Agenda item

The Commission considered a report of the Chief Executive which advised of progress on the review of the County Council’s planning policy for developer contributions towards county-wide services and infrastructure and sought its view on the revised draft Planning Obligations Policy.  A copy of the report marked ‘Agenda Item 13’ is filed with these minutes.

Arising from discussion and questions the following points were raised:-

(i)          Responses to the consultation had been received from developers, district councils and some town and parish councils.  Viability was the main concern raised by developers.  It had not been possible to fully resolve this through revisions to the draft Policy due to the tension between profit and providing appropriate infrastructure.  District councils had also raised concerns about viability, including the impact on affordable housing, as well as querying the links to the Strategic Growth Plan and the new National Planning Policy Framework.  It was confirmed that the majority of concerns and issues raised during the consultation process had been resolved in the revised draft of the Policy.  Members suggested that it would have been useful to see a summary of the consultation responses and amendments to the Policy in the report.

(ii)         The Planning Obligations Policy would form the basis for the County Council’s response to planning applications.  It was expected that a period of negotiation with the developer would follow before a Section 106 package which mitigated the impact of the development was agreed.  The Policy was also designed to contain sufficient detail to support the County Council’s position during planning appeals.

(iii)       County Council requests for Section 106 contributions were co-ordinated by the Planning Team and usually accepted by district councils.  When challenges were made, they were usually on the grounds of viability or interpretation of the regulations.  Part of the work of the new Growth Unit at the County Council would be to take a more active role in negotiations for Section 106 agreements.

(iv)       Some concern was expressed that the Planning Obligations Policy could have a negative impact on the amount of affordable housing provided by developers or on the Section 106 requirements of other public sector bodies.  However, the Commission was advised that officers would always seek to achieve a balance between the competing requirements.  In addition, where possible discussions around the viability of a development should take place at a strategic level, for example during the development of the Local Plan.

(v)        Members felt that travel packs did not provide value for money and were often not promoted by developers.  However, the Commission was advised that they formed part of Government guidance to promote sustainable travel.  The funding requirement was usually quite modest and did not dilute other elements of the Section 106 request for contributions.

(vi)       The need for funding from new developments for libraries would be assessed on a case by case basis.  There were times when the local facilities would already be sufficient.  Both County Council owned and community libraries were covered by the Policy.  Officers would consider where the money would best be spent, bearing in mind that it need to be directly related to the site of the development.

(vii)     The County Council, at its Annual Meeting, had declared a climate emergency.  It was felt that more could be done to influence Local Plans to be more sustainable, including through designing homes for life.  Officers undertook to raise this with colleagues.

(viii)    It was felt that, following the development of the Strategic Growth Plan, there was a positive spirit of co-operation between the local authorities in Leicestershire which should be capitalised on.  Officers confirmed that the concerns raised by the district councils during the consultation process had been valid and had been addressed through dialogue and collaboration.  It was hoped that this would continue.

RESOLVED:

That the comments now made be submitted to the Cabinet for consideration at its meeting on 25 June.

[The meeting adjourned at 12.55pm and reconvened at 2.00pm.]