Agenda item - Member Involvement

skip navigation and tools

Agenda item

Member Involvement

To consider the following matters raised by Members:

 

(a)           Petitions: To receive any petitions;

 

(b)           Written Questions: To consider any written questions;

 

i.               Re-assessment of CIL calculations – Councillor Fishleigh

 

(c)           Letters: To consider any letters;

 

(d)           Notices of Motion: to consider any Notices of Motion submitted directly to the Committee (copies attached).

 

i.               Notice of Motion on the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee – Councillors Nemeth and Simson.

ii.              Notice of Motion on Air Quality – Councillors Fishleigh and Ebel.

 

 

Minutes:

(d) Petitions

 

There were none.

 

(e) Written Questions

 

i.               Re-Assessment of CIL Calculations – Cllr Fishleigh

 

21.1 The Chair invited Councillor Fishleigh to the meeting to present a question.

 

21.2 Councillor Fishleigh asked the following question:

 

In 2016 planning permission was given for 60 new homes at Coombe Farm in Saltdean.  This included 24 affordable homes (40%) and  £822,377 in Section 106 contributions.

 

In 2020 planning permission was granted for a revised scheme of 72 homes with 29 affordable homes (40.2%) and £489,358 in CIL.

 

So that’s £333,019 less under CIL.

 

Given this difference, will you please re-look at the way CIL is calculated for larger developments, not just in Saltdean but across the whole city?

 

21.3 The Chair gave the following response:

 

The Council sets the rates and types of development that are CIL liable. However, all the rules for charging calculations are fixed through national regulations and we therefore can’t develop our own set of CIL regulations for the city.

 

Under the specific circumstances of this development site, there has been a reduction in developer contributions following CIL – largely due to factoring in existing buildings on the site. You can be assured, however, this will be offset over time by the wider benefits of CIL – which include:

 

 - more contributions from smaller and other new build schemes;

-  the ability to spend strategic CIL across the city to meet priorities; and

-  local communities can influence how the neighbourhood portion is spent.

 

21.4 Councillor Fishleigh asked the following supplementary question:

 

I understand that rules and algorithms are set by national government, but we lobby the national government on all kinds of issues, so my supplementary question is therefore: will you ask officers to apply the CIL rules to 25 other developments across the city which were subject to 106? That way we can see whether the Saltdean development was an anomaly or if there is a pattern. If there is a pattern, will you please make the results public and we can discuss in full Council how we want to approach national government.

Councillor Fishleigh confirmed she was requested a data gathering exercise to see whether CIL does deliver less money for our city than the 106 did, and if there is a pattern and it does deliver less, please bring the information to Full Council and we as Councillors can decide whether this is an issue we want to raise with national government.

 

21.5 The Chair confirmed that it would be requested that the data gathering exercise be conducted, but could not confirm that it would go to Full Council.

 

(F) Letters

 

There were none.

 

(G) Notices of Motion

 

i.               The Queens Platinum Jubilee – Councillors Nemeth and Simson

 

21.6 The Chair clarified that paragraph 2.1 of the item should read:

 

That the Committee responds to the motion concerning the recognition and city celebrations for the Queen’s Platinum Jubilee either by noting it or where it is considered more appropriate, calling for an officer report on the matter as requested, which may give consideration to a range of options.

 

21.7 Councillor Simson raised that the Chair put a great deal of pressure in the opening statements on recommendations that were made at Full Council for Councillors to wear masks during in person meetings, however, recommendations to officers to prepare reports for certain dates of meetings aren’t being taken as seriously as exemplified by the current notice of motion report not being presented.

 

21.8 Councillor Grimshaw asked if the reason why the report couldn’t come to the current Committee was due to a lack of Officers assigned that specific work, and wanted to make sure that the capacity was there to complete the report in time for the next Committee, and also for reports to Committees going forward.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee to request a report as seen in the Notice of Motion to go to the next TECC Committee meeting in November.

 

ii.              Air Quality Monitoring System – Councillors Fishleigh and Ebel

 

21.10 The Chair introduced the Notice of Motion.

 

RESOLVED: That the Committee to request a report as seen in the Notice of Motion to go to the next TECC Committee meeting in November.

Supporting documents:

 


Bookmark this page using:

Find out more about social bookmarking

These sites allow you to store, tag and share links across the internet. You can share these links both with friends and people with similar interests. You can also access your links from any computer you happen to be using.

If you come across a page on our site that you find interesting and want to save for future reference or share it with other people, simply click on one of these links to add to your list.

All of these sites are free to use but do require you to register. Once you have registered you can begin bookmarking.

Brighton & Hove City Council | Hove Town Hall | Hove | BN3 3BQ | Tel: (01273) 290000 | Mail: info@brighton-hove.gov.uk | how to find us | comments & complaints