Issue - items at meetings - Developer Contributions Technical Guidance update

Report of the Acting Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Culture (copy attached).

That Committee approves the updated revised Developer Contributions Technical Guidance (Attached as Appendix 1 – Supporting Document) for assessing Section 106 planning obligation contributions on new development.

9.1       The Committee considered a report of the Acting Executive Director for Economy, Environment & Housing in relation to Developer Contributions Technical Guidance Update. The report updated the Developer Contributions Technical Guidance which set out when and how Section 106 Developer Contributions were sought in relation to new development proposals.

9.2       In response to questions from Councillor Mac Cafferty the following responses were provided. A review had recently been undertaken of how school place need was calculated; in the past birth rates and GP registration had been effective, but in the future the calculation would also consider the rate of building. Value zones for the purposes of this work were based on the established best practice for calculating sums. In terms of the value sums in the city, they were largely relative as property values were already very high and this did not undermine the schedule of payments. The Council was continuing to look at CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy), but had been prevented from pooling developer contribution payments in April 2015.

9.3       In response to Councillor C. Theobald it was explained that the viability policy had been tested through Part One of the City Plan; developers were able to make a case to depart from policy on viability grounds.

9.4       It was clarified for Councillor Morris that a formula was no longer used to incorporate public art into schemes. Councillor Morris noted the approach of other authorities that set aside a percentage of the contributions for public art.

9.10    Councillor Peltzer Dunn expressed concern that some development potential was lost due to the high costs of developer contributions. Officers explained that commuted sums could be paid by developers in lieu of affordable housing, and they could make a viability case.

9.11    Councillor Nemeth noted he could not support the report as he was of the view there were some sites that were not developed due to the level contribution that would be required.

9.12    The Chair then put the recommendations to the vote.

9.13    RESOLVED – That Committee approves the updated revised Developer Contributions Technical Guidance (Attached as Appendix 1 – Supporting Document) for assessing Section 106 planning obligation contributions on new development.