Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (As Amended)
S78 Appeal
Proof of Evidence b y Andrew Tyrer Developer Contributions Officer Leicestershire County Council
Appeal by William Davies Ltd and Jelson Ltd under s 78 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended) in respect of the failure of the Local Planning Authority to give notice of its decision within the appropriate period for the residential development, village centre (including primary school, retail, business and other uses (class A1, A2 A3 A4 A5 B1 D1 (Healthcare) and D2 (community facilities), public open space, recreation areas, play areas, woodland planting and associated infrastructure including roads, sewers and water storage ponds.
Andrew Tyrer BA (Hons) MSocSci MRTPI Developer Contributions Officer Leicestershire County Council
21 12 2011
Appeal Reference - APP/G2435/A/11/2158154/NWF
Local Planning Authority Reference - 10/01208/OUTM
CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction
2.0 Planning Policy Context
3.0 Justification
4.0 Education
5.0 Libraries
6.0 Civic Amenity
7.0 Section 106 Legal Agreement
8.0 Conclusion
2
1.0 Introduction
1.1 I am Andrew Henderson Tyrer. Since August 2007 I have been employed by Leicestershire County Council (LCC) as the Developer Contributions Officer in the Community Services Department. I hold a B.A. (Hons) in Town and Country Planning and I have over fifteen years professional planning experience and held various posts in local government such as Warwickshire County Council and in the public sector and I was previously planning officer with British Waterways with responsibility for responding to planning consultations and the negotiation of developer contributions. I have been a member of the Royal Town Planning Institute since 1998.
1.2 I appear at this inquiry in support of LCC’s view that this proposed development should not be permitted in the absence of suitable and appropriate contributions being made in respect of the education contribution, civic amenity contribution and the library facilities contribution. The majority of those aforementioned contribution response were submitted to North West Leicestershire County Council by email on the 7th February 2011 and set out LCC’s requirements for developer contributions.
1.3 In preparing paragraphs 4, 5 and 6 of my proof of evidence I have relied heavily on advice and guidance from colleagues in the County Council’s Education Service, the Waste Management Team and the Libraries and Information Service. Colleagues from those services will be made available, subject to permission from the Inspector, to answer detailed questions regarding the contributions sought if required to do so.
1.4 The following paragraphs provide an overview of the development contributions policies and procedures of the County Council and separate detailed evidence will be provided by other expert witnesses where necessary. Relevant documents and plans in respect of this particular proof of evidence are attached.
3
1.3 It is widely recognised that some developments may impact on infrastructure and services and that planning obligations should be made to offset those impacts. Leicestershire County Council (LCC) currently seeks developer contributions on major residential developments for a range of infrastructure and services, for example, education, highways/transportation, civic amenity and library facilities. LCC seeks to address the relevant needs by seeking contributions based on the standards as encouraged in paragraph B33 of Circular 05/2005. In the case of the proposed development of up to 1420 dwellings at land at Stephenson Way Coalville, the County Council would if the planning appeal was upheld require financial contributions for education, civic amenity, library facilities. In the case of the highways and public transport requirements this may be dealt with by either a separate statement or through the statement of common ground.
1.2 It is considered that the requirements of LCC as indicated previously in correspondence with North West Leicestershire District Council, further to their consultation letter of 13th January do meet the necessity tests set out in the Government’s Circular 05/2005 are in accordance with the policy and the LCC SRDCL. LCC’s responses are attached at Appendix 1.
2.0 Planning Policy Context
2.1 The following policies are relevant in relation to the developer contributions:-
Central Government Advice
2.2 Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure levy Regulations 2010 (as amended) states ‘A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission or the development if the obligation is -
• Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms • Directly related to the development • Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development
4 2.3 PPS1: Delivering Sustainable Development sets out the key objectives of the planning system. It seeks to ensure that development supports existing communities and contributes to the creation of safe, sustainable, liveable and mixed communities with good access to jobs and key services or all members of the community. It also advises that the provision of a transparent, flexible, predictable, efficient and effective planning system through the provision of a plan led approach is needed to deliver sustainable development. Paragraph 26(viii) states that the impact of proposed development may adversely affect people who do not benefit directly. Local Planning Authorities can use planning conditions or obligations to ameliorate such impacts.
2.4 PPS3: Housing covers the Government objectives on planning for housing. It indicates that development should be located in areas with good access to key services and infrastructure.
2.5 LCC consider the provision of necessary infrastructure and community services to be an essential part of the Government’s philosophy in relation to the creation of sustainable communities.
Background to County Council Policy
2.6 The County Council has for several years sought contributions from developers. LCC adopted its original supplementary guidance in March 2001, together with many of the District Planning Authorities. This guidance required a review in light of changing circumstances, revised calculations and experience since its adoption. It is in light of those changes the County Council updated its Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire (SRDCL). The guidance was updated (including a period of consultation with a broad range of bodies and related organisations prior to its adoption by the County Council on 6th December 2006.
2.6 In December 20007 the County Council undertook an interim review to take account of revised standards/formulae. The document sets out the likely levels and types of contributions required towards County Council services and infrastructure in relation to new development (Appendix 1).
2.7 The production of the SRDCL reflects the advice at paragraphs B25-30 of Circular 05/2005 which amongst other things requires all tiers of government
5 with legitimate land-use planning interests to be involved at an appropriate level and in a focused way in providing an evidence base and setting planning obligations policies.
2.8 The SRDCL provides a consistent approach across the County in relation to relation to developer contributions for County Council services and infrastructure. It is intended that the SRDCL should be adopted by each Local Planning Authority in Leicestershire in support of its own supplementary guidance for its own services.
2.9 In appropriate cases the SRDCL will form a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and could form the basis or grounds for refusing a planning application if in some instances, it may be possible to make development proposals acceptable through the use of planning conditions (see Circular 11/95). Where this is not the case, it might be possible to make development acceptable through the use of planning obligations in accordance with Circular 2005/05. 2.10 The SRDCL gives an indication of the level of contributions, developers would be expected to make. However all contributions will be assessed on a site by site basis directly related to an individual proposal. The SRDCL should be used as a guide. Some of its content may not be relevant for all proposals and in certain circumstances additional or alternative elements may need to be addressed. Detailed discussion as to the precise nature of the appropriate contributions may need to be undertaken.
2.11 The level of contributions may change as a result of, for example, inflation and other factors such as legislation, government advice, adoption of new development plans, experience gained through negotiation and securing agreements. The criteria for individual services are reviewed annually normally with effect from 1st April. The SRDCL can be updated accordingly and more substantial reviews will be undertaken when necessary. It is proposed to undertake a revie w of the SRDCL in early to mid 2012.
6 3.0 Justification
3.1 It is widely recognised that developments may impact on services and infrastructure provided by public bodies and that planning obligations should be made to offset those impacts. The infrastructure and services affected by the appeal site proposal are considered in more detail below. Leicestershire County Council (LCC) is seeking developer contributions towards Education; Civic Amenity; Library Facilities and Highways and Transportation. The latter will be subject to determination in light of the transport assessment.
3.2 The approach set out in the SRDCL is designed to deal with planning applications in an equitable, fair and transparent manner as possible and has been supported by appeals throughout the County for example:-
• Land at Clack Hill Kettering Road Market Harborough APP/F2415/A/10/2134083; • Land at Hinckley Road Stoke Golding APP/K2420/A/10/2138596; • Land South of 26-28 Britannia Road Burbage APP/K2420/A/10/2127585; • Land at Willoughby Road Countesthorpe APP/T2405/A/10/213068; • Land at Leicester Road Countesthorpe APP/T2405/A/09/2118424; (Appendix 2)
4.0 Education
4.1 The County Council is the Local Education Authority and has statutory responsibility for the provision of education services. Under section 14 of the 1996 Education Act, local authorities must secure sufficient appropriate school places to serve their area. The available schools must be sufficient in number, character and equipment to provide for all pupils the opportunity of appropriate education. Section 2 of the 2006 Education and Inspections Act places Leicestershire County Council, as the appropriate local authority, under a further duty to secure diversity in the provision of schools and increase opportunities for parental choice.
4.2 The 2006 Act also casts local authorities in the role of ‘commissioners of places’ and requires the running of new schools to be subject to open competition, unless there are exceptional circumstances. Groups such as parents and faith communities are thus encouraged to ‘bid’ to run new schools.
7 It must be noted that the competition process adds to the timescales and complexity of opening schools on new developments.
Existing Facilities and Demand
4.3 The County Council Education Service has made an assessment of the appeal site and the proposed development in relation to the primary school and secondary school sectors.
Primary School
4.4 The proposed development, the subject of this planning appeal is within the catchment area of two primary schools, Whitwick St. John the Baptist Church of England Primary School and Coalville Broom Leys Primary School. If this development was to be upheld on appeal and the development commenced, then it would be likely to generate 341 pupils of primary school age. The original education response in February 2011 included in the calculations nine other primary schools which are within a two mile radius of the appeal site.
4.5 Due to the surplus of places in these schools it had the effect of reducing the primary phase claim to a deficit of 169 pupil places. However since the original education response was prepared, the County Council only takes account of those schools which are within a 2 mile available walking route of a development site. In the case of this particular appeal out of the nine schools previously included, six are now included on the basis that they are within a 2 mile available walking route of the proposed development.
4.6 In addition when the original response was made to the outline application in February 2011 it reflected the number of pupils on roll at that particular time and the forecast number of pupils. Since then the situation has changed as the 2011/12 academic year has already begun and the pupil forecasts have been updated to reflect the September 2011 pupil intakes at all schools and the latest birth rate data.
8 4.7 Whitwick St John the Baptist has a net capacity of 350 pupil places and 541 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed (a deficit of 191 places). Coalville Broom Leys has a net capacity of 595 pupil places and 758 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed (a deficit of 163 places).
4.8 The overall deficit in the local catchment primary schools created by this development would be 351 places. There are six other primary schools within a two mile available walking route of the proposed development and the deficit or surplus of places at these schools are listed below:-
New Swannington Primary School Deficit of 8 pupil places
All Saints C of E Primary School Surplus of 19 pupil places
Holy Cross R C Primary School Deficit of 1 pupil place Belvoirdale Primary School Surplus of 61 places
Hugglescote Primary Full to capacity
Coalville St Clares Primary Surplus of 10 places
4.9 Within these 6 schools there are a surplus of 81 pupil places this and reduces the overall deficit of places from 351 to 270 which are attributable to the development.
4.10 In order to provide the additional primary school places anticipated by the proposed development the County Council would require the allocation of a suitable area of land of at least two hectares within the appeal site and the provision of a 270 place primary school.
Secondary Schools
High School Sector
4.11 The site falls within the catchment area of Coalville Castle Rock High school. The school has a net capacity of 600 pupil places and 671 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed thereby creating a deficit of 71 places. There is another High school within a three mile walking distance of the development; this is Coalville Newbridge High School. The school has
9 a net capacity of 590 and 531 pupils are projected on roll, a surplus of 59 places. The deficit of 71 places created by this development can therefore partly be accommodated at Newbridge High school and a claim for an education contribution of 12 places in the high school sector of £214,514.04 is justified, to address the shortfall of places attributed to this development.
4.12 The County Council’s original high school contribution requirement in February 2011 was £1,144,074.58. However the latest response reflects the intake at the start of the 2011/12 academic year to the aforementioned high schools and the latest pupil forecast has seen a reduction in the required High School education contribution to £214,514.04.
Upper School Sector
4.13 The appeal site falls within the catchment area of Coalville King Edward VII College. The school has a net capacity of 1193 pupils and 1153 pupils are projected on roll should this development proceed. There would be a surplus of 40 places after taking into account the 142 pupils generated by this development. An education contribution would not be required for this particular sector.
Financial Contribution Sought
Calculation Methodology
4.14 When calculating an education contribution Leicestershire County Council use the formula developed for predicting additional demand from new housing on primary school age pupils it is 0.24 places per house and 0.043 places per flat/apartment with all one bedroom properties being excluded. The equivalent factors for Upper school age places are 0.1 per house and 0.016 per flat/apartment.
4.15 The cost of providing a pupil place in Leicestershire is £12,099.01 for Primary school, £17,876.17 for High school and £18,355.16 for Upper school.
4.16 On the basis of houses with two or more bedrooms, as proposed by the development, the County Council would require a suitable site of 2 hectares and a primary school building to accommodate the additional capacity generated by the proposed development.
10 4.17 In the case of the High School education contribution the County Council would require a financial contribution of £214,215.04 to accommodate the additional pupils generated by the development.
Proposed Use of Contribution
4.18 The primary school education contribution would be used to accommodate the additional pupils created by the proposed development and to provide for the additional capacity needed to cater for the additional pupils by providing a new primary school within the site of the proposed development.
4.19 The high school education contribution would be used to accommodate the additional pupils created by the proposed development (12) and to provide for the additional capacity needed to cater for the additional pupils by improving and remodelling the existing facilities at Coalville Castle Rock High School by extending an existing teaching area/room. This would involve the remodelling and reconfiguration of the existing teaching accommodation within the school for example through the removal of an internal wall to combine two existing teaching rooms into one large teaching room/area to accommodate the additional pupils created by the proposed development.
4.20 The contribution for the high school sector would be spent on the purposes describe immediately above within five years from the date of the County Council receiving the final instalment of the education contribution in full.
5.0 Library Facilities
5.1 Under the Public Libraries and Museum Act 1964 (As Amended) local authorities have a statutory obligation to provide a comprehensive and efficient library service for those people who reside, work or who are undergoing full time education within a local area. Local authorities are tasked with maintaining adequate stocks of books, other printed material, audio visual stock and other material sufficient in number range and quality to meet the general requirement and any special requirements both of adults and children.
11 5.2 The County Council has made an assessment of the appeal site and its proposed development in relation to the demands and pressures it will place on the local library service. The appeal site is within 1.3 kilometres of Coalville Library on Hig h St Coalville being the nearest local library facility which would serve the development site. The library facilities contribution would be £77,180.
5.3 It will impact on local library services in respect of additional pressures on the availability of local library facilities as detailed below. The contribution is sought to extend the available public space and provide additional resources, e.g. books, reference books, newspapers etc. to account for additional use from the proposed development.
5.4 The Leicestershire Small Area Population and Household Estimates 2001- 2004 gives the settlement population for Coalville Library at approximately 32,000 people. The library has an active borrower base of 8,200 people. However post code analysis demonstrates that Coalville Library attracts usage from a much wider catchment of approximately 37,000 through additional borrowers who live outside the settlement area but come into Coalville for work, shopping or leisure reasons.
5.5 Active users of Coalville Library currently borrow on average 27 items a year. The national performance indicator NI9 measures the percentage of adults who have used a public library service in the past 12 months (the latest figure is Oct 08 - Oct 09) and for Leicestershire this figure is approximately 48%. This figure would be higher if children were factored into the equation.
5.6 Consequently the proposed development at Stephenson Way Coalville is likely to generate an additional 2,000 plus users of which approximately 1,000 are likely to become regular, active borrowers. and would require an additional 4,500 items of lending stock to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development on the local library service.
5.7 The County Council consider the library contribution is justified and is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms in accordance with the relevant national and local policies and the additional demands that would be placed on this local infrastructure as a result of the proposed development. The contribution requirement is directly related to the
12 development because the contribution is to be used for the purpose of providing the additional capacity at the nearest library facility to the proposed development which is at Coalville Library.
5.8 It is considered fair and reasonable in scale and kind to the proposed scale of development and is in accordance with the thresholds identified in the adopted policies and to meet the additional demands on the library facilities at Coalville Library which would arise due to this proposed development.
6.0 Civic Amenity
6.1 The Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy (2006) objectives, priorities and targets focus on sustainable waste management and use of resources. One aim is manage waste in accordance with a hierarchy of prioritising re-use, recycling and composting of waste in order to conserve energy and resources. In light of this new developments should be provided with easy, convenient and accessible methods of waste management and recycling.
6.2 The need for additional civic amenity (CA) capacity arising out of new development is determined by the County Council which has its own standards with regard to the assessment of the capacity of the nearest CA site/s, its relationship with the new proposed development and the increased waste likely to be generated by each additional household.
6.3 The civic amenity contribution is outlined in the Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire. The County Council considered the proposed development is of a scale and size which would have an impact on the delivery of Civic Amenity waste facilities within the local area.
6.4 The County Council has assessed the proposed development and consider there would be an impact on the delivery of Civic Amenity waste facilities within the local area because of a development of this scale, type and size. As such a developer contribution is required of £48,962.
13 6.5 The contribution is required in light of the proposed development and was determined by assessing which civic amenity site the residents of the new development are likely to use and the likely demand and pressure a development of this scale and size will have on the existing local civic amenity facilities. The increased need would not exist but for the proposed development.
6.6 The nearest civic amenity site to the proposed development is located at Coalville and residents of the proposed development are likely to use this site. The calculation was determined by a contribution calculated on 1420 units multiplied by the current rate for the Coalville Civic amenity site of £34.48 (subject to Indexation and reviewed on at least an annual basis) per dwelling/unit = £48,962 (to the nearest pound).
6.7 This would be used to mitigate the impacts arising from the increased use of the civic amenity site associated with the new development (In 2009/10 (latest figures available) the civic amenity site at Coalville accepted approximately 5,829 tonnes per annum) for example by the acquisition of additional containers or the management of traffic into and out of the civic amenity site to ensure that traffic on adjoining roads are not adversely affected by vehicles queuing to get into and out of the CA site.
6.8 Each household in Leicestershire in 2009/10 delivered on average approximately 0.320 tonnes of municipal waste to a civic amenity site. On this basis the proposed development of 1420 dwellings would generate over 450 tonnes of additional civic amenity waste at the Coalville Civic Amenity Site. The proposed development would place additional demand on the Coalville civic amenity site and the request for the civic amenity developer contribution would meet the demands placed on the site as a result of the proposed development.
14 6.9 Government legislation is focused on maximising the diversion of waste from landfill and the County Council must have appropriate containers and/or storage areas to deal with the different types of waste. Due to the complex nature of the waste received at the civic amenity site it will become increasingly difficult over time to maintain performance and a good level of service at peak times, particular with an increased demand placed on it due to this development.
6.10 The developer contribution would be used to make improvements and to increase the capacity of the civic amenity site at Coalville by for example the purchase and installation of additional compaction equipment and\or containers\storage areas to deal with the likely increased usage due to the proposed development. The existing civic amenity site serves a large number of households, the level of the amount reflects the proportional impact of the contribution and is therefore likely to be pooled but for the particular (Coalville) civic amenity site which would serve the proposed development.
6.11 The County Council consider the civic amenity contribution is justified and is necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms because of the policies referred to and the additional demands that would be placed on the key infrastructure as a result of the proposed development. It is directly related to the development because the contribution is to be used for the purpose of providing the additional capacity at the nearest civic amenity site (Coalville) to the proposed development.
7.0 Section 106 Legal Agreement
7.1 Securing relevant developer contributions in relation to new development is integral in ensuring the necessary infrastructure is provided to mitigate the impacts of new development. In accordance with the guidance in Circular 05/2005 the County Council are seeking financial contributions in the form of a Section 106 agreement to cover:-
a) payment of an education contribution of £214,514.04 for the high school contribution and at least 2 hectares of land for a primary school building to accommodate 270 primary pupil places;
15
b) payment of a library facilities contribution of £77,180;
c) payment of a civic amenity contribution of £48,962 Key Policy Context
7.2 The key policy context for the above contributions are:-
The East Midlands Regional Plan Policy 57 - Regional Priorities for Implementation, Monitoring and Review states;-
Local Authorities should work with developers, statutory agencies and other local stakeholders to produce delivery plans outlining the infrastructure requirements needed to secure the implementation of Local Development Documents. These should include guidance on the appropriate levels of developer contributions, and the mechanisms for securing the delivery of such contributions
Leicestershire County Council - The Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire December 2006 (interim review version December 2007) Copy attached as Appendix no.2.
7.3 The County Council consider the justification for the aforementioned contributions as detailed in paragraphs 4 and 5 and 6 above are in accordance with the tests in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 and the requirements of Circular 05/2005.
(a) Necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms – recognition that the contributions should be made to mitigate the impacts of development are set out in the planning related policy documents as outlined above. The provision of community facilities is a matter that is relevant to planning. The contributions sought will ensure that additional needs brought about by the development are met. The approach to seeking contributions as set out above is consistent air and transparent providing certainty to all involved in the process.
(b) Directly related to the development – The occupiers of new residential developments will have an additional impact on local services. The planning contributions sought towards education, civic amenity and library facilities have been sought as a result of the proposed development and will be spent only on services and infrastructure facilities serving the locality of the proposed development.
16
(c) Fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development – the financial contributions have been calculated in accordance with the scale and size of each individual dwelling comprising the proposed development. The calculations or each of the financial contributions has been based on the thresholds identified in the adopted policies including the SRDCL and would meet the additional demands which would be placed on the local services and infrastructure arising out of the proposed development.
8.0 Conclusion
8.1 LCC seeks the aforementioned developer contributions to mitigate the impacts of the proposed development (index linked to RICS BCIS all in tender price index).
8.2 It is considered that the requirements of LCC as indicated in the previous responses/correspondence to the District Council do meet the tests set out in Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure levy Regulations 2010 and the requirements of Circular 05/2005.
8.3 We invite the Inspector to conclude in the light of the evidence that, if in the event the appeal is upheld, The County Council contributions for education, library facilities and civic amenity are justified, that they are proportionate and appropriate in relation to the scale of the proposed development.
8.4 The developer contributions should be secured by a binding Planning Obligation.
------
Document List
• Leicestershire County Council – Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire (SRDCL) (interim review version December 2007)
• Minutes of the Meeting of LCC 6th December 2006
• Leicestershire County Council Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2006 Core Strategy & Action Plan
17 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL HELD AT COUNTY HALL, GLENFIELD ON WEDNESDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2006
PRESENT Mr. B. Garner CC (in the Chair)
Mr. A. D. Bailey CC, Mr. D. C. Bill CC, Mr. G. A. Boulter CC, Mr. D. R. Bown CC, Mr. N. J. Brown CC, Mr. P. Callis CC, Mrs. R. Camamile CC, Mr. M.H. Charlesworth CC, Mr. J. G. Coxon CC, Mrs. J.A. Dickinson CC, Dr. R. K. A. Feltham CC, Mr. R. Fraser CC, Mr. S. J. Galton CC, Mr. D. A. Gamble CC, Mr. M. Griffiths CC, Mr. P.S. Harley CC, Mr. G.A. Hart CC, Dr. S. Hill CC, Mr. D. W. Houseman CC, Mr. Max Hunt CC, Mr. P. A. Hyde CC, Mr. D. Jennings CC, Mr. Mike Jones CC, Mr. A. M. Kershaw CC, Mr. John Legrys CC, Mr. P.G. Lewis CC, Mr. W. Liquorish JP CC, Mr. J.S. Moore CC, Mr. A.P. Natzel CC, Ms. Betty Newton CC, Dr. M. O'Callaghan CC, Mr. J. T. Orson JP CC, Mr. P. C. Osborne CC, Mr. I. D. Ould CC, Mr. M. B. Page CC, Mrs. R. Page CC, Mr. D. R. Parsons CC, Mrs. L. A. S. Pendleton CC, Prof. M. E. Preston CC, Mr. J. B. Rhodes CC, Mr. P. A. Roffey DL, CC, Mr. N. J. Rushton CC, Mr. S. D. Sheahan CC, Mr. R. J. Shepherd CC, Mrs. M. L. Sherwin CC, Mr. E. D. Snartt CC, Mr. D. A. Sprason CC, Mr. C. A. Stanley CC, Mr. N. A. Stork CC, Mr. E. F. White CC, Mr. R. M. Wilson CC and Mr. D. O. Wright CC
73. CHAIRMAN'S ANNOUNCEMENTS.
Regional Enjoy England Award
The Chairman indicated that he was pleased to report that Snibston Discovery Park had achieved the Silver Award in the recent Enjoy England Awards organised by East Midlands Tourism.
Civic Amenity Site of the Year
The Chairman commented that he was also pleased to report that the Loughborough Recycling and Household Waste Site had been awarded the title of ‘Civic Amenity Site of the Year’ at the Let’s Recycle national awards ceremony held on 12 October 2006.
Property Services Team
The Chairman felt sure members would also be pleased to know that at the recent Pro Con Leicestershire Annual Awards Dinner the County Council’s Property Services Team had received two awards in respect of the development of the new Castle Rock High School at Coalville.
Members joined the Chairman in congratulating everyone concerned with all of these well deserved awards.
David Parsons
Members joined the Chairman in congratulating the Leader of the County Council on his appointment by the European Union’s Committee of the Regions to lead a review into the Single Market, including how it was working in regional economies. This would involve a presentation of the findings to a European Conference in March next year.
Director of Adult Social Care and Health
Members joined the Chairman in welcoming Mick Connell the new Director of Adult Social Care and Health to his first meeting of the Council.
Mr Dennis Brown
The Chairman reported that Mr Dennis Brown, who had worked closely with members of the County Council as Commissionaire since March 1996, had indicated that he would be retiring on 19 January 2007. Members joined the Chairman in thanking Dennis for his services and wishing him a long and happy retirement.
Mr Graham Perkins JP CC
At the invitation of the Chairman, the Vice Chairman, Mr Mike Jones, reported on his recent visit to Mr Graham Perkins, who was currently unable to fulfil his duties as a member of the Council due to illness. Mr Perkins had asked that his best regards be passed on to all his friends and colleagues.
Mr Jones indicated that he would be passing back to Graham Perkins the Council’s best wishes for a speedy recovery.
Speaking for the majority Group, the Leader of the Council associated himself with Mr Jones’s remarks.
Visitors
The Chairman welcomed to the meeting all visitors and guests of members.
74. MINUTES.
It was moved by the Chairman, seconded by the Vice Chairman and carried:-
“That the minutes of the meeting of the Council held on 20 September 2006, copies of which have been circulated to members, be taken as read, confirmed and signed.”
75. DECLARATIONS OF INTERESTS.
The Chairman invited members who wished to do so to make declarations of interest in respect of items on the agenda for the meeting.
Member Minute No(s) Interest
Mr Shepherd 76(E) Personal non prejudicial Mr Rhodes 79(C) “ Dr Feltham 82(B) “ Mr John Legrys 82(B) “ Mr Stork 79(A) “ Ms Betty Newton 82(B) “ Mr Griffiths 82(B) “
76. QUESTIONS ASKED UNDER STANDING ORDER 7(1)(2) AND (5).
(A) Mr John Legrys asked the following question of the Chairman of the Police Authority:
“1. Is the Chairman of the Police Authority aware of the ongoing problem with fuel thefts and other criminal activity in and around the Hermitage Industrial Estate, Coalville?
2. Could he please explain what resources are being made available to tackle crime of this nature both generally and in this particular area of the County?”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:
“1. Officers at the Coalville Local Police Unit (LPU) are apprised on a daily basis of all reported recorded crime that takes place on their policing area. Each crime is the subject of an individual investigation plan or included as part of a larger enquiry into an identifiable series.
During the past two months there have been six reported thefts of diesel at separate locations in the Coalville area. Whilst they have occurred in an area which does suffer a degree of vehicle related crime, it is fair to say that they are uncharacteristic. The offences have generally been committed during the night time hours when there are few people present on industrial estates. The property stolen by its nature is not readily identifiable and is easily disposed of.
Cases such as these are the subject of crime pattern analysis. Where a discernible pattern emerges, or potential offenders are identified, a problem profile is prepared. This will then be discussed at tasking meetings and a suite of operational tactics will be considered for implementation including, for example, overarching reactive investigation, high profile preventative patrols, targeting of suspects and the use of proactive covert policing techniques. Staffing will be made available from a variety of sources including the local Principal Beat Officer, Beat Team, Local Intelligence Officer, Identified Task Unit, Criminal Investigation Department and Police Community Support Officers as appropriate to the nature of the problem.
In relation to the specific offences under investigation, all remain currently undetected. Officers have been completing directed patrols in the area at material times and crime prevention advice has been delivered locally.
2. The LPU Commander is fully aware of the problem and is ensuring that commensurate resources are being allocated and that all useful lines of enquiry are being followed. The directed preventative and proactive patrols in the affected area will continue and emerging information will continue to be dynamically assessed to determine further planned action.”
Mr Legrys asked the following supplementary question:
“Could I ask the Chairman of the Police Authority if he would join me in trying to facilitate a meeting with the tenants and the landowners in this particular area to try and see if we can overcome some of their problems and, secondly, whether or not to set up an industrial neighbourhood watch system within that particular area?”
Mr Rhodes replied as follows:
“These are obviously matters of great concern in the Coalville area. I had the opportunity yesterday, to speak to David Taylor MP who also raised them with me. I am very happy to facilitate meetings with the Area Commander, and I think an industrial neighbourhood watch arrangement would be a very good idea too.”
(B) Mr Natzel asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“Following the success of the Dementia Respite Centre at Curtis Weston House in Wigston and the benefits it has provided to many carers and families in the South Leicestershire Area, what progress is being made in Leicestershire with regards to further care provisions to support carers and families in the community, with physical and learning disability needs, and more specifically, in the Oadby and Wigston and South Leicestershire Area?”
Mr Sprason replied as follows:
“Provision of a new 6 place respite care unit for people with learning disabilities and high dependency needs for the Oadby, Wigston and Blaby areas, including both capital of £840,000 and additional revenue funding of £350,000 has been agreed by the County Council. However there has been significant difficulty in finding a suitable site with a possible 10 sites being explored over the last three years, none of which have proved possible to develop for this purpose. With the modernisation of day services for people with learning disabilities and the closure of Wigston Day Centre it was decided to proceed with using part of this County Council site for the respite care unit. However, on 20 July 2006 the Development Control Committee of Oadby and Wigston Borough Council, whilst resolving to support the principle of the unit being established within the Borough Council area, objected to the use of this site on the grounds of the loss of employment land designated in the local plan.
The Committee recommended that an alternative site be found. Following a subsequent meeting of County Council and Borough Council officers the Borough Council agreed to explore whether an alternative site could be found. Their search also led to a conclusion that no ‘obvious’ site could be found. A further meeting of Borough Council and County Council officers is to take place within the next two weeks with a view to seeking the support of the Borough Council’s Development Control Committee for the scheme to be developed on the proposed site as a departure from the local plan. This would be on the basis of the urgent identified need for the service and the fact no alternative suitable sites can be identified. The application would then be considered by the County Council’s Development Control and Regulatory Board early next year with a referral then required to the Secretary of State, as the scheme amounts to a departure from the local plan.
The objective is to achieve the necessary planning agreements to commence the scheme during the financial year 2007/08. In the meantime a temporary respite care service providing four places has had to be established outside of the area, but is operating successfully and can be retained until the new provision becomes available.”
Mr Natzel asked the following supplementary question:
“Is the Lead Member aware of the MENCAP Breaking Points campaign at the moment? The whole emphasise of the campaign is to highlight the fact that families need to get more support and one of the key factors in this is that when families get to the point that they do not feel they are getting enough support and help, especially with regards to respite, it usually means a breakdown within the family and care within the home, which leads to bigger problems in the long term.
I would also like to ask that the County Council work closely with the Borough Council, bearing in mind we have the Deputy Leader of the Borough Council who is also on planning, to try and resolve this matter so that South Leicestershire and the people of Oadby and Wigston can benefit from a respite centre. It is important that we put more care and support in the community so people can look after vulnerable citizens.”
Mr Sprason replied as follows:
“The answer to the first part is “Yes”. As to the second part, valuing people is not just about people with learning disabilities, but their parents and carers too. It is important that respite is available to them. So I will urge the Borough Council to join in in that co-operation as good partnership working and hopefully move this agenda forward.”
(C) Mr John Legrys asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
”1. Mindful that the Code of Corporate Governance agreed by Cabinet in May 2003, states, inter alia:
“The Council intends to ensure that continuous improvement is sought, agreed policies are implemented, and decisions carried out by maintaining arrangements which .... demonstrate integrity in dealing with service users and developing partnerships to ensure the 'right' provision of services locally.”
“The Council intends to maintain effective political and managerial structures and processes to govern decision-making and the exercise of authority within the organisation. The Council will maintain arrangements to .... demonstrate integrity of the processes by ensuring a proper balance of power and accountability “
would the Chairman give an explanation of the meaning of the term "the 'right' provision" in the Code?
2. Would the 'right' provision be one which unfairly discriminated against Council Tax Payers in one District as opposed to others.
3. Would the Chairman give an explanation of what is meant by "proper balance of power and accountability" in the Code?
4. Would the proper balance of power and accountability as far as Scrutiny Chairs be one which followed the Constitution agreed widely by Council?
5. What provision does the Authority make for independent scrutiny of Constitutional amendments put by one party against others?”
Mr Snartt replied as follows:
“1. The Code of Corporate Governance seeks to ensure the ‘right’ people are making the ‘right’ decisions with the ‘right’ information in the ‘right’ way for the ‘right’ reasons and ensuring the ‘right’ results. It sets out a framework of principles and standards. The ‘right’ provision in this context is provision which is lawful, where the decision has been made in accordance with the above principles.
2. The answer would depend on whether the decision and the resulting provision was lawful and made in accordance with the principles set out in paragraph 1 above.
3. The ‘proper balance of power and accountability’ in the context of the Code of Corporate Governance means precisely what it says, that where members and officers exercise the powers given to them by the Constitution in accordance with the law, they can be held accountable for the exercise of those powers.
4. Article 6 of the Constitution, together with the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules (Part 4E), set out the power and accountability of Overview and Scrutiny Committees, and the Chairmen of those Committees. Both these provisions and the Constitution generally are designed to ensure there is a proper balance of power and accountability.
5. The County Council makes no provision for independent scrutiny of constitutional amendments, whoever proposes them, and is not required to do so, either in law or by virtue of any Government guidance. Any constitutional amendments are considered first by the Constitution Committee, and then by the full Council, and are thus accorded full democratic scrutiny.”
Mr Legrys asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 5.
“I am deeply concerned, but can the Chairman of the Committee tell me if there is no independent scrutiny and if there is no body to actually draw the politicians in, particularly with the Administration, then who does have that responsibility?”
Mr Snartt replied as follows:
“The responsibility lies with the full Council and there will be discussions on these issues this afternoon. It will be democratic. Things will be voted upon and at the end of the day things will get a good airing. So I think I will leave it at that. There are ways that Mr Legrys will be able to get his concerns raised this afternoon through the Council meeting.”
(D) Mr Boulter asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“Can the Leader explain the reasoning behind the Cabinet’s welcome change of mind which resulted in the No 45 bus service being treated as a special case and retained on a two hourly basis?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“Yes, it is because we are a listening Council. Withdrawing support for the No 45 bus service seemed a sensible step to make the necessary savings in bus subsidy, but when we talked to local people it became apparent that the service was playing an important role in many people’s lives. We listened to what they said and changed our plans accordingly. Through successful agreement with the bus operator we now have a service which still runs hourly for most of the time, yet is delivering us savings of over £40,000 a year.”
(E) Mr Shepherd asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“In regard to the failure of Charnwood Borough Council to make an arrangement with the County Council to provide countywide free concessionary travel for concession holders, can the Leader please answer the following:
1. During 2005/06 did the County Council offer financial support to the District Councils to allow the introduction of countywide free concessionary travel from 1 April 2006?
2. Was this taken up by the Districts?
3. How did Charnwood come to act on behalf of the Leicestershire District Councils in discussions with the County Council on concessionary travel following the County Council meeting in May?
4. Did Charnwood in that role ask the County Council for more money than the £500,000 agreed by all parties at the County Council in May? If so, how much, and what was the response?
5. How were District Councils approached about individual arrangements and what was Charnwood’s response?
6. What options does the Leader consider Charnwood now have to ensure concession holders in the Borough can receive the same facility as concessionary holders elsewhere in the County?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“1. Yes, in separate meetings at Chief Executive and Leader level, the County Council offered financial support. The offers were made on the basis that a lesser figure than £800,000 (the County Council’s subsidy for concessionary travel in 2005/06) would be required from the County Council if the District Councils collectively used all the resources for concessionary travel available to them in 2005/06 and the additional Government grant aid received by them from 2006/07.
2. The offers were not taken up. In fact, the District Councils, who have responsibility in law to provide concessionary travel, chose to introduce a concessionary travel scheme from 1 April 2006 which did not make use of all the additional Government grant given to the Districts for that purpose. £500,000 of Government grant was not used.
3. I do not know how this came about but evidently Charnwood Borough Council’s actions have brought no benefit to pensioners and disabled people living in Charnwood.
4. Yes, Charnwood’s Chief Executive asked me to double the County Council’s agreed contribution to £1 million. In an effort to get countywide free concessionary travel introduced as soon as possible, I agreed to offer a total of £750,000 after consultation with the Cabinet and subject to formal approval. However, that offer was rejected by Charnwood within 24 hours. At that stage and being aware that individual District Councils were saying different things both privately and in the press, I decided that the only way forward was to offer individual arrangements to each individual District Council if countywide free concessionary travel was to be introduced in time for Christmas. It was made clear to all Districts that the County Council’s offer of assistance was within the £500,000 agreed by the County Council.
5. I wrote by e-mail personally to all District Council Leaders first on 28 July and asked for initial responses by 4 August. There was also communication at Chief Executive level. Whilst I was receiving positive responses from the majority of District Leaders, Charnwood’s Chief Executive informed me on 2 August that individual Districts would not be responding to me by 4 August, which only served to confirm my judgement that working with Districts individually was the only way forward. By early September individual arrangements with the majority of Districts were in the process of being concluded and I wrote again to each District Council Leader asking them to confirm their intentions by 15 September. In doing so I was aware that decision-making processes in District Councils were underway and timescales needed to be met. I received positive, confirmatory responses from 5 District Council Leaders and from the Chief Executive of one District Council on behalf of the Leader, who was on holiday. The exception was Charnwood, whose Leader did not respond to my e-mail letter. However, on the afternoon of 15 September I received two different e-mails within half an hour from the Director of Development for Charnwood Borough Council. In the first e-mail the Director wrote:
That means that we are unable to commit to the revised scheme proposed to commence from 1 st December, and currently subject to discussion with District Council partners.
In the second e-mail the Director wrote:
That means that we are (sic) will not commit to the revised scheme proposed to commence from 1 st December, and currently subject to discussion with District Council partners.
The first e-mail was copied to the Leader of Charnwood, the second was not. It is very clear that Charnwood rejected the offer of an individual arrangement with the County Council.
6. I have suggested to the Leader of Charnwood that he may wish to talk to the other District Councils to see whether they would be prepared to review the distribution of funding to include Charnwood. However it is not now practicable for Charnwood to join in the scheme until mid-February 2007 at the earliest. The other option, given that the County Council funding is time limited until March 2008, is for Charnwood to take whatever funding is needed for that fixed period out of the Borough Council’s own not inconsiderable balances to support the pensioners and disabled people of Charnwood. I understand those balances are c.£4.5 million, i.e. 27% of the total revenue budget.
I note that Conservative members of Charnwood Borough Council have advocated the second course of action, which is certainly realistic and I am sure will be supported by everyone with an interest in the well-being of pensioners and disabled people living in Charnwood. My deep regret is that they are not already enjoying countywide free concessionary travel but for that they have the leadership of Charnwood Borough Council to blame.”
Mr Shepherd asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 3:
“Would the Leader agree with me that Charnwood’s failed attempt at leading the District Councils and also its failing of its pensioners suggest that it really can no longer present itself under the slogan of ‘Leading in Leicestershire’ but rather more like ‘Lagging in Leicestershire’ or ‘Hanging around in Leicestershire’ or ‘Are we in Leicestershire’?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“This is a most astute supplementary question. Mr Shepherd knows more about the workings of the Charnwood Borough Council than I do, but I have to accept his advice in his supplementary”.
Mr Shepherd asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 5.
“Now that we have got the facts quite clear that Charnwood did indeed reject financial support from the County Council, in fact, did so on not only one, or two, but a total of three occasions, would the Leader agree with me that the Charnwood Borough Council Leadership, that means really, of course, the Labour and Liberal Democratic Cabinet, I suppose, should apologise for and withdraw their allegation that they have been denied financial support from the County Council?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“More in sorrow than in anger, I think it might be good for the Leadership of Charnwood to eat a bit of humble pie and actually, if they do that, I think they would find that the British are a very forgiving nation.”
Mr Shepherd asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 6:
“Would the Leader agree with me that at the present time in the words of somebody from Thurmaston, writing in the Leicester Mercury, Charnwood is apparently quoted as ‘the meanest Council in Leicestershire’?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“I actually read Mr Suffolk’s letter from Thurmaston. He says Charnwood has upset all the pensioners over the free bus pass. ‘Come on Charnwood’, says Mr Suffolk, ‘think of the pensioners for a change, not yourselves. Why should we be the only ones left out?’ Well, I think those are very telling words.”
(F) Mr Moore asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“It has been reported that the Labour Party Conference this year took a decision to require local Labour Groups to make a levy on members’ allowances received by their councillors in order to provide funds for the Labour Party. It was also reported that the levy in the form of a fixed percentage should preferably be made by deduction at source through the local authority’s payroll and that local Labour Groups had been asked to arrange for that to happen.
Can the Leader please inform me:
1. if any request from the County Council Labour Group has been received in connection with the above?
2. if so, was any reference made to the Labour Party’s national decision, was the purpose of the deduction stated and was any justification for the request given?
3. what answer was given to any request?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“1. I am advised that a request was made last month to the Director of Resources for deductions at source from members’ allowances.
2. No reference was made to the Labour Party’s decision. In connection with the request for deductions to be made at source, it was said that this was to ensure funds for the Labour Party. It was claimed that deductions at source is common practice in other local authorities.
3. The request was declined. Officers were not aware the practice was happening elsewhere, there would be a small cost involved and it was pointed out to the person making the request that it would be illegal for the County Council to incur expenditure to support political parties.”
Mr Moore asked the following supplementary question:
“Does the Leader also agree with the view held, I suspect by many elected members of this Council, that whilst the disposal of their allowances is a matter of personal conscience, these are, as reported in the 24 November, Daily Mail, in effect public monies, and that the majority of electors would not see this as being an acceptable item of public spending? On this basis would the Leader join me in the hope that members of this Council of all political persuasion would show their distaste for a decision taken at the Conference of a once great party?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“I understand that moves have been made in Leicestershire to actually deduct this money from allowances. I think most people will agree that the Daily Mail is a fairly neutral newspaper, and in this respect, I am amazed to read that the Daily Mail says the scandal goes nationwide. Documents obtained by the Daily Mail show that in October Labour bosses sent a memo to every Council group in England ordering them to establish a levy on councillors for group funds preferably collected through the Council’s payroll deduction scheme. All councillors were then ordered to sign an authorisation slip to deduct the money from their allowances at source. Thank goodness the authorities in this Local Authority have actually refused that request.”
(G) Mr Galton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“1. How many requests have been received to take part in the Community Speed Watch scheme?
2. How many have been approved and can the Leader please list the communities where the scheme is now active?
3. What is the position regarding the outstanding requests to take part in this initiative?”
Mr Rushton replied as follows:
“1. To the end of November, we have had 220 expressions of interest, ranging from individuals to groups and parish councils.
2. We have nine pilot schemes:
• Woodhouse/Woodhouse Eaves • Lubenham • Sharnford/Frolesworth • Narborough/Littlethorpe • Witherley/Ratcliffe Culey/Fenny Drayton • Kegworth • Empingham • Buckminster • Barrow on Soar
The first seven are active and we expect the last two to be so shortly. The scheme covers Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland and the pilot communities have been chosen to give good geographical average including one community in Rutland.
3. Assuming the pilots are successful - and there is every sign they will be - we intend to roll out the scheme as quickly as possible in the spring of next year. Checks will be carried out in the other communities which have expressed an interest, to establish that there is adequate support in the community, that there is a sufficient pool of volunteers to undertake the work and that there is a safe place to monitor traffic speeds. Thereafter, we will expand the initiative to as many communities as we can, taking into account the equipment and funding available. The speed guns and other equipment will be rotated periodically between the different communities and we will endeavour to ensure that a good coverage across the whole County is maintained. When the scheme has been in operation for a longer period we will review it to see how well we are able to meet the demand, and at that stage consider any necessary changes.”
(H) Mr Galton asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“Can the Leader please assure me that throughout the budget process and consideration of the Medium Term Financial Strategy, all elected members serving on Scrutiny Committees will receive the same information and reports from officers of the County Council, regardless of which political group they belong to?”
Dr Feltham replied as follows:
“Yes, subject to observing the normal protocols on the exchange of information and member/officer relations.”
Mr Galton asked the following supplementary question:
“I would like to ask how Dr Feltham can possibly justify a document which has come into my possession entitled ‘Community Services Scrutiny Committee Medium Term Financial Strategy - Further information for Conservative members, which I presume is not just limited to that. Is it not the case that this report completely undermines the role and functions of Scrutiny and the right of all members to have the same information from officers in the Finance Department of the County Council?”
Dr Feltham replied as follows:
“Have any of Mr Galton’s members asked for that information? I would ask back in return. Because certainly as the answer states clearly here, this Council is fair, is open and is transparent, and if Members ask for the information they will be given it.”
(I) Mr Hunt asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“1. When the authority states that our Government grant funding per person next year will be nearly 20% below the average for comparator counties, which authorities are our "comparators"?
2. How do we define our comparators?
3. Could the Leader give a list of comparator counties with the mid 2006 estimated population, Formula Grant (ie RSG+Business Grant), Other (ie non-Formula) Grant, and Formula Grant per person for 2006/7?
4. Does he accept the principle that some authorities should get more per person than others, or should we all get the average?
5. Should the formula deliver the same, more or less funding per person as the City of Leicester?
6. Which components of which formulae are particularly unfair and with respect to which comparators?
7. Has the Leader been in touch with other authorities like Hampshire and Dorset who both receive rather less per person than Leicestershire to see if they will join his campaign?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“1 & 2. All county councils with the same functions (i.e. without responsibility for fire).
3. Please see the table at the end of this reply.
4. I accept there will be differentials. It is the size of the differentials that is the issue.
The basic factors are:
• Leicestershire schools have the lowest grant per pupil of the 150 Education Authorities
• Leicestershire Adult Services has the lowest assessed need of all County Councils
• Leicestershire has the smallest cash grant increase for 2007/08 of all the 150 single tier and County Councils.
• Between 2006/07 and 2007/08 Leicestershire’s relative position has worsened.
5. The City of Leicester should get more grant, if only for the fact it is a unitary authority and has the functions of a district council. Notwithstanding this point a differential of 4:1 in terms of formula grant per head is excessive.
6. It is not so much the components as the ministerial judgement used in weighting these in the formula.
One particularly objectionable element is ‘resource equalisation’ where the sole justification appears to give even more grant to well funded authorities.
There should be a separate block for waste. This is a key issue and the current methodology gives undue weight to deprivation.
The “supported” capital element is a major problem. The cost of funding new borrowing supposedly supported through the revenue grant system in 2007/08 is £2m compared with a total grant increase of £0.6m.
Finally the damping arrangements are flawed. In theory the County Council should receive a minimum increase of 2.7% in 2007/08. The reasons the cash increase is so much lower is the adjustment for changes in capital financing which is overstated because one-off funding for the replacement of Intergrid Schools is not excluded. We intend to lobby strongly on this issue.
7. No, as the County Councils Network is probably the most effective means of co-ordinating efforts to secure fairer funding. In any event Hampshire and Dorset may have lower grant per head but they will receive bigger increases in grant next year. Dorset’s percentage increase next year (8.3%) is the second highest and 10 times that of Leicestershire.
I am grateful to Mr Hunt for asking questions which give me this further opportunity to demonstrate the justification for the Fair Share Campaign.”
SHIRE COUNTIES WITHOUT FIRE - 2006/07
Local Authority Mid-2006 Formula Other Formula Population Grant Revenue Grant Projections Grants * per Person £m £m £
Bedfordshire 400,423 60.587 261.107 151.31 Buckinghamshire 479,781 49.183 339.417 102.51 Cambridgeshire 590,609 94.076 345.782 159.29 Cheshire 684,797 86.910 481.695 126.91 Derbyshire 753,539 130.773 499.461 173.55 Devon 732,612 119.189 464.347 162.69 Dorset 407,217 30.335 265.408 74.49 Durham 492,925 134.600 369.654 273.06 East Sussex 507,345 79.747 328.799 157.19 Essex 1,344,478 202.192 937.183 150.39 Hampshire 1,267,602 120.343 775.716 94.94 Kent 1,378,765 226.212 1,044.787 164.07 Lancashire 1,157,223 222.766 826.860 192.50 Leicestershire 632,128 79.245 409.398 125.36 North Yorkshire 584,100 76.213 407.744 130.48 Nottinghamshire 763,894 127.898 581.850 167.43 Shropshire 288,846 53.427 184.122 184.97 Staffordshire 816,060 118.138 551.154 144.77 Wiltshire 451,235 60.138 294.355 133.27 Worcestershire 555,592 69.689 368.192 125.43
Totals 14,289,171 2,141.662 9,737.031 149.88
* includes Dedicated Schools Grant
Mr Hunt asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 6:
“The Leader does say that it is not so much the components of the formula but the Ministerial judgement. Would he not agree that that is not a helpful remark to make if an all party approach is to be made on Fair Funding which he makes very admirably in the rest of his answers?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“I am not unhappy with an all party approach. The problem is when you ask these questions, obviously, somebody in my position seeks advice. This is the advice which has come back and that is the problem which we all face. Yes, let’s do the Fair Funding Campaign. Yes, let’s realise that although on all indices we are not at pole bottom, there is a very real problem in Leicestershire. In the spirit in which the supplementary has been asked, which I think was positive, I would welcome any help which could be given and any counsels which members in the Labour Party have to help Leicestershire actually get out of the bottom or near bottom position, so that we can do our best for the people we represent.”
(J) Dr O’Callaghan asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“Given the recent Local Government White Paper, what in the Leader’s view is the best strategy for the County Council in tackling the challenges the paper raises:
1. In structures and partnership working with the districts?
2. in achieving efficiencies and improving performance?
3. in engaging with communities?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“The County Council’s existing Medium Term Corporate Strategy (MTCS) sets out a vision and aims in keeping with the White Paper. The ongoing implementation of the MTCS will, I am sure, serve the County Council and Leicestershire residents well. We await a Local Government Bill and legislation but the key message from the White Paper is that local government in Leicestershire needs to deliver substantially greater efficiency savings than is currently the case and to do so will require some hard decisions.”
Dr O’Callaghan asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 1:
“Would the Leader be interested in a discussion that myself and Max Hunt had in London with Ruth Kelly on the future of Local Government and her insistence that it was not designed in the current proposal in the White Paper or is it the intention of the Labour Party to do away with Districts and subsume them into Counties? Would he be interested in that reply and would he also explain why in the Local Government Chronicle, Leicestershire appears to be one of those Counties, according to the Local Government Chronicle, looking at unitary status?”.
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“Yes, and I never believe everything I read in the press.”
(K) Dr O’Callaghan asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“1. Would the Leader please detail how much each district is receiving as a contribution from the County Council towards their concessionary fares scheme for the financial years 2006/07 and 2007/08?
2. How much is this per travel pass holder for each district?
3. What legal advice (formal or informal) has been sought on implementing this scheme?
4. Was legal advice (formal or informal) sought on eliminating one of the districts from the scheme?
5. Will he publish the legal advice?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“1. The County Council is not contributing financially to the concessionary fares scheme operated by the Leicestershire District Councils’ partnership.
2. Zero.
3. None.
4. No.
5. Not applicable.”
Dr O’Callaghan asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 1:
“Would the Leader actually answer the question that I asked and not the one that he thought I was going to ask? I never referred to the Leicestershire District Councils’ partnership. If the Leader understood grammar he would actually realise that their concessionary fares scheme refers to the scheme for each of the Councils. Why didn’t he give me the information that I required which was how much each District receives as part of each District’s scheme?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“In which case Dr O’Callaghan would have used the plural, schemes”.
Dr O’Callaghan asked the following supplementary question on the reply to question 2.
“Scheme actually refers to each individual district. Why didn’t the Leader give me that same information for question 2?”
Mr Parsons replied as follows:
“That’s absolutely a novel reworking of supplementary 1. I am struggling to see what on earth that has got to do with supplementary 2.”
(L) Mr Coxon asked the following question of the Leader or his nominee:
“I have previously been assured by the Leader that the County Council will continue to do all that it can to support the Ashby Partnership which is proving to be so successful. Could the Leader comment on what steps are being taken to build on the progress which has already been made in terms of seeking further investment in the town?”
Mr White replied as follows:
“A funding package of £361,000 is in place, to carry out the second phase of the town centre improvement works. This will complete the works which the people of Ashby told us, in a public meeting, were their priorities.
This will be starting in the New Year, and is planned to complete in late Spring.
The Ashby Town Centre Partnership has worked hard to plan and co- ordinate the detail of this work, with the support of the County Council's officer team.
For the future, the County Council hopes it can build on this good work with the Town Centre Partnership, and will be looking to see how it can secure additional public realm funding, to continue town centre improvement.”
DISPOSAL OF BUSINESS REMAINING FROM THE LAST MEETING.
77. FIRST REPORT OF THE CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE.
77(A) REVISION OF STANDING ORDERS (MEETING PROCEDURE RULES)
The following motion having been moved and seconded at the last meeting of the Council in accordance with Standing Order 37, was put and carried:-
“That the changes to Standing Orders (the Meeting Procedure Rules) as set out in Appendix 1 to the first report of the Constitution Committee, be approved.”
78. POSITION STATEMENTS.
The Leader presented a position statement on the following matters:
Education Partnership Agreement. Fair Share Campaign. The Local Area Agreement (LAA). Multi-faith Crematorium.
The Lead Member for Children and Young People’s Service presented a position statement on the following matters:
Annual Performance Assessment. Improving Standards. Review of Secondary Schools in Melton Mowbray and the Vale of Belvoir. Vox Pop. Awards. Recent Initiatives.
The Lead Member for Adult Social Care presented a position statement on the following matters:
Adult Social Care Services Star Rating. Other Developments.
The Chairman of the Scrutiny Commission presented a position statement on the following matters:
Medium Term Financial Strategy The Local Government White Paper
Copies to the Position Statements are attached.
REPORTS OF THE CABINET, SCRUTINY COMMISSION, SCRUTINY COMMITTEES AND OTHER BODIES:
79. REPORT OF THE CABINET.
79A. REVIEW OF SCHOOLS ORGANISATION IN MELTON MOWBRAY AND THE VALUE OF BELVOIR
It was moved by Mr Ould, seconded by Mr Hart and carried:
“That the action taken by the Cabinet relating to the Review of Schools Organisation in Melton Mowbray and the Vale of Belvoir, as set out in Section A of the report of the Cabinet, involving a likely variation to the Children and Young Persons Plan 2006 to 2009, be approved.”
79B. DISABILITY EQUALITY SCHEME
It was moved by Mrs Pendleton, seconded by Mr Houseman and carried:
“That the Leicestershire County Council Disability Equality Scheme 2006-2009, as referred to in Section B of the report of the Cabinet, be approved.”
79C. STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LEICESTERSHIRE
It was moved by Mr White, seconded by Mrs Camamile and carried:
“That the revised Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire, as referred to in Section C of the Report of the Cabinet, be approved.”
80. SECOND REPORT OF THE CONSTITUTION COMMITTEE.
80A PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CONSTITUTION - ESTABLISHMENT OF A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
It was moved by Mr Parsons and seconded by Mr Rushton:-
“ ‘(a) That approval be given to the establishment of a Community Engagement Scrutiny Committee with the following terms of reference and that Table A in Schedule 3 to the Articles of the Constitution be amended accordingly:-
1. To provide a point of reference for considering the role of the elected member as champion of the local community and make recommendations as to good practice.
2. To review and scrutinise the development of the neighbourhood engagement policy.
3. To review and scrutinise the implementation and operation of community forums and other proposals for empowering local communities, including the County Council’s relationship with district, parish and town councils.
4. To review and scrutinise the development of policies and procedures to ensure a flexible response to local needs of citizens and communities, including improved access for citizens to the County Council’s decision making and scrutiny processes.’
(b) That the process for nominations for Chairmanships of Standing Committees contained in the Schedule to the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules be amended to read as follows:-
‘Standing committees
1. The nominations for the Chairmanships of Overview and Scrutiny Committees will be made in accordance with the following procedure.
2. The chairmanship of the Scrutiny Commission will be held ex officio by the Leader of the largest Opposition group and, accordingly, is outside the procedure which follows.
3. Where the number is even, half of the remaining chairmanships will be held by Administration group(s) and half by Opposition group(s). Where the number is odd, the Administration group(s) will hold one more chairmanship than the Opposition group(s).
4. The remaining chairmanships will be claimed as follows:-
(a) Claiming a chairmanship includes selecting any one of the chairmanships which remain unfilled at the point at which the claim is made and naming the elected member who will be nominated to the County Council to hold that chairmanship.
(b) Where there are two or more Opposition groups, only a group which has at least five members will be eligible to participate in this process.
(c) Where there is a Joint Administration it is assumed that the political groups forming that Joint Administration will have agreed how they are to share between themselves the chairmanships claimed by the “Administration”.
(d) The Opposition and Administration groups will claim chairmanships in the following order:
1. Administration 2. Opposition 3. Administration 4. Opposition and so on
(e) Where there are two eligible Opposition groups, the first Opposition claim will be exercised by the smaller group and the second Opposition claim (the third claim in order) by the larger group. Where there are two opposition groups with an equal number of seats, unless agreement is reached otherwise, the order will be determined by the toss of a coin.
(f) Where the number of standing overview and scrutiny committees is increased beyond four, any additional chairmanships will be claimed by extending the rotation in paragraph (d) above.’ ”
An amendment was moved by Mr Brown and seconded by Dr O’Callaghan:-
“That paragraph (b) be deleted from the motion and the following inserted in its place:-
‘(b) Council notes:-
1) that the current constitution was approved by all parties and at full Council with a unanimous vote;
2) that since the new County Council was established in 1997, all constitutional amendments have had cross-party support;
3) that the structural changes for Scrutiny which were approved in May again had all party support and were agreed after intense discussions between the parties and at Scrutiny;
(c) Council regrets:
1) that these changes were not submitted to the Scrutiny Commission even though it met only the week before the Constitution Committee;
2) that these changes were introduced without prior notification or consultation with the opposition parties;
3) that the motion was introduced midway through the meeting of the Constitution Committee and voted through on a partisan manner;
4) the increasing use of patronage at County Hall in order to secure political support;
5) that there has been an erosion of trust between the Administration and opposition parties and other stakeholders in the County;
(d) Council further regrets:-
that the opposition has lost confidence in the Administration of the County Council to lead a non-partisan, democratic and inclusive Council for the benefit of all the people of Leicestershire.’ ”
On the amendment being put and before the vote was taken, five members rose asking that the vote be recorded. The vote was recorded as follows:
For the Amendment
Mr Bailey, Mr Bill, Mr Boulter, Mr Bown, Mr Brown, Mr Callis, Mr Charlesworth, Mr Galton, Mr Gamble, Mr Griffiths, Dr Hill, Mr Hunt, Mr Hyde, Mr Legrys, Ms Newton, Dr O’Callaghan, Mr Sheahan, Mr Stanley, Mr Stork, Mr Wilson and Mr Wright.
Against the Amendment
Mrs Camamile, Mr Coxon, Mrs Dickinson, Dr Feltham, Mr Fraser, Mr Garner, Mr Harley, Mr Hart, Mr Houseman, Mr Jennings, Mr Kershaw, Mr Lewis, Mr Liquorish, Mr Moore, Mr Natzel, Mr Orson, Mr Osborne, Mr Ould, Mr Page, Mrs Page, Mr Parsons, Mrs Pendleton, Prof Preston, Mr Rhodes, Mr Roffey, Mr Rushton, Mr Shepherd, Mrs Sherwin, Mr Snartt, Mr Sprason and Mr White.
The amendment was not carried, 21 members voting for the amendment and 31 against.
The motion was put and voted upon in two parts:-
Paragraph (a) of the motion was put and carried.
On paragraph (b) of the motion being put and before the vote was taken, five members rose asking that the vote be recorded. The vote was recorded as follows:
For paragraph(b) of the Motion
Mrs Camamile, Mr Coxon, Mrs Dickinson, Dr Feltham, Mr Fraser, Mr Garner, Mr Harley, Mr Hart, Mr Houseman, Mr Jennings, Mr Kershaw, Mr Lewis, Mr Liquorish, Mr Moore, Mr Natzel, Mr Orson, Mr Osborne, Mr Ould, Mr Page, Mrs Page, Mr Parsons, Mrs Pendleton, Prof Preston, Mr Rhodes, Mr Roffey, Mr Rushton, Mr Shepherd, Mr Snartt, Mr Sprason and Mr White.
Against paragraph (b) of the Motion
Mr Bailey, Mr Bill, Mr Boulter, Mr Bown, Mr Brown, Mr Callis, Mr Charlesworth, Mr Galton, Mr Gamble, Mr Griffiths, Dr Hill, Mr Hunt, Mr Hyde, Mr Legrys, Ms Newton, Dr O’Callaghan, Mr Sheahan, Mr Stanley, Mr Stork, Mr Wilson and Mr Wright.
Paragraph (b) of the motion was carried, 30 members voting for the motion and 21 against.
Accordingly the motion was declared carried.
81. APPOINTMENTS IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITEMS 11 AND 12 OF STANDING ORDER 4. It was moved by Prof Preston, seconded by Mr Moore and carried:
‘That the following appointments be made:-
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT SCRUTINY COMMITTEE
Conservative (6) Labour (3) Liberal Democrat(2)
1. Mr R J Shepherd CC (S) Nominations awaited Nominations awaited 2. Mrs J A Dickinson CC 3. Mr P G Lewis CC 4. Mr W Liquorish CC 5. Mr J S Moore CC 6. Mr A P Natzel CC
[ (S) Denotes Spokesmen) ]
82. NOTICES OF MOTION
82(A) CLIMATE CHANGE
It was moved by Mr Bailey and seconded by Mr Galton:-
‘a) That this Council notes: -
(i) the commitment already made in the County Council’s Medium Term Corporate Strategy to 2009 agreed in March 2006 to raise awareness of and response to the problems of climate change;
(ii) the emphasis being placed by the Government on the important contribution local authorities can make towards tackling climate change in the Local Government White Paper ‘Strong and Prosperous Communities’;
(iii) the recent publication by H.M. Treasury of the result of Stern Review on the economics of climate change;
(iv) that over 130 authorities have already decided to sign up to the ‘Nottingham Declaration’ which commits signatory authorities to develop plans in partnership with others to address the causes and impacts of climate change.
b) Accordingly, this Council, authorises the Leader and Chief Executive of Leicestershire County Council to sign up to the Nottingham Declaration, which reads as follows: -
“Leicestershire County Council recognises that Climate Change is likely to be one of the key drivers of change within our community this century.
We acknowledge that: -
• evidence continues to mount that climate change is occurring;
• climate change will have far reaching effects on the UK’s economy, society and environment.
We welcome the: -
• social, economic and environmental benefits which come from combating climate change;
• recognition by many sectors, especially government and business, of the need for change;
• emissions targets agreed by central government and the programme for delivering change, as set out in the Climate Change – UK Programme;
• opportunity for local government to lead the response at a local level and thereby play a major role in helping to deliver the national programme;
• opportunity for us to encourage and help local residents and local businesses – to reduce their energy costs, to reduce congestion, to improve the local environment and to deal with fuel poverty in our communities;
• additional powers to address the social, economic and environmental well-being of our communities contained within the Local Government Act 2000, which will assist in this process;
• endorsement of this declaration by central government.
We commit ourselves to: -
• work with central government to contribute, at a local level, to the delivery of the UK Climate Change Programme,
• prepare a plan with our local communities, by January 2008 to address the causes and effects of climate change and to secure maximum benefit for our communities;
• publicly declare, within the plan, the commitment to achieve a significant reduction of greenhouse gas emissions from our own authority’s operations especially energy sourcing and use, travel and transport, waste production and disposal and purchasing of goods and services;
• encourage all sectors in the local community to take the opportunity to reduce their own greenhouse gas emissions and to make public their commitment to action;
• work with key providers, including the health community, businesses and development organisations, to assess the potential effects of climate change on our communities, and to identify ways in which we can adapt;
• provide opportunities for the development of renewable energy generation within our area;
• monitor the progress of our plan against the actions needed and publish the results.”
c) That this Council: -
(i) requests the Cabinet to take all necessary steps in relation to the implementation of this declaration and to submit progress reports to the Council on the matter at appropriate intervals;
(ii) recognises the important role that Scrutiny must play throughout this process.’
At this juncture the Council adjourned to enable discussions to take place with a view to arriving at a proposal which could command all party support.
An amendment was moved by Mr Parsons and seconded by Dr O’Callaghan:-
“(A) That the County Council agrees to sign the Nottingham Declaration on an all-party basis by 1 st January, 2007;
(B) That the Scrutiny Commission be asked to consider the outcomes of the Scrutiny Review Panel on Energy, together with the principles of the Notice of Motion in the name of Mr Bown, which the Council welcomes, with a view to considering the Council’s existing response to the Environment agenda and recommending to the Cabinet and the Council an appropriate way forward and further action plans in respect of the Environment Strategy and other related strategies such as Climate Change and Waste.”
The mover of the original motion indicated his support for the amendment.
The amendment was put and carried.
The substantive motion was put and carried.
82(B) THE NHS IN LEICESTERSHIRE
It was moved by Mr Houseman and seconded by Mr White:
‘(a) That this Council notes with concern that:-
(i) the Health Service in Leicestershire finished the 2005/06 financial year with a collective deficit of £42million, that this year the NHS in England is forecasting a gross deficit of almost £900million and that the problems of NHS finance are having an adverse effect on the budget of local authorities;
(ii) historically, health bodies in Leicestershire have not received the level of funding appropriate to the health needs of the community;
(iii) the Government’s insistence that health bodies should achieve in-year financial balance means that health bodies are having to take drastic short term measures rather than being able to prepare realistic and deliverable financial plans;
(iv) as a result of the NHS financial crisis, vital services in the County have been closed or are under threat of closure involving amongst other things proposals being put forward to close a health home for people with learning disabilities, to carry out more ward closures and most recently asking the local hospital trust to delay operations.
(b) That this Council therefore resolves to write to the Secretary of State for Health calling on her to:-
(i) end excessive interference in the NHS from Whitehall so that decisions can be taken at a local level which better reflect the need of the communities served;
(ii) ensure that NHS funding is provided to areas in a way which accurately reflects not only the burden of disease but also recognises the additional costs of providing NHS services in rural counties;
(iii) end the requirement for achieving in-year financial balance which has led to drastic ill-thought through short term measures and risks cut-backs and closures of a number of programmes currently in place to address the rising epidemics of obesity, alcohol abuse and sexually transmitted diseases, each of which stand to make the provision of high quality health care more costly in the long term.’
An amendment was moved by Dr O’Callaghan and seconded by Mr John Legrys:-
“That the motion be amended to read as follows:-
‘Council notes that the motion submitted by the Conservative Councillors is an adaptation of a template motion developed by Conservative Central Office which starts:
“This Council notes with concern that:-
(1) [That the NHS in (area) finished the 2005-06 financial year with a collective deficit of £x million], that this year the NHS in England is forecasting a gross deficit of almost £900 million…”
Council regrets this interference by the Conservative Central Office in the affairs of Leicestershire County Council and its indications of Conservative centralism.
Council believes if the local Conservatives were genuinely concerned about the NHS in Leicestershire they could have put the motion on the next agenda of the Health Scrutiny Committee or written directly to the Minister for Health without waiting for a debate in Council since these figures have been available for several months.
Council is concerned about the inaccuracies in the notes section of the motion.
“i) the Health Service in Leicestershire finished the 2005/06 financial year with a collective deficit of £42 million”..
The published deficit for the collective Leicestershire PCT’s for 2005/6 was £15.7m (2.4% of the budget)
“iii) the Government’s insistence that health bodies should achieve in- year financial balance means that health bodies are having to take drastic short term measures rather than being able to prepare realistic and deliverable financial plans”
‘trusts with deficits may be allowed by their strategic health authority to achieve financial balance over a three-year period (or even over five years in exceptional cases.)’ – Kings Fund and DoH guidance
“iv) proposals being put forward to close a health home for people with learning disabilities … most recently asking the local hospital trust to delay operations”
The health home is a bungalow for three people, which would have to be replaced anyway under health home re-provision.
The plan not to treat patients in advance of national guarantees has been dropped.
Council feels therefore it would be folly to write to the Secretary of State for Health with concerns that are either inaccurate or that have not been substantiated.
Council welcomes
i) that spending on the NHS nationally has almost trebled rising from £33 billion in 1996/7 to £92 billion in 2007/8, a 2.8 fold increase;
ii) in Leicestershire the increase of over 40% in just the last three years from £471.9m (2003/4) to £663.4m (2005/6);
iii) the further 10.1% increase to £730.5m for 2007/8 for the County.
iv) the additional 32,000 doctors, and 83,000 nurses nationally since 1997 and their extra pay;
v) the extra 42 GP’s in Leicestershire since 2001, an increase of 5% in just four years, 18 more GP registrars, a 54% increase, and 30 more practice nurses;
vi) the new hospital buildings and equipment in Loughborough, Hinckley, Melton and UHL;
vii) the planned £700m+redevelopment of the UHL hospitals;
viii) the fall in national waiting lists by 400,000 and in waiting times for an operation from a maximum of over 18 months to below six months in almost all cases with an average in-patient wait of just seven weeks;
ix) the fall in county waiting lists with now no one in the county waiting more than 26 weeks (there were 1,117 in 2002);
x) the reduction in deaths due to significant improvements and investment in cancer and heart disease treatment along with improvements in treatment for cataracts and in casualty services;
xi) the recently announced reduction in waiting times for diagnostic tests.
Council would like to thank the doctors, nurses and all who work in the NHS for their dedication and hard work to achieve these results.
Council remembers the year on year cuts and dis-investment in the NHS when the Tories were in power.
Council is concerned that the Conservatives plan to spend less on the NHS into the longer term.
Council would like to believe David Cameron when he says “the NHS matters too much to be treated like a political football”.
Council notes that the Health Scrutiny Committee meeting on 6 November welcomed the joint commitment between LCR PCT and the UHL ‘to return the health economy to financial balance’.
Council suggests that if there is still genuine concern regarding the local NHS then the issue should be raised once again at the Adult and Health Services Scrutiny Committee and discussed with the appropriate NHS Chief Executives at the meeting.’
The amendment was put and not carried, 9 members voting for the amendment and 30 against.
The original motion was put and carried.
82(C) THE ENVIRONMENT
In view of the decision set out in Minute No 82A above the motion in the name of Mr Bown was withdrawn.
2.30 p.m. – 8.48 p.m. CHAIRMAN 6 December 2006 Working in partnership
THE STATEMENT OF REQUIREMENTS FOR DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS IN LEICESTERSHIRE
Produced by Leicestershire County Council December 2006 in consultation with District Councils and (Interim review version December 2007) other service providers in the County
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | A16 A1 5 miles CAMBRIDGE- SHIRE 8 kms Dover 7 4 6 LEICESTERSHIRE STAMFORD A47 ork 3 5
Y 1 A Sheffield 1
Newcastle M 4 n London 6 2
M 3 r Leeds Bristol Edinburgh 2 1 1 Glasgow Southampto Carlisle A6121 Birmingham 0 0 Mancheste A1 A606 A1 A47 CORBY Rutland Water Rutland RUTLAND KETTERING GRANTHAM A6003 UPPINGHAM A52 OAKHAM A607 BOTTESFORD A606 MELTON MOWBRAY MARKET NORTHAMPTONSHIRE MELTON BOROUGH MELTON A14 HARBOROUGH A607 A47 A6 A46 A6006 A606 SYSTON OADBY HARBOROUGH DISTRICT HARBOROUGH A46 A5199 WIGSTON A4304 A60 A6 19 M1 NOTTINGHAMSHIRE LUTTERWORTH LEICESTER BLABY OADBY & WIGSTON BOROUGH WIGSTON & OADBY BOROUGH 20 CHARNWOOD CHARNWOOD 21a 21 A426 NOTTINGHAM 1 RUGBY A453 BLABY DISTRICT BLABY 26 A47 23 M69 A50 LOUGHBOROUGH A5 M6 23a M1 22 2 M1 24 25 EARL SHILTON A511 A447 1 SHEPSHED A42 Nottingham A512 M69 East Midlands Airport 14 LEICESTERSHIRE 2 HINCKLEY COALVILLE 13 BOROUGH DISTRICT DERBY A444 12 3 HINCKLEY & BOSWORTH BOSWORTH & HINCKLEY WARWICKSHIRE ASHBY-DE-LA-ZOUCH COVENTRY DERBYSHIRE NORTH WEST LEICESTERSHIRE WEST NORTH NUNEATON 11 M6 UPON TRENT A5 BURTON STAFFS
| Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire
Contents
1 Introduction 4
2 Status of the Statement 6
3 Legal Agreements 7
4 Policy Context 9
5 Scope of these Guidelines 11
6 Types of Contributions 14
7 Pre-application and application discussions 19
8 Implementation and Monitoring of planning obligations 20
County Council Services 21
Other Services - Not provided by Leicestershire County Council 36
Appendix 1 Consultation 43 Appendix 2 Notification Procedures on Developer Contributions 46 Appendix 3 Standard Clauses & Legal Agreement 53
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire |
1 Introduction
1.1 The purpose of this statement is to provide guidance on the possible level and type of contribution that developers will be expected to make, to ensure the adequate provision of infrastructure and services for new developments. The County Council adopted its original supplementary guidance in March 2001, together with many of the District Planning Authorities (DPA). This guidance now requires review, in the light of changes in circumstances, revised calculations and experiences from the period since adoption.
1.2 The requirements of the various DPAs formed an integral part of the guidance. When this review process commenced agreement was reached with DPAs on this revised format for Countywide services.
1.3 New development can have a very positive effect on an area, providing new homes, jobs and economic prosperity. However new development can place additional pressures on resources and the infrastructure such as schools, community and leisure facilities, transport infrastructure, health services and the local ecology.
1.4 Developer contributions are intended to ensure that developers make appropriate provision for any losses, or supply additional facilities and services that are required as a result of the development. They are also intended to bring a development in line with the objectives of sustainable development as prescribed in relevant local, regional or national planning policies.
1.5 This statement uses the term developer contributions to describe the whole range of matters covered by legal agreements from financial contributions, maintenance payments, replacement of resources and the provision of infrastructure and public buildings. It covers all development that requires planning permission and of an appropriate scale.
1.6 A legal agreement, which sets out what a developer is required to contribute, ensures that provision is made to mitigate the impact of development and ensure that the scheme is acceptable in planning terms. The impact of new development will vary between development sites, and any agreement should reflect the specific circumstances of each individual case.
| Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 1.7 Current national guidance on the use of negotiated planning obligations is set out in the Circular 05/2005 “Planning Obligations”. This replaced Department of the Environment Circular 1/97, which is now cancelled.
1.8 The Government is currently consulting on potential fundamental changes to the system of developer contributions. Any subsequent changes will be responded to by means of a review of this document at the appropriate time. In the meantime, there is an urgent need for review of current guidance, especially given the deferment of a fundamental review of the developer contributions regime.
1.9 Until such review takes place, this statement provides guidance to developers, district councils, public sector service providers and the general public on the negotiation needed between Leicestershire County Council, district authorities, service providers and developers to prepare legal agreements, which secure developer contributions.
1.10 The role of this Statement is to provide guidance which develops the policies set out in the Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan, district Local Plans and emerging Local Development Frameworks and will be kept up to date through regular review. The guidance will also provide a procedural framework to ensure that the current requirements are known and applied at the decision making stage. Local planning authorities are encouraged to work together in seeking appropriate arrangements adopting, where appropriate, cross-boundary arrangements.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire |
2 Status of the Statement
2.1 It is intended that each individual district planning authority within the County will apply this statement of guidance, to complement their individual Supplementry Planning Documents for Developer Contributions towards their own service requirements. This statement has been approved as Leicestershire County Council policy for dealing with developer contributions towards County-wide services and infrastructure and has been produced in consultation with a wide rage of relevant bodies (see appendix 1).
2.2 In appropriate cases this statement will form a material consideration in the determination of planning applications and could form the basis for grounds for refusing a planning application if the requirements are not met. In some instances, it may be possible to make development proposals acceptable through the use of planning conditions (see Circular 11/95). Where this is not the case, it might be possible to make development acceptable through the use of planning obligations. (See paragraph 3.4 below).
2.3 This statement gives an indication of the level of contributions developers will be expected to make. However all contributions will be assessed on a site by site basis directly related to an individual proposal. This statement should be treated as a guide. Some of its content may not be relevant for all proposals and in certain instances additional or alternative elements may need to be addressed. Detailed discussion as to the precise nature of appropriate contributions may need to be undertaken.
2.4 The level of contributions may change as a result of inflation and other factors such as legislation, government advice, adoption of new development plans, experience gained through negotiation and securing agreements. Consequently the criteria for individual services will be reviewed annually, normally with effect from 1st April. The statement can be updated accordingly and a more substantial review will be undertaken when necessary.
| Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 3 Legal Agreements
Developer Contributions
3.1 The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) makes provision for voluntary legal agreements to be entered into with developers in conjunction with the grant of planning permission. These agreements may be identified in various ways (e.g. Section 106 agreements, planning contributions, planning obligations, planning gain and developer contributions). Developer contributions can enable a development to proceed which may have been otherwise refused because of the negative consequences that the development could potentially have on an area.
Planning Conditions and Planning Obligations
3.2 Developer Contributions is the generic term used to encompass both planning conditions and planning obligations. It is intended that the use of planning obligations outlined in this Statement will supplement rather than replace the use of planning conditions. As noted in Circular 05/2005, if there is a choice between imposing conditions and entering a planning obligation, the imposition of a condition which satisfies the policy tests of Circular 11/95 is preferable.
3.3 Some service or infrastructure needs cannot be dealt with by a planning condition, especially if they relate to off-site requirements or take the form of a financial contribution. In such cases, it will be appropriate for developer contributions to be sought through the use of a planning obligation.
Types of Obligation
3.4 Planning obligations can be provided as either planning agreements or unilateral undertakings made by the developer. In many cases, it is expected that local planning authorities and developers will finalise planning obligations through a planning agreement, within the context of granting planning consent. However it is open to the developer to submit a unilateral agreement to support a proposal.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 3
3.5 Planning obligations might be used to i) prescribe the nature of a development; or ii) to secure a contribution from a developer to compensate for loss or damage created by a development (e.g. loss of open space); or iii) to mitigate a development’s impact on the locality (e.g. through improved public transport provision). The outcome of all three types of contribution should be that the proposed development concerned is made to comply as far as practicable with published local, regional or national planning policies.
Model Legal Agreements and Clauses
3.6 In consultation with district planning authorities, Leicestershire County Council has produced standardised clauses and a model legal agreement, (Appendix 3) to assist applicants in the early stages of the planning process. This will help to secure all the necessary information required for planning application negotiations at an early stage.
3.7 Provision can be made for a Deed of Variation (of Memorandum), where there are amendments to a development proposal and the substance of the original legal agreement can still apply.
| Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire
4 Policy Context
National Policy Context
4.1 The 1990 Town and Country Planning Act (as amended by the Planning and Compensation Act 1991) establishes the statutory framework for developer contributions in the form of section 106 planning obligations. The Act provides that a planning obligation may:
(i) be unconditional or subject to conditions; (ii) impose any restriction or requirement for an indefinite or specified period; (iii) provide for payments of money to be made, either of a specific amount or by reference to a formula, and require periodical payments to be paid indefinitely or for a specified period.
4.2 Circular 05/2005 is of fundamental relevance to the implementation of the Act. It requires planning obligations to be sought only if they meet the following ‘necessity test’.
(i) relevant to planning; (ii) necessary to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms; (iii) directly related to the proposed development; (iv) fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the proposed development; and (v) reasonable in all other aspects.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 4
Strategic Policy Context
4.3 Strategy Policy 11 of the adopted Leicestershire, Leicester and Rutland Structure Plan 1996-2016 sets the strategic policy context for the use of developer contributions. It states;
“Developers should meet the requirements for, and cost of, relevant infrastructure and facilities and other resources required to support the development. A comprehensive assessment of these requirements will be made.”
Local Plan Context
4.4 Each district authority in the County of Leicestershire will have policies on developer contributions in their Local Plans, emerging Local Development Frameworks (LDFs) and Supplementary Planning Documents (SPDs). The relevant Local Plan and Local Development Framework policies set out general requirements for infrastructure, services and amenities in an area and sometimes contain more specific requirements for specific sites.
4.5 Where windfall sites come forward, the relevant policies in Local Plans and/or Local Development Frameworks will apply and their application will be guided by each District Planning Authority’s own Developer Contribution Statement, Supplementary Planning Documents and this Statement.
4.6 Specific considerations apply in respect of developer contributions towards National Forest objectives in the National Forest area. These are set out in the National Forest Planting Strategy (Refer to Table.17. Page- 94 of the Strategy) and the National Forest Guide for Developers and Planners. (Refer to the complete document).
10 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire
5 The scope of these guidelines
5.1 There is an extensive range of facilities and public benefits provided by the County Council, and other County-wide service providers that could be appropriate for developer contributions.
5.2 These could include: (This is not an exhaustive list.)
Adult Social Care
Civic Amenity
• Waste Management (Civic Amenity Sites)
Community Safety
• Fire and rescue cover, including hydrants • Policing
Ecology/Geology/Environment/Geomorphology
Education
• Primary sector accommodation • Secondary sector accommodation • Other facilities & buildings (e.g. Community Education, and related child-care facilities)
Health
• Health care facilities
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 11 5
Highways and Transportation
• Access and highways infrastructure • Public transport facilities • Pedestrian and cycle facilities • Parking • Rights of way • Traffic management
Library Services
• Extension, new building and initial purchase of equipment / material
Museums, Heritage Interpretation and Cultural Development
• Museums and Arts
National Forest Planting Provision
Recreation/Community Facilities/Amenity land
• Community halls • Recreation, leisure and sports facilities • Social/economic and training facilities
5.3 Areas of contribution which are the responsibility of the District Council will be covered in their individual Local Plans and subsequently the replacement Local Development Frameworks or Developer Contribution SPDs. (e.g. open space, affordable housing).
12 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 5
5.4 Although the infrastructure requirements identified for a given development may be reasonable, in exceptional circumstances it may not always be possible to secure them all. In these circumstances requirements will be prioritised by County and District authorities in conjunction with all the agencies involved.
5.5 The protocol for ensuring that all County Council service providers have the opportunity to assess the infrastructure and service needs arising from a new development proposals are described in the Notification Procedures on Developer Contributions, Appendix 2.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 13
6 Types of Contributions
6.1 The type and scale of contribution required will be directly related to the impact of the proposed development on local services, infrastructure and resources. Contributions may either be in kind or in the form of a financial contribution. In the case of financial contributions payments can be made in the form of a lump sum, which may have to be paid in advance, as phased payments over a period of time or related to defined dates, events or triggers. Many projects rely on multiple developers or part Council-funding, in which case the developer contribution will need to be paid in advance.
6.2 A planning obligation can seek to offset the loss of, of damage to, a feature or resource on a site (e.g. a landscape or ecological resource). This can be provided through substitution, replacement or regeneration. It may not be necessary to provide a like-for-like substitute, but a reasonable obligation will seek to restore facilities, resources and amenities to a quality equivalent to that which existed before the development.
6.3 If the legal agreement states that a sum of money must be paid, the agreement must also set out the time frame for when the money must be spent. This will depend on local circumstances and what is considered appropriate. If the money is not spent within the time agreed the developer can expect to be reimbursed the outstanding amount plus any interest accumulated.
Maintenance payments
6.4 Where contributions are secured for the provision of facilities primarily for the people who will reside on the development or neighbouring residents, it may be appropriate for the developer to contribute to their subsequent maintenance. As a general rule, where an asset is intended for wider public use, the costs of ongoing maintenance and other recurrent expenditure associated with the developer’s contributions should normally be borne by the County Council or relevant public sector body. Where contributions to the ongoing maintenance of new facilities are appropriate, these should reflect the time lag between the provision of the new facility and its inclusion in public sector funding streams. Payments will be time-limited with an end date. Both parties should agree the type of payments to be made e.g. regular payments, or commuted sums, all with a clear audit trail.
14 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire Pooled contributions
6.5 There will be occasions when development in a particular locality is divided between developers or is planned to be developed in a phased manner. The needs created by the development as a whole will be calculated and used as the basis on which to seek contributions from all the developers involved. Developers’ contributions will be ‘pooled’, in order to allow the infrastructure to be secured in a fair and equitable way.
6.6 Pooled contributions may be required if there is (are) other development(s) taking place, which collectively will place a demand on services within the area. For example, in relation to education pooled contributions will be sought if several developers come forward with site proposals in the catchment area for one particular school. Pooling can take place both between developments and with other local authorities where there is a cross-authority impact.
6.7 In some cases an individual development will have some impact, but not sufficient to justify the need for a specific element of infrastructure. It will be necessary to consider whether it is appropriate to seek contributions for overall service provision (the ‘necessity test’ will have to be demonstrated). In these cases, spare capacity in existing infrastructure provision should not be credited to earlier developers, whilst subsequent inadequate facilities costs are borne by later developers.
6.8 If Leicestershire County Council provides an item of infrastructure arising from the collective impact of several new developments, and further developments subsequently come forward, the later developers may still be required to contribute the relevant proportion of the costs. Similarly, spare capacity in existing infrastructure provision will not be credited necessarily to earlier developers.This practice can still meet the requirements of the Secretary of State’s policy tests if the need for the infrastructure and the proportionate contributions have been is set out in advance.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 15 6
Commercial development
6.9 Large commercial developments may have service and infrastructure needs because large numbers of people will be brought to the area for employment. If the County Council is able to quantify that there is a particular need directly related to the development, contribution will be sought in relation to employment sites. Traditionally the type of need identified for employment sites have largely been in relation to such items as transportation and footpaths. Where appropriate contributions for other services, (e.g. community and library services, leisure and recreational facilities) will also be sought.
Standard Charges and Formulae
6.10 Where it is appropriate Leicestershire County Council will make use of standard charges and formulae as part of the framework for negotiating and securing planning obligations. This should make pre-application discussions easier and speedier because developers will have greater certainty about how much they will be expected to contribute.
6.11 Standard charges will be consistent, but will also reflect the actual impacts of the development and will comply with the general tests required by Government guidance. Whether or not a standard charge is sought will depend upon the nature of the proposed development. Standard charges and formulae will also be used for small developments that have an accumulative effect on communities.
6.12 Where standard formulae are applied to contributions, developers and other parties should be mindful that the criteria/rates may require incremental increases after 1st April. Where contributions have been calculated in one financial year, they are likely to require re-assessment if there is a delay in completing of a legal agreement. Local planning authorities are expected to make provision for this situation within their resolutions on planning proposals at the determination stage.
16 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 6
6.13 Such charges operate under the current system of legislation and are distinct from the potential ‘planning gain supplement’ being promoted by the Government. The introduction of an alternative regime has been deferred for the time being. Leicestershire County Council and other agencies will respond to any changes in the developer contributions regime, as and when new guidance is published.
Cost recovery
6.14 The County Council considers that it should reasonably be able to recover a degree of the costs entailed in the negotiating, making and subsequent monitoring of developer contributions. This might be the case, where it can be demonstrated that such payments make a significant contribution to the speed and efficiency with which negotiations are completed.
6.15 In anticipation of new Government Good Practice Guidance, Local Planning Authorities might reasonable recover the costs of;
i) Legal fees for the processing, preparation and conclusion of legal agreements; ii) costs of monitoring the payment and implementation of schemes; iii) Potentially, the costs of obtaining independent advice, if necessary, to validate specific aspects of the application.
6.16 In the context of (ii) above, it would seem reasonable to seek a payment of either 0.5% of the total sum of contributions towards CC services or £250 per individual contribution, whichever is greater.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 17 6
Payment of financial contributions
6.17 The timing and method of financial contributions will be negotiated and set out in the legal agreement that is drawn up. The agreement will also detail the phasing or/ trigger for payments and /or infrastructure contribution(s). Payments received the County Council as a result of developer contributions will be used solely for the purpose set out in the agreement.
6.18 There may be circumstances where the cost of preparing legal agreements are not justified for securing payment of small amounts of monies. The County Council will accept ‘up-front’ financial contributions in lieu of a formal agreement, secured towards a particular facility or service. Such contributions will be administered in a transparent matter to ensure accountability.
18 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire
7 Pre-application and application discussions
7.1 It is frequently the case for the terms of a S106 agreement to be agreed and in place before planning permission is given. The County Council (and district planning authority) recognises the benefits to all parties of pre- application negotiations in establishing the level of contributions and ensuring timely determination of proposals. It will facilitate early negotiation through the formal protocol set out in Appendix 2. Therefore, it is important that developers/agents contact the appropriate named co-ordinator in the County Council with sufficient details about the type and location of a proposed scheme, if they wish to be informed about the likely level of contributions they will have to make for a particular development. Where appropriate this can enable a developer to submit a unilateral agreement in conjunction with a planning application.
7.2 Government guidance in PPG3 and PPS1 places emphasis on developing previously developed sites before greenfield land. Certain sites have higher development costs and therefore the scale of contributions required will take account of the development costs of each proposal. In some circumstances the obligation to make certain contributions may prevent a development from going ahead, because the scheme would be financially unviable (e.g. additional costs associated with land clearance and de-contamination). In these circumstances, the responsibility lies with the developer to provide evidence of the financial viability of the scheme. If appropriate, the County Council agree to ask for less contributions for a particular site, if the benefits of the site being developed outweigh the loss of the developer contribution.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 19 Implementation and Monitoring 8 of planning obligations
8.1 Government guidance emphasises the importance of efficient and transparency in the handling of developer contributions. The County Council aims to achieve these objectives by the following means:
• establishing and developing its developer contribution monitoring system (for example creating a shared database), to help co-ordinate obligation preparation, completion, monitoring and review;
• providing regular up-dates to Councillors, Planning Committees, Cabinets, and Scrutiny Committees, and the wider community;
• ensuring financial contributions are used for the specific purposes for which they are required, through transparent accounting procedures;
• liaison between County Councils and District Councils, where infrastructure and facilities are provided by one level of authority but the financial contribution is held by the other; and
• explaining how financial contributions will be dealt with when service provision does not proceed.
• the use of financial contributions are to be reported and published to ensure transparency.
20 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire County Council Services Adult Social Care & Health
1. Name of service Adult Social Care & Health
2. Category of service County Council provider
3. Current Guidance Circular 05/2005 on the issue Government’s White Paper “Our Health, Our Care, Our Say”
4. Type of facilities Community facilities for adults which may include day and / for which provision or residential services. Care Services for adults of all ages may be needed including those with learning and / or physical disabilities. Multi- agency, integrated community facilities e.g. Health and Social Care Centre, Community Centre, extended school. (as promoted in the Government’s White Paper “Our Health, Our Care, Our Say”).
5. Type of development which might trigger need i. Residential Any residential development is likely to have an impact on the County’s Adult Social Care provision. Some developments may have a more acute impact. Developments likely to house a high concentration of older people, people with learning disabilities or people with physical disabilities will have a greater demand on services. These developments will be assessed on a case by case basis.
ii. Other
6. Form in which Cash or land, as appropriate. payments should be made
7. Contributions to Further details of the methodology for calculating capital costs or contributions and formulae are under review and will be revenue costs subject to review in the near future.
8. Threshold for size Any development may trigger a need for contributions. of development for which contributions are appropriate
9 Contact person Chris Williams Head of Finance Adult Social Care, County Hall, Glenfield, Leicester, LE3 8RA. Tel 0116 265 6946. email: [email protected]
10 Last updated October 2007
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 21 County Council Services Civic Amenity - Waste Management
1. Name of service Civic Amenity - Waste Management
Category of Service 2. County Council - Waste Disposal Authority Provider
3. Current Guidance Circular 05/2005 Environmental Protection Act (1990)
PPS10 Planning for Sustainable Waste Management –PPS10 sets out the Government’s policy to be taken into account by waste planning authorities and forms part of the Waste Management Plan for the UK
Leicestershire Leicester Rutland Waste Local Plan
Leicestershire Municipal Waste Management Strategy 2006
4. Type of Facilities for Civic Amenity (CA) site construction costs for extensions or alterations which provision may be to existing infrastructure or the same at sites of new facilities. needed Currently contributions for other types of facilities are not claimed for but this will not preclude claims for them in the future.
5. Type of development which might trigger need
a) Residential Where a new development increases the number of residential households in an area there will be increased patronage/use of the local CA site/s. This can lead to a lack of capacity at the local CA site.
b) Other Contributions will not normally be sought for other types of development for example commercial industrial leisure/recreational and student halls of residence.
The CA site facilities are provided for resident households to take their own household waste. Other types of users are normally not eligible or are highly unlikely to use the CA facilities so contributions are not sought at present.
The contribution rate for all CA sites is currently reviewed on an annual basis. The rate requested per CA site varies and currently the highest amount is £87.26 per additional dwelling unit.
7. Form in which payments Financial contribution for capital costs. Where the contributions are should be made relatively small amounts, then payment of the contribution/s are normally required in full prior to the commencement of the development. The amount of the contribution will be index-linked normally to the BCIS index as applied to other County Council claims.
Contributions to Capital 8. Capital costs only. costs or Revenue Costs
22 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire
9. Threshold for size Contributions will be sought where: of development for which contributions (i) the number of additional dwellings amount to 6 or more are appropriate (ii) the total contribution sum would amount to £200 or more.
Each additional dwelling unit is claimed at the same rate and the total number of additional dwelling units claimed for is net of any demolitions.
Contributions may be sought from smaller sized developments if they form part of an overall development in an area.
10. Geographical areas Contributions are determined by assessing which CA site(s) where there is no the residents of a new developments are likely to use. If the spare capacity nearest CA site is one of the following then we currently claim for a contribution: - Barwell, Coalville, Kibworth, Loughborough, Lount, Market Harborough, Melton Mowbray, Oadby and Sileby.
Where it is deemed that two CA sites are equally likely to be used by residents then contributions are sought at a reduced rate of 50% for each site.
Notwithstanding a residential development application will be assessed on its impacts/merits in terms of waste management issues and this may result in a request not in line with the above, for example claims may be made for a contribution
11. Contact Person Nigel Shilton Waste Projects Officer Department of Highways, Transportation and Waste Management Leicestershire County Council County Hall Glenfield Leicestershire LE3 8RJ Tel: 0116 2656833 Fax: 0116 2658128
13. Last Update October 2007
Review Date The rate requested per CA site varies currently the highest amount required is £87.26 per additional dwelling.
14. Retention of The contribution will be retained for 5 years from the date of contribution payment.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 23 County Council Services Ecology/Geology/Environment/Geomorphology
1. Name of service Ecology/ Geology/ Environment /Geomorphology
Category of service 2. County, District and Environmental Consultancy provider
3. Current Guidance on the Circular 05/2005 issue East Midlands Regional Spatial Strategy PPS9 Planning Policy Statement 9: Biodiversity and Geological Conservation PPS9 sets out planning policies on protection of biodiversity and geological conservation through the planning system. UK Biodiversity Action Plan The Development Plan for the area Local Biodiversity Action Plan Regional Biodiversity Strategy
4. Type of facilities for Mitigation exercises, habitat restoration/ habitat creation, landscaping, which provision may be site management, and site interpretation, where possible using natural needed species, commonly occurring in the vicinity and of local stock. (Green and Environmental Infrastructure).
5. Type of development 1. Residential and 2. Other Development : which might trigger need -All likely impacts on ecologically or geologically sensitive locations will need to be assessed individually, on both residential and other development sites; i. Residential no thresholds apply. ii. Other The extent of the ecological or geological interest will need to be located and defined by prior assessment. -Costs will need to be individually assessed for each project/development.
6. Form in which payments Financial contribution, control of land or other forms of payment, as should be made appropriate; Provision and compensating wildlife sites. (See English Nature’s Guidelines for further detail on compensating wildlife sites).
7. Contributions to capital For all projects involving habitat creation and landscaping, costs or revenue costs contributions are required to capital costs of implementation and to maintenance costs, which may be long term (up to 3 years) and in the form of a commuted payment.
8. Threshold for size of No thresholds apply if sensitive site affected. development for which contributions are appropriate
9.. Geographic areas National Nature Reserves, Special Areas of Conservation, Sites of Special where there is no spare Scientific Interest, Local Wildlife Sites/Local Sites, Local Nature Reserves. capacity
10 Contact person Leicestershire Environmental Resources Centre, Holly Hayes Birstall, Leicester LE4 4DG Tel 0116-267-0008 e-mail: [email protected]
11 Last updated September 2007
24 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire County Council Services Children & Young People’s Service (Education)
1. Name of service Children & Young People’s Service (Education)
2. Category of service County Council/Agents provider 3. Current Guidance on Circular 05/2005 the issue The Development Plan for the area. 4. Type of facilities for Sites for new schools, construction costs of new schools, which provision may contributions towards additional classrooms and facilities/ be needed. other building provision of existing schools (including additional grass/artificial turf sports pitches and nature areas)
5. Type of development A contribution will be required for existing schools, towards the which might trigger cost of additional primary and secondary school places, where need. there is a need. Contributions will be calculated on the basis of a minimum of 24 primary places and 20 secondary places per 100 i Residential houses. For flats/apartments the current figures are 4.3 primary pupils and 3.2 secondary pupils per 100 units. Information about local pupil yields will be taken into account in setting the precise requirements. The costs per pupil place based on DCSF cost multipliers, are £10,422 for primary, £15,713 for 11-16 year old pupils and £16,839 for 16+ students based on 2006/07 figures. On a ‘per house built’ basis this equates to £2,501.28 per house for primary, £1,571.30 per house for 11 – 14 High Schools, and £1,608.46 per house for 14 – 18 upper schools. On a ‘per flat built’ basis this equates to £448.15 per flat for primary, £251.41 per flat for 11-14 High schools, and £257.41 per flat for 14-18 upper schools. These cost multipliers are updated on April 1st each year. Where circumstances arise when a new school is required then a developer would be expected to make a developer contribution in the form of a suitable site or piece of land for a new school and the construction costs of the school building/s and/or facilities, including professional fees, furniture and equipment and/or works in kind to the County Council’s specifications. The construction costs in these instances will exceed the costs per pupil place quoted above and will vary according to the conditions & configuration of each individual site. For guidance the latest 210 place Leicestershire Primary School was completed at a build cost of £3.1 million, in March 2006, exclusive of land costs, fees and equipment.
ii. Other The value of contributions will be based upon either DCSF cost multipliers current at the time of the signing of the formal agreement or the appropriate cost multipliers plus an index linked update (as defined earlier), whichever is the greater. Proposals to redevelop an existing school site by a developer would normally trigger need for a replacement school.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 25 County Council Services Children & Young People’s Service (Education) Cont...
6. Form in which Land where required and either the costs of construction of payments should be buildings or work in kind to the County Council’s specification, made. as detailed by the Director of Property. 7. Contributions to Capital only, normally. capital costs or revenue costs. 8. Threshold for size of 10 dwellings (or less in the case of ‘pooled’ contributions). development for which contributions are appropriate. 9. Geographic areas Since school capacity varies from term to term, consultation where there is no with the Education Department is essential to establish spare capacity. whether or not there is spare capacity in a given school. 10. Contact person Bob Dutton, Service Manager, Room 700, County Hall, Glenfield, Leicester LE3 8RF. Tel: 0116 265 6336.
Chris Page, Learning Environment Team, Room 700, County Hall, Glenfield, Leicester LE3 8RF. Tel: 0116 265 6375.
11. Last updated Sept 2007
26 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire County Council Services Highways and Transportation
1. Name of service Highways and Transportation
2. Category of County Council service provider (Note: The Highways Agency is responsible for Motorways and other Trunk Roads.
3. Current Guidance Circular 05/2005 on the issue PPS13 The Development Plan Highways, Transportation and Development www.leics.gov.uk/htd (“HTD”)
4. Type of facilities Pedestrian and cycle facilities, public transport enhancement for which (bus and rail, capital and revenue), Travel Plans, park and ride provision may be facilities, road improvements, traffic management, car parking, needed traffic regulation orders, and associated landscape work including planting and hard surfacing. 5. Type of Any type of development which leads to a material increase development in traffic on the network, or is detrimental to road safety, or which might has inadequate access (including walking, cycling and public trigger need transport), or has inadequate parking provision, or creates an on-street parking problem or affects a public right of way. See “HTD”.
Requirements will depend on the particular circumstances relating to the development and may include, for example, highway implications such as parental car parking at schools and traffic management. The submission of a Transport Assessment helps in assessing requirements. 6. Form in which The required infrastructure will generally be provided by the payments should developer, but some matters may be covered by a financial be made contribution.
7. Contributions to Generally capital but some revenue, for example bus capital costs or subsidy and particular maintenance liabilities. Maintenance revenue costs contributions usually take the form of a commuted sum.
Liability included for compensation arising from development highway works.
8. Threshold for size No minimum level as need for contribution will depend on local of development circumstances. See “HTD”. for which contributions are appropriate
9. Geographic areas Not hitherto a consideration for highways/ transport where there is no contributions. Potentially for future consideration but additional spare capacity to any site-specific requirements.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 27 County Council Services Highways and Transportation Cont...
10 Contact person Allan Headley, Tel 0116-265-7187 (Charnwood, Melton, NW Leics.) Ian Dutton, Tel 0116-265-7185 (Blaby, Hinckley and Bosworth, Harborough, Oadby and Wigston). John Glover, Tel 0116-265-7195 (General Liaison).
11 Last updated 2006
28 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire County Council Services Library Services
1. Name of service Library Services
Category of service 2. County Council provider
Circular 05/2005
Current Guidance Review of the Libraries and Information Service Network Service 3. on the issue Delivery Policy and Strategy
The Development Plan for the area and the Community Strategy
Type of facilities 4. for which provision Access to library and information materials and equipment. may be needed
5. Type of development which might trigger need
i. Residential Any new residential development has potential for increasing the service delivery. ii. Other A large commercial/employment development could lead to an increase in the use of local library services
6. Form in which Cash in the majority of cases, however, for some large scale payments should developments shared use of new/converted buildings may be more be made appropriate.
7. Contributions to A contribution will be required for the enhancement of existing static capital costs or library buildings and mobile provided services. Calculations are based on the average number of residents per type of dwelling, revenue costs the current provision of library materials per resident, the current average price of library materials and the numbers that use the service. These factors are converted into a formula for a cost per type of dwelling. Current costs are 1 bedroomed houses @ £26.44 per house 2 bedroomed houses @ £52.87 per house 3/4/5 bedroomed houses @ £61.68 per house 1 bedroomed apartments @ £26.44 per apartment 2 bedroomed apartments @ £52.87 per apartment 3/4/5 bedroomed apartments @ £61.68 per apartment
These costs are reviewed annually in June and adjusted to reflect the CIPFA submitted costs of providing Library Services
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 29 County Council Services Library Services Cont...
8. Threshold for size Any new development has potential for increasing the service of development for delivery but the de-minimus development below which contributions which contributions are not required is 3 dwellings. are appropriate
9. Geographic areas A flat rate (formula based) contribution is used in all cases where there is no spare capacity
10. Contact person Paul Love, Community Service Department, 4th Floor, County Hall, Glenfield, Leicester LE3 8SS. Tel 0116 265 7376
11. Last updated July 2006
30 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire County Council Services Museums, Heritage Interpretation and Cultural Development Cultural Planning
1. Name of service Museums, Heritage Interpretation and Cultural Development Cultural Planning
2. Category of service County Council provider 3. Current Guidance Circular 05/2005 on the issue The Development Plan for the area
Draft Museums Interpretation Strategy 2007-2017 Environment & Heritage Service Plan 2007-2010 4. Type of facilities Local museum / site interpretation / Open Museum community for which provision showcase / Arts / Cultural planning to encourage more aesthetic may be needed environment (e.g. public art,) / Community Nature areas.
Community learning room (for museum activities with local community and school groups); physical access improvements to museum premises; intellectual access to collections and related information including information about local heritage and cultural amenities (via ICT and other interpretation methods) which adds to local quality of life.
5. Type of development which might trigger need
i. Residential Any development associated with a site or issue of cultural or heritage significance. (The precise triggering mechanism may need to be developed through experience between the Developer Contributions Coordinator and Environment & Heritage in Community Services Department)
Any residential increase in population near a museum (say half an hour’s drive time) triggers greater need for museum facilities especially but not only developments associated with a site or issue of cultural or heritage significance.
ii. Other 6. Form in which Financial contribution; land or sites, where appropriate payments should be made 7. Contributions to As appropriate capital costs or revenue costs 8. Threshold for size See above note on type of development which may trigger of development for need. which contributions are appropriate
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 31 County Council Services Museums, Heritage Interpretation and Cultural Development Cultural Planning
9.. Geographic areas Not applicable where there is no spare capacity
10 Contact person Yolanda Courtney Environment & Heritage in Community Services Department, County Hall, Tel 0116-265-6642 E-mail: [email protected]
11 Last updated Sept 2007
32 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire County Council Services Recreation, Community Facillities and Amenity Land
1 Name Of Service Recreation, Community Facilities and Amenity Land 2 Category of service County Council District and Parish Councils and Voluntary provider Groups 3 Current Guidance on Circular 05/2005 the issue PPS17 Planning for Open Space, Sport and Recreation National Playing Fields Association Standards Sport England Facilities Planning Model Leicestershire Leicester City and Rutland Playing Fields Strategy National Forest Strategy County Sports Partnership Business Plan (under review) BSEN 1176/1177 (Children Playgrounds)
4 Type of facilities for which New or extended community halls, public open space including provision may be needed. amenity land, water facilities and pathways for use by the public play facilities for children (including equipment) sports pitches (grass or artificial) indoor or outdoor sports facilities allotment gardens. Local nature reserves, land of biodiversity/wildlife potential (Green and Environmental Infrastructure)
Type of development 5 a) Provision should relate to specific local need (or contributions which might trigger towards projects of regional significance). need b) Even small developments of 10 to 15 units may trigger need i. Residential for extra or new children’s play space or equipment. c) Larger developments may need provision of additional land on the basis of 2.4 hectares per 1000 people (pro rata).
Developments over 1000 people are likely to generate need for new community halls or expansion / improvement of existing facilities.
d) Developments over 20,000 people will generate the need for major indoor / outdoors sports facilities to be agreed with the local planning authority.
a) Specialist residential or day care institutions may be required to provide their own recreation facilities or contribute to public facilities as appropriate. ii. Other b) Large industrial / commercial developments may generate excess demand on existing leisure facilities. Consideration should be given to the need for access to leisure provision before / after work (by for example commuters) as well as lunchtime leisure requirements by employees including land of nature conservation value.
Where new industrial or commercial development occurs it may impede or discourage opportunities for physical activity. In some cases where it can be shown that there is a detrimental impact on such opportunities, then contributions might be sought towards accessible alternative recreational and leisure facilities.
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 33 County Council Services Recreation, Community Facillities and Amenity Land Cont...
6 Forms in which Provision of land (especially for children’s play and amenity open payment must be made space); creation of equipped playgrounds and sports pitches; financial contributions to LEA/ schools for shared use facilities; financial contributions to local authorities to enhance other facilities; dedicated public rights of way; financial contributions for dedicated revenue programmes that deal with health inequalities, community safety and social inclusion issues etc
7 Contributions to capital Capital contributions towards initial development costs with costs or revenue costs possible commuted sum to deal with long term maintenance.
Residential • A contribution of between £750 and £1100 per dwelling unit. (determined on the basis of each planning application) should be sought for capital costs from residential developments. Time limited funds may also be sought for dedicated revenue programmes.
• Contributions should be sought from a) minor developments where appropriate and b) where an area experiences for example accumulative developments which result in a significant increase in population and related leisure/recreational demands.
Contributions arising from non residential development may be Other sought on the basis of the scale and type of development and the availability of existing recreational facilities and demand for additional facilities. 8 Threshold for size of Normally 10 houses, though specialist institutions may generate development for which exceptional demand (especially for children’s play or recreational contributions are sport) appropriate The thresholds for contributions to the district services may be as low as a single unit. 9 Geographic areas Capacity issues are dependent on the nature of the where there is no spare development and the basis of the planning application. capacity 10 Contact person David Stock, Facilities Officer Leicestershire & Rutland Sport Netball Centre Loughborough University Loughborough Leicestershire. LE11 3TU 11 Last updated October 2007
34 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire Other Services - Not provided by Leicestershire County Council Health Care
1. Name of service Health Care 2. Category of Service Other Services Provider 3. Current Guidance Circular 05/05 Health Care Business Plans Public Health Strategies Development plans for the area 4. Type of Facilities Sites of New Facilities for which provision Construction Costs for additional Facilities / extensions or may be needed alterations.
5. Type of development which might trigger need
a) Residential Where a development increases the population of an area and where there is extra demand on the local health care provision. The contribution will be based on the Health Formula which considers the following areas which impact on Health Care Services
Population Capacity Public Health needs assessment Deprivation GP list sizes Population distribution, (Age, Culture)
b) Other Expansion of any area that will impact on the demand for Health Care the same or similar formula will apply, for example:
Expansion of Universities
Expansion or contraction of major employer
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 35 Other Services - Not provided by Leicestershire County Council Health Care Cont...
6. Health Care Property Type Number Value Formula A 1-2 Bed £583
B 3-4 Bed £1,167
C 5+ Bed £1,750
D Students £219
Deprivation Ward/Area Value 0 to 40 + Factor Calculation factor 0.8 to 1.4
MIPS (Current) 395
7. Form in which Capital Monies payments should Land or buildings be made
8. Contributions to Capital costs to contribute to the expansion of Health Care Capital costs or provision either are a payment for a specific area or into a Revenue Costs pooled contribution for that area where there is a progressive expansion.
The level of contribution will be in accordance with the Health Care Formula and linked to the MIPS Health Care inflation index. 9. Threshold for size The standard threshold is 10 units, but this will be reduced to of development 5 or less if an area is being developed in small sites. for which contributions are appropriate 10. Geographical areas The PCT’s will divide their area into specific zones that will where there is no include a number of Council wards, e.g. using the Public spare capacity Health neighbourhoods system. The capacity in each zone will be calculated and the level of short fall or not will form the basis of a case of need for any request for a contribution 11. Contact Person Mr Ian Derbyshire Head of Estates & Facilities Charnwood & North-West Leicestershire PCT Woodgate, Loughborough, LE11 2TZ
Tel: 01509 568664 / 567797
36 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 12. PCT Contacts and Each individual PCT will provide its own developer arrangements Contribution needs assessment and supporting documentation in line with this guidance and in conjunction with there local planning department 13. Last Update 2006
Review Date 2008 14. Retention of The contribution will be retained for 5 years where it is for a contribution specific project and 7 years where it is included in a Pooled fund for an area. 15. Contribution The Contributions will be made as follows: Trigger Points 1st - 50% of Payment - When 40% of site complete or 12 months from commencement of development, whichever is the sooner
2nd - 50% of Payment - When 95% of site complete or 24 months from commencement, which ever is the sooner
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 37 Other Services - Not provided by Leicestershire County Council Leicestershire Constabulary
1. Name of service Leicestershire Constabulary
2. Category of service Other Service provider 3. Current Guidance PPS 1 sets out the Governments vision for planning and the on the issue key policies and principles which should underpin the planning system. It states that design policies should encourage developments which ‘Create safe environments where crime and disorder or fear of crime does not undermine quality of life or community cohesion’.
PPS 3 requires that in Designing for Quality, Local Planning Authorities should develop plans and policies which ‘promote designs and layouts that are inclusive, safe, take into account of public health, crime prevention and community safety, ensure adequate surveillance ….’.
The Crime and Disorder Act 1998 adds impetus to the need to work in partnership to improve the quality of life by requiring all authorities, including planning authorities, to consider crime and disorder whilst exercising all their duties.
Leicestershire Constabulary are preparing additional guidance on Developer Contributions. This will be incorporated into the Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire in a subsequent review of the document. 4. Type of facilities Sites for police stations, erection costs of new police stations for which provision and contribution towards additional office/other building may be needed provision at existing police stations or other community buildings. 5. Type of development which might trigger need
i. Residential A contribution will be required towards the cost of additional policing if there is a need arising from the development. Where
a new police station is required, the developer would be
expected to provide a site and the erection costs.
Proposals to redevelop an existing police station site by a developer would normally trigger need for a replacement police station. Otherwise, each application to be considered on an individual basis.
ii. Other Leicestershire Constabulary provides a free Architectural Liaison Service to which in the first instance development proposals should be submitted.
38 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 6. Form in which Land where required and either the costs of construction of payments should buildings or work in kind to the Constabulary’s specification. be made Other contributions may be appropriate, and these will be assessed on an individual site by site basis 7. Contributions to Capital only, normally. capital costs or revenue costs 8. Threshold for size The impact upon police service provision should be assessed in of development for respect of each new development but normally with residential which contributions development a minimum threshold of 10 units be applied are appropriate 9.. Geographic areas where there is no spare capacity 10. Contact person Sue Davison, Property Services Department
Stewart Bradshaw, Community Safety Bureau
Leicestershire Constabulary, Police Headquarters, St Johns, Enderby, Leicester LE9 2BX. TEL: 0116 222 2222 11. Last updated 2006
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 39 Other Services - Not provided by Leicestershire County Council Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service
1. Name of service Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service
2. Category of service Other Services provider
3. Current Guidance Circular 05/2005. on the issue The Fire Service is required to secure water from either potable or open water services to effectively fight fires under normal circumstances. The Code of Practice between all Fire Authorities and all Water Companies states:
Securing water for fire fighting purposes on new sites,
All new development should be considered at the planning stage with a view to securing water meeting fire-fighting needs. Both the fire service and water companies as consultees, should require provision of water for fire-fighting by developers/owners of new developments, or redevelopments when the needs are increased.
4. Type of facilities Hydrants and appropriate water mains with adequate pressure to for which provision supply them. Possible alternative sources of water for fire fighting may be needed include balancing lakes and underground tanks.
5. Type of Both residential and commercial development can trigger need. development which Storage and manufacturing uses raise particular needs. In the might trigger need case of potable water services, the cost of provision includes both hydrants and the supply to them through suitable water mains. i. Residential Adequate mains pressure to fight fires is a further consideration. ii. Other The Code recognises that water distribution systems are subject to external factors beyond the control of water companies that affect flow, such as peak demand and leaks. Alternative sources to the mains for fire-fighting water supply include balancing lakes and underground tanks. Where these are appropriate their provision will need to be negotiated between developers and local planning authorities in each case.
6. Form in which Land where required and either the costs of construction of payments should buildings or work in kind to the Chief Fire Officer’s specification be made
40 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire
7. Contributions to capital costs or revenue costs
8. Threshold for size Any form of development might compromise fire-fighting ability. of development for which contributions are appropriate
9.. Geographic areas Water for fire fighting is most often a problem in areas of greenfield where there is no development. spare capacity
10. Contact person Ian Cartwright Head of Community Risk Management Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service, Headquarters Anstey Frith Leicester Road Glenfield Leicester LE3 8HD Tel 0116-287-2241
11. Last updated October 2007
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 41 Appendix 1
CONSULTATION TO BE UNDERTAKEN ON THE STATEMENT OF DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
OBJECTIVE OF THE CONSULTATION
To seek comments from a range of organisations on this Developer Contributions Statement. Public consultation on the preparation of the Statement will add weight to it as a material consideration in determining planning applications.
ORGANISATIONS INVITED TO COMMENT
Parties involved in preparing the Statement
• County Council and other service providers contributing to the Statement -Leicestershire Constabulary -Leicestershire Fire and Rescue Service -Primary Health Care Trusts in Leicestershire • Leicestershire District Councils
Local Government
• Leicestershire County Council • Leicester City Council • Rutland County Council • Adjoining County Councils (for information only) Cambridgeshire Derbyshire Lincolnshire Northamptonshire Nottinghamshire Staffordshire Warwickshire W. Midlands
• Association of Parish Councils
Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 42 Service Providers
• Severn Trent Water plc • Anglian Water • Arriva Fox County • Central Trains • Network Rail • British Rail Consortium • British Telecom • NTL • British Gas • Central Networks
Central Government, Political interests and Quangos
• Government Office East Midlands (who were asked whether other Government departments might want to comment)
• East Midlands Regional Assembly • Environment Agency (East Midlands Region) • Sport England (East Midlands Region) • Racial Equality Council • National Forest • East Midlands Development Agency • Highways Agency • PLAN Consortium (responsible for the A6 improvements) • English Nature • English Heritage • Campaign for the Protection of Rural England • SUSTRANS
43 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 44 Business interests
• Leicestershire Chamber of Commerce and Industry • Loughborough Chamber of Trade • Leicester Chamber of Trade • Hinckley and District Economic Partnership • Nottingham East Midlands Airport • Home Builders Federation • Builders / Developers / Consultancies including: • Redrow Homes (Midlands) • William Davis Ltd • Beazer Strategic Land • Wilson Bowden • Birch Homes Ltd • Bellway Homes Ltd • Underwood Homes • DPDS Consulting • CBI (Leicestershire County Group)
• NFU (East Midlands Region)
Community Associations
• East Midlands Housing • Leicestershire and Rutland Rural Community Council • Voluntary Action Leicester
Professional Bodies
• The Planning Officers Society • The Local Government Association • The Royal Town Planning Institute
43 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 44 Appendix 2
NOTIFICATION PROCEDURES ON DEVELOPER CONTRIBUTIONS
1. INTRODUCTION
1.1 New developments often require contributions from developers to provide for necessary improvements to public services and facilities. These may be provided by both the District and/or County Councils in Leicestershire, or may be secured on behalf of other agencies. It is in the interest of all parties to ensure that the full range of relevant facilities arising from any particular development is made available for the benefit of the local community, irrespective of the distribution of responsibilities for different services.
1.2 The District Councils, as local planning authorities, are the first points of contact for most developments; the County Council is responsible for mineral and waste proposals. A formal protocol was established through the original County-wide supplementary guidance document, to ensure that all responsible parties are given the opportunity to assess the implications for service provision arising from new development proposals. This procedure has evolved and improved over the intervening period, and needs to respond to changes in circumstances.
1.3 The current procedure for consultation between the District Councils and the County Highways Authority on appropriate proposals, as set out in the Development Control Agreement, will continue to operate. Internal arrangements within the County Council will ensure that any requirements of the County Highways Authority, for developer contributions arising from a particular proposal, are notified to the appropriate officer in the County Planning Authority.
2. THE PROCEDURE
District Matters
2.1 The County Council developer contributions officer, based in the Planning Group of the Community Services Department, will be the co-ordinator for developer contribution matters and will be responsible for contacting nominated officers within the relevant departments of the County Council and responding to the District Councils on any development proposals notified by them.
45 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 46 2.2 Individual planning case officers at the District Councils will be responsible for notifying the County Council developer contributions officer of relevant development proposals, as defined in the following paragraphs.
2.3 Notification on development proposals will take place in accordance with the following thresholds for different categories of development: (i) Residential development: at least 10 dwellings, or 0.25ha @ 40 dwellings /ha in size; (ii) Any ‘significant’ proposal for other forms of development (e.g. employment, retail, leisure), which is likely to give rise to requirements for developer contributions, based on the advice given in the guidelines and/or locations of ‘special concern’ set out in paragraph 2.4 below.
2.4 There may be circumstances where there are a large number of proposals for less than 10 dwellings in an area. The County Council and District Councils will consider the accumulative impact of these smaller proposals, where it is established that individual services and facilities are close to capacity or will require improvement as a result of development. Individual service providers may identify in the guidelines those locations where there are ‘special concerns’ for particular services, which will be reviewed by the service departments on a regular basis.
2.5 Individual service providers will review the contents of the guideline tables on a regular basis, in the context of annual programmes and changes in circumstances. In some locations, the cumulative impact of proposals for ’small sites’ (i.e. below the identified thresholds) may result in the need to improve service provision. The County Council will maintain records of the accumulation of ‘small’ developments, based on the ‘small sites’ information provided by District Councils.
2.6 Relevant development proposals (referred to in para.2.3 above) will include planning applications, any pre-application inquiries and development briefs on the following: (i) proposals that are identified through development plan allocations. Although there may have been consultation on these sites through the local development framework process, it will be necessary to notify the County Council of subsequent planning applications, in order that its service requirements can be confirmed.
45 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 46 It may be appropriate to consider additional contributions in addition to those set out in development plans, where there are new considerations to be taken into account; (ii) ‘windfall sites’, which can often give rise to previously unidentified requirements for services and facilities; (iii) proposals which are the subject of appeal and/or ‘call-in’ proceedings, where notification procedures have not been concluded or require confirmation.
2.7 Notification by the District Council shall be on the agreed proforma agreed by the County Council and District Councils and reviewed as necessary. It will be accompanied by sufficient information to identify the site of the proposal, including an adequate location plan, the type and nature of the proposed units. The CC will obtain details of the submitted planning applications in electronic form, where these are available on the DC’s own web-site.
2.8 In agreed cases, the County Council developer contributions officer, together with a representative of other County Council departments as may be necessary, will be given the opportunity to attend any meetings which may be held between the District Council and a developer and / or agent to discuss potential contributions, with the agreement of the developer.
2.9 The County Council devolper contributions officer will respond to all notifications of planning proposals by the District Council within 21 days, unless an extension of time is granted at the discretion of the District Council’s officer.
2.10 Prior to the final decision on the proposal being made, in the event of any requirements for developer contributions associated with Leicestershire County Council service provision not being agreed, the District Council officer will formally notify the County Council developer contributions officer of the circumstances. The County Council will be given the opportunity to respond if any of its requirements are not agreed and where appropriate to prioritise its bid for contributions towards service provision and facilities. The County Council will respond to the District Council within 14 days of the subsequent notification, unless an extension of time is granted at the discretion of the District Council officer.
47 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 48 Pre-application enquiries
2.11 Often, developers (or their agents) are encouraged to establish the likely scale and nature of developer contributions in advance of planning submission, the CC will facilitate the provision of the appropriate advice through its normal procedures. If developers and agents seek such advice, then they should submit a formal request, accompanied by sufficient information to identify the site and the scale and type of units intended. In normal circumstances, a response will be provided within 21 days of receipt of the appropriate information.
County Matters
2.12 Individual case officers of the County Council shall be responsible for notifying the relevant (development case) officers of the District Councils of any minerals and waste proposals, County Matters, which involve offer of, or necessity for, contributions towards services provided by the District authority.
2.13 Such notification shall take place on relevant planning applications and pre- application inquiries, using the agreed proforma referred to in para.2.7 above. The notification shall be accompanied by sufficient information to identify the site of the proposal, including an adequate location plan and any written submission that may accompany the developer’s application or inquiry.
2.14 In agreed cases, the District Council’s officer will be given the opportunity to attend any meetings which may be held between the County Council and a developer and/or agent to discuss potential contributions.
2.15 The District officer will respond to all notifications of planning proposals by the County Council within 28 days, unless an extension of time is granted at the discretion of the County Council’s officer.
2.16 Prior to the final decision on the proposal being made, in the event of any requirements for developer contributions associated with District service provision not being agreed, the County Council developer contributions officer will formally notify the District Council of the circumstances. The District
47 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 48 Council will be given the opportunity to respond if any of its requirements are not agreed and where appropriate to prioritise its bid for contributions towards service provision and facilities. The District Council will respond to the County Council within 14 days of the subsequent notification, unless an extension of time is granted at the discretion of the County Council co-ordinator.
Legal Agreements
2.17 The cost of preparing and securing legal agreements will normally be met by developers. In other cases, the County Council and District Council will separately be responsible for the costs relating to its own specific service requirements. This document includes advice on the use of standard clauses and agreements (see Appendix 3), which should assist in the preparation of these documents.
2.18 If there is a ‘significant’ delay between the negotiation of contributions and the subsequent signing of any relevant agreement, then it might be necessary to re-calculate the scale and nature of contributions, based on any changes in circumstances in the intervening period. Similarly, planning authorities will be expected to advise the alternative service provider(s) on any changes to proposals during the course of negotiations.
2.19 Following negotiation, it is expected that a draft legal agreement will be forwarded to the County Council’s legal officer for scrutiny. After any legal agreement, obligation or unilateral undertaking has been agreed, a copy of the relevant document shall be sent by the District Council to the County Council. In the case of County Matters, a copy of the agreement shall be sent by the County Council to the District Council’s case officer.
Timing of payment
2.20 This will vary but broadly speaking payment should be made at a time that enables the provision of the facility that is being funded at the time when it is needed. There is no rigid formula to calculate this and it can be varied according to individual circumstances.
2.21 In the case of education contributions, for example, a payment scheme has
49 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 50 developed which normally requires: • 10% on commencement of development to enable commencement of the design of the project • 45% at about the mid point in the development • 45% towards the end of the development. The payment scheme does vary however, for example where the money will be used to fund part of a larger contract that will incorporate the additional accommodation being funded.
2.22 The same sorts of general consideration on timing of payment apply to highway contributions.
Method of payment
2.23 Payment is not always in cash. For example if a development necessitates additional educational facilities, the developer may be given the option of either making a financial contribution or constructing the additional facilities himself to the Education Authority’s specification and design requirements. Alternatively, if the work being funded by the developer is part of a larger extension, the developer may be told that the only option is to make a cash contribution.
2.24 Similar considerations on method of payment, and whether the developer or the Highway Authority does the work, may apply to highway contributions.
Monitoring of contributions
2.25 Records will be kept of payments received. The trigger points at which payments will normally be made shall be monitored by the District Council or Leicestershire County Council, as appropriate. If considered appropriate, the legal agreement may include a clause requiring the developer to notify the Authority when trigger points are reached or a prescribed period has elapsed. Whichever Authority is monitoring the trigger points and the receipt of payments will need to ensure that payment is made to the appropriate service provider.
49 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 50 2.26 The County Council intends to investigate the procurement of a corporate data base and monitoring system, to assist in the efficient and effective control of all developer contributions. This would also promote the opportunity to investigate the possibilities for sharing data systems between County and District authorities.
Supplementary Notes:
The District Councils will continue to consult directly with Fire, Police and Health Authorities to ascertain any appropriate service requirements, as they are not part of the County Council’s function.
51 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 52 Appendix 3
STANDARD CLAUSES AND LEGAL AGREEMENT
S106 AGREEMENT STANDARD DOCUMENT
The attached standard draft agreement is currently being reviewed by LCC Legal Services, in consultation with the legal representatives and planning officers from all the Borough/District Councils.
It is not envisaged that there will be any major changes in the wording of such agreements, but rather a change in format in an endeavour to simplify agreements and thereby achieve earlier completion of individual documents
All applicants should be aware that the Government costs multipliers which are used to calculate contributions being sought are re-calculated on 1st April each year. Applications received in the preceding twelve months which require the payment of contributions, and where the S106 agreement remains outstanding after this date are advised that contributions will be recalculated after 1st April.
51 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 52 CURRENTLY UNDER REVIEW
DATE 2006
BOROUGH/DISTRICT COUNCIL and LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL
PLANNING AGREEMENT SECTION 106 TOWN AND COUNTY PLANNING ACT 1990
Relating to the residential development of land at in the County of Leicestershire
Leicestershire County Council Council Hall, Glenfield, Leicester. LE3 8RA.
THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of
2006 BETWEEN LIMITED whose registered office is situated at
(“the Owner”) BOROUGH
COUNCIL of Council Offices Leicestershire
(“the Borough Council”) and LEICESTERSHIRE COUNTY COUNCIL of
County Hall Glenfield Leicester LE3 8RA (“the County Council”)
53 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 54 RECITALS
1. The Borough Council is the Local Planning Authority for the purposes of this Agreement for the area within which the Land is situated
2. The County Council is a Local Planning Authority the Local Education Authority the Highway Authority and the Authority responsible for the provision of Library and Civic Amenity Facilities the area within which the Land is situated.
3. The Owner is the owner in fee simple in possession free from encumbrances of the Land
4. (The Mortgagee is mortgagee of the land under a legal mortgage dated and made between the Owner and the Mortgagee
5. The Owner has applied to the Borough/District Council for planning permissions to carry out the Development
6. To facilitate the Development the Borough Council require the payment of the Education Contribution the Highway Contribution the Library Contribution and the Civic Amenity Contribution
7. The Borough Council has resolved to grant planning permission for the Development subject to conditions and subject to the making of this Agreement without which planning permission for the development would not have been granted
53 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 54 NOW THIS DEED WITNESSETH as follows:- 1. DEFINITIONS AND INTERPRETATION 1.1 In this Agreement (including for the avoidance of doubt the Recitals hereto) the following expressions shall have the following meanings unless the context requires otherwise:-
“Planning Act” The Town and Country Planning Act 1990 (as amended)
“Civic Amenity The sum of Pounds (£ ) Contribution” (per dwelling) as a contribution towards the cost of the provision of facilities at the Civic Amenity Site which would ordinarily be expected to be visited by residents of the Development
“Commencement of shall mean the time when the Development” development is initiated or begun by carrying out any of the operations specified in Section 56(4) (a) (b) (c) or (d) of the Planning Act (other than works of demolition site clearance and fencing survey soil tests or archaeology tests) and “commence” or “commenced” shall muitatis mutandis be construed accordingly
“Development” the erection of dwellings on the Land pursuant to the Planning Permission
“Education Contribution” the sum of Pounds (£ ) (per dwelling) as a contribution towards the cost of the provision and enhancement of educational facilities at schools which would ordinarily be expected to be attended by residents of the Development
“Highway Contribution” the sum of Pounds (£ ) (per dwelling) as a contribution towards the cost of the provision of the highway works as set out in Schedule ()
“the Land” the Land as described in the First Schedule hereto
“Library Contribution” The sum of Pounds (£ ) (per dwelling) as a
55 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 56 contribution towards the cost of the provision of books or alternative educational facilities at the Library which would ordinarily be expected to be visited by residents of the Development
“Occupation” means in relation to the Development beneficial occupation of any part of it for residential purposes but shall not include:- (i) daytime occupation by workmen involved in the erection of any part of the Development; (ii) the use of any dwelling house(s) for the marketing of the Development or (iii) the storage of plant and materials
“plan” the plan annexed hereto
“Planning Application” the Planning Application made by the Owner to the Borough/District Council and registered on reference number for (detailed/outline) planning permission for the Development
“Planning Permission” the planning permission to be granted pursuant to the Planning Application for the Development subject to conditions
1.2 In this Agreement 1.2.1. Words importing the masculine gender shall be deemed to include the feminine and the neuter and the singular the plural and vice versa and words denoting natural persons shall include corporations and vice versa unless the contrary is expressly provided or the context otherwise requires
1.2.2 Obligations and liabilities of a party comprising more than one person are obligations and liabilities of such persons jointly and severally provided that no person shall be liable in respect of any breach (and for this purpose breach shall include the failure to perform any positive obligation) other than in respect of land in his beneficial ownership AND further no person shall be liable for any breach of covenant first occurring after he has disposed of
55 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 56 such interest in such land or the part thereof in respect of which such breach occurs 1.2.3 Any reference to any numbered clause or sub-clause or to a Schedule is (except where indicated to the contrary) a reference to the corresponding clause or sub-clause or a Schedule to this Agreement 1.2.4 Any reference to any statute or any section thereof includes any amendment modification consolidation or re-enactment thereof and any statutory instrument direction or regulation made thereunder for the time being in force 1.2.5 The clause headings in this Agreement are for ease of reference only and shall not affect the construction thereof 1.2.6 The expressions “the Borough/District Council” “the County Council” “the Owner and “the Mortgagee” shall where the context so admits include their respective successors and assigns 1.2.7 No failure or delay by the Borough/District Council or the County Council to exercise any right power or remedy will operate as a waiver of it nor will any partial exercise preclude any further exercise of the same of some other right or power of the relevant Council Offices
2. STATUTORY BASIS
This Agreement is made pursuant to Section 106 of the Planning Act Section 111 of the Local Government Act 1972 and in pursuance of all other powers enabling the parties hereto respectively with the intention that the covenants given by the Owner in this Deed bind (so far as provided by this Agreement) its successors in title (being owners for the time being of the owners interests or a part thereof in the Land)
3. PLANNING OBLIGATION
3.1 Each covenant by the Owner contained herein is a planning obligation for the purpose of Section 106 of the Planning Act and enforceable by the Borough Council
3.2 The covenants contained in clause 4 are also enforceable by the County Council
57 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 58 4. THE OWNERS COVENANTS
4.1 No development shall commence unless and until the greater of the Education Contribution or the Education Contribution adjusted in accordance with the Second Schedule has been paid to the County Council
4.2 No development shall commence unless and until the greater of the Civic Amenity Contribution or the Civic Amenity Contribution adjusted in accordance with the Second Schedule has been paid to the County Council
4.3 No development shall commence unless and until the greater of the Library Contribution or the Library Contribution adjusted in accordance with the Second Schedule has been paid to the County Council
4.4 No development shall commence unless and until the greater of the Highway Contribution or the Highway Contribution adjusted in accordance with the Second Schedule has been paid to the County Council
5. THE COUNTY COUNCIL’S COVENANTS
5.1 The County Council covenants with the Owner to apply the Education Contribution for the provision or enhancement of educational facilities at Schools which would ordinarily be expected to be attended by residents of the Development
5.2. If the whole of the Education Contribution has not been used by the County Council within five years of the date of payment of the Education Contribution then any sums not so used shall be repaid by the County Council to the Owner on written demand
5.3 Upon receipt of a written request by the Owner the County Council will provide full details of the expenditure of the Education Contribution
5.4 The County Council covenants with the Owner to apply the Civic Amenity Contribution for the provision or enhancement of facilities at the Civic Amenity Site which would ordinarily be expected to be used by residents of the Development
57 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 58 5.5. If the whole of the Civic Amenity Contribution has not been used by the County Council within five years of the date of payment then any sums not so used shall be repaid by the County Council to the Owner on written demand
5.6 Upon receipt of a written request by the Owner the County Council will provide full details of the expenditure of the Civic Amenity Contribution
5.7 The County Council covenants with the Owner to apply the Library Contribution for the provision of books or alternative educational facilities at the Library would ordinarily be expected to be attended by residents of the Development
5.8 If the whole of the Library Contribution has not been used by the County Council within five years of the date of payment then any sums not so used shall be repaid by the County Council to the Owner on written demand
5.9 Upon receipt of a written request by the Owner the County Council will provide full details of the expenditure of the Library Contribution
5.10 The County Council covenants with the Owner to apply the Highway Contribution for the purposes set out in Schedule ()
5.11 If the whole of the Highway Contribution has not been used by the County Council within five years of the date of payment then any sums not so used shall be repaid by the County Council to the Owner on written demand
5.12 Upon receipt of a written request by the Owner the County Council will provide full details of the expenditure of the Highway Contribution
6. THE BOROUGH/DISTRICT COUNCIL’S COVENANTS
7. GENERAL
6.1 This Agreement is a local land charge and shall be registered as such
6.2 Any dispute under or arising out of the operation of this Agreement may be referred to a single arbitrator if all parties to the dispute shall agree such arbitrator or in default of agreement to be nominated (upon
59 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 60 the application of any party to the dispute) by the President for the time being of the Law Society in accordance with and subject to the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1996 or any statutory modification or re-enactment thereof for the time being in force
6.3 Any notice agreement consent or approval to be given under the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and sent by ordinary post and
6.3.1 in the case of the Borough Council to be addressed to the
6.3.2 in the case of the County Council to be addressed to the County Solicitor County Hall Glenfield Leicester LE3 8RA
6.3.3 in the case of the Owner shall be send by ordinary post to its registered office or such other address as it shall provide in this regard
6.4 The Owner shall notify the Borough Council and the County Council within 14 days of such commencement of the Commencement of the Development
6.5 If the Planning Permission expires is revoked or otherwise ceases to exist before the Commencement of Development this Agreement will cease to have effect and as from such time there shall be no further obligations on any party in relation to any matter that has occurred or may arise under this Agreement
6.6 The Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 shall not apply to this Agreement and no person other than the parties to this Agreement or their successors in title or assigns shall have any rights under it nor shall it be enforceable by any person other than the parties to it or their successors in title
6.7 Nothing in this Agreement shall prohibit or limit the right to develop any part of the Land in accordance with a planning permission (other than the Planning Permission) granted after the date of this Agreement
6.8 The Borough Council will upon the written request of the Owner at any time after the obligations of the Owner under this Agreement have been fulfilled issue written confirmation thereof and thereafter cancel all related entries in the Register of Local Land Charges
59 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 60 6.9 The Owner shall upon the execution of this Agreement pay the Borough Council’s and the County Council’s reasonable legal costs in respect of the preparation and completion of this Agreement
6.10 The Mortgagee consents to the Owner entering into this Agreement and acknowledges that this Agreement binds the Land
6.11 The Mortgagee shall only be liable for any breach of this Agreement whilst mortgagee in possession
IN WITNESS the Borough Council the County Council and the Owner have executed this Agreement as a Deed on the day and year first before written
THE FIRST SCHEDULE
The Land
Approximately square metres or thereabout of land at and more particularly shown edged red on the plan annexed hereto
61 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 62 THE SECOND SCHEDULE
1. In this Schedule:-
“index” means the All in Tender Price Index of Buildings Costs Information Services (“BCIS”) as published by the Royal Institute of Charter Surveyors (“RICS”) or in the event that the RICS shall change the basis of compilation or cease to compile or publish the said Index such other Index as the parties hereto shall agree or in default of agreement such Index as shall be determined by an Arbitrator appointed by the President of the RICS for the purposes of this Agreement in all cases to ensure as nearly as possible that the sums of money involved shall fluctuate in accordance with the general level of the building industry costs in respect of the Education Contribution the Library Contribution and the Civic Amenity Contribution OR means the Resource Cost Index of Road Construction (“ROCOS”) published by the Department of Trade and Industry as part of the Quarterly Building and Cost Indices for Public Sector Construction Works or such other index as may from time to time be published in substitution thereof in respect of the Highway Contribution
“Base Index Date” means the date of the grant of planning permission
“Base Index Figures” means the figure published in respect of the Index immediately prior to the Base Index date “Final Index Figure” means the figure published or otherwise agreed or determined in respect of the Index immediately prior to the respective date upon which the Education Contribution the Civic Amenity Contribution the Library Contribution or the Highway Contribution is paid 2. The Contributions shall be increased by such sum, if any, in pounds sterling as shall be equal to the sum calculated according to the following formula:-
61 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 62 Increased Sum = A x C B
Where: “A” equals the Education Contribution, the Civic Amenity Contribution the Library Contribution or the Highway Contribution “B” equals the Base Index Figures “C” equals the Final Index Figure 3. If after the Base Index Date there should be any change in the Base Index Figure by reference to which changes in the Index are calculated, the figure taken to be shown in the Index after such change shall be the figure which would have been shown in the Index if the said Base Index Figure had been retained and the appropriate reconciliation shall be made but if for any reason the Index shall be otherwise altered or shall be abolished or replaced, there shall be substituted for the purposes of this Schedule, such index of building costs or index of road construction costs as may from time to time be published by or under the authority of any Ministry or Department of Her Majesty’s Government and if no such index is published, the parties thereto shall endeavour to agree such other index as shall most closely reflect changes in building costs or road construction costs as appropriate.
4. If any substitution for the said BCIS or ROCOS or any index previously substituted therefor shall occur pursuant to the provisions of Clause 3 of this Schedule, the parties hereto shall endeavour to agree the appropriate reconciliation between the Index substituted on the one hand and BCIS or ROCOS or any index previously substituted therefor on the other hand.
63 | Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire 64 THE THIRD SCHEDULE
(the Highway Works)
THE COMMON SEAL of ) BOROUGH COUNCIL was hereunto ) affixed in the presence of )
Authorised Officer
THE COMMON SEAL of LEICESTERSHIRE ) COUNTY COUNCIL was hereunto affixed ) in the presence of )
Authorised Officer
THE COMMON SEAL of ) was hereunto affixed in the presence of )
Director
Secretary
63 Statement of Requirements for Developer Contributions in Leicestershire | 64