Agenda item

To consider the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) report.

Elizabeth Murphy advised of and presented a report to the Committee which was also to be presented to the meeting of the Executive on Tuesday, 8^th December 2020.  The report was requesting that the Executive adopt the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document (SPD) as attached to the report at Appendix A.

Members were advised that the amended draft SPD had been prepared to support the implementation of Burnley`s Local Plan and that it had been the subject of a formal statutory consultation and consideration by the Scrutiny Committee. 

Details of the statutory consultation were outlined within the report.  Attached to the report at Appendix B was a list of comments received from consultees and recommended responses.  Also attached to the report at Appendix C were the notes of the Scrutiny Working Group of 22^nd September 2020.

The Committee was advised that the  Executive would be recommended to:

1.    Adopt the Developer Contributions SPD as attached to the report at Appendix A; and

2.   Authorise the Strategic Head of Economy and Growth to make any minor typographical corrections to the draft SPD required prior to publication.

Grounds for the above recommendations were outlined within the report.

Members made the following points and received the following responses:

The LCC response is deeply unsatisfactory and against the interests of children and parents in Burnley.  It needs to be on record that we are not happy with the response that we have received.

The Government`s white paper proposals mentioned in the report are going to have a significant effect on this matter as well as a wide range of others?

We did submit a response to the white paper and pointed out some of these concerns.  The implications are far reaching in terms of planning systems and local plans in particular.  The decision on whether a local plan review is necessary would wait until the reforms are a little clearer.  They will take time to implement.  Amongst those reforms is a proposal to completely replace the current system of development contributions.  If that happened, this SPD would be withdrawn.  There is likely to be some reform of development contributions.

How do we intend to enforce should a Developer decide that they will not make contributions as we would wish and how are we going to prioritise because every development will have a different priority?

The SPD sets out prioritisation.  We separate out what is necessary and critical i.e. those priority 1 matters that would make the scheme substandard and as such it should be refused.  The next is priority 2 which includes affordable housing, education and other infrastructure that is not so critical.  If there is sufficient viability, these should be funded if the requests are robustly made.  We would give a slight preference to affordable housing due to the specific policy requirements of the local plan policy, the on-going need and the fact that it delivers a fixed permanent asset for the future.  Additional school places may be temporary and disappear over time.  It is right to prioritise affordable housing but that does not mean that the other contributions would not be paid if viability allows and requests are justifiably made, then contributions for all of them would be required or negotiations would take place.  We would still want to retain flexibility.

Consultation with CCG.  The Primary Care Works are becoming more appropriate to discuss these issues with and will have a greater role in the future.

Difficulties in engaging with the CCG are recognised.  Alongside the SPD we are updating the infrastructure delivery plan which sits alongside the Local Plan and is a live document that we update periodically.  We did engage with the CCG in developing the Local Plan but it is difficult to get the updated position.  We will note that perhaps there is a different route to engagement through the Primary Care Network.

Rather than relying on the CCG, it would be advisable to the Planning Department to engage with local general practitioners who will be impacted by large developments.in future.

The Planning Department has put in place new procedures within the last four weeks.  Several discussions have taken place with PCN Directors who are closer to the health impacts than the CCG and as a result of any large-scale developments, the PCN Directors will be consulted.  We have taken relevant details from them to follow the process. 

IT WAS AGREED

That the report be noted.