how the JLP sought to meet the requirements for biodiversity and net gain, the relationship between site allocations for Neighbourhood Plans and the JLP and the weight each carried at Planning Committees, the dialogue between the JLP working group and parish councils and neighbourhood planning teams, the local policies included in the JLP which maximised the contribution to wellbeing ... view the full minutes text for item 22.
MC/20/9 COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY (CIL) - PROPOSED REVISED CIL CHARGING RATES (FOR CONSULTATION PURPOSES) FOR BABERGH DISTRICT COUNCIL AND MID SUFFOLK DISTRICT COUNCIL (AS CIL CHARGING AUTHORITIES FOR THEIR ADMINISTRATIVE AREAS) PDF 321 KB
Cabinet Member for Planning
NOTE: The meeting was adjourned between 7:57 pm and 8:08 pm.
23.1 The Chairman advised Members that in accordance the Council Constitution, Rule 9, the meeting was approaching the Guillotine rule deadline and he proposed that the meeting be extended until the business of the meeting had been completed.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED: -
That the meeting continues beyond the guillotine deadline, until all business was concluded.
23.2 The Chairman invited Councillor Burn, Cabinet Member for Planning to introduce paper MC/20/9.
23.3 Councillor Burn introduced the report and asked that the words ‘both Councils’ be replaced by Mid Suffolk District Council in the recommendations.
23.4 Councillor Burn PROPOSED recommendation 3.1 and 3.2 in the report, which was SECONDED by Councillor Muller.
23.5 Councillor Amorowson queried the adoption of a flat rate CIL charge and whether it would be an increase or a decrease in income.
23.6 The Assistant Director – Sustainable Communities clarified how the CIL and Section 106 charging rates were currently applied and that the new approach would be an uplift to secure greater income for infrastructure through the proposed new CIL charging process. He explained that CIL was set up for strategic sites, as they were covered by Section 106 funding.
23.7 In response to Councillor Matthissen’s query, the Assistant Director responded that the CIL charges would proceed through a consultation and examination process before a paper would be brought to Council in due course detailing the change over from Section 106 to CIL charges.
23.8 In response to Councillor Warboy’s question regarding the changes to the planning system and the number of dwellings required for affordable homes, the Assistant Director – Sustainable Communities responded it could potentially have an impact on the threshold for affordable homes, if the threshold was increased to 40 to 50 homes.
23.9 He added that the report and the viability study in the appendices indicated how CIL was being calculated and that it was an affordable and deliverable charge. CIL contributions and other infrastructure costs and development costs came from land value rather than increases in house prices.
23.10 The Assistant Director continued to respond to questions including that Suffolk County Council and other infrastructure providers preferred Section 106 charges, that the CIL charges could be reviewed and undergo further viability studies if necessary, that Section 106 funding could still be used for projects such as behaviour projects and that there were no constraints of CIL funding being used across parish boundaries.
23.11 Councillor Field queried the viability report and table 6 in the report in relation to land value and deliverability of land for developments.
23.12 Stuart Cook from Aspinall Verdi Property Regeneration Consultants, who had undertaken the viability study, explained how the land value was calculated to ensure that landowners were still incentivised to sell land to the Council at competitive prices, whilst taking into account the Local Authorities’ policies and CIL charges.
23.13 Members debated the issues including:
· That losing strategic sites would mean ... view the full minutes text for item 23.