Public Document Pack
E-mail: comsec@teignbridge.gov.uk
26 October 2020
EXECUTIVE
A meeting of the Executive will be held on Tuesday, 3rd November, 2020 at 10.00 am. This will be a virtual meeting and you can observe the meeting via our Youtube Page.
PHIL SHEARS Managing Director
Membership:
Councillors Connett (Leader), Dewhirst (Deputy Leader), J Hook, Keeling, Jeffries, MacGregor, Purser, Taylor and Wrigley
Please Note: The meeting will be live streamed with the exception where there are confidential or exempt items, which may need to be considered in the absence of the media and public.
A G E N D A
1. Apologies for absence
2. Minutes (Pages 3 - 6) To approve and sign the minutes of the meeting held on 6 October 2020.
3. Declarations of Interest (if any)
4. Public Questions (if any) Members of the Public may ask questions of the Leader or an Executive Member. A maximum period of 15 minutes will be allowed with a maximum of period of three minutes per questioner.
The deadline for questions is no later than 12 noon two working days before the date of the meeting.
1 5. Executive Forward Plan To note forthcoming decisions anticipated on the Executive Forward Plan
Executive Key Decision
6. Rural Skip Service - Call in of Executive Decision To consider the recommendation below of Overview and Scrutiny Committee 1 - 19 October 2020 on the call-in of Rural Skip Service - Executive Decision - 6 October 2020.
RECOMMENDED – The following decision be referred to the Executive for consideration:
That financial information be given to affected parishes and towns within four weeks to enable them to make a decision whether they wish to take on and continue the service.
Reports/Matters for consideration/information
7. Budget Monitoring - Revenue and Capital - Treasury (Pages 7 - 26) Management Lending List
8. Future strategic planning working with Exeter City Council, (Pages 27 - 44) East Devon District Council, Mid Devon District Council and Devon County Council
9. Shellfish collection on the Teign and Exe Estuaries (Pages 45 - 50)
10. Marine Dredge Disposal (Pages 51 - 62)
11. Response to the Government Consultation on Planning for (Pages 63 - 82) the Future White Paper For Information.
12. Local Government (Access to Information) Act 1985 - Exclusion of Press and Public RECOMMENDED that, under Section 100A(4) of the Local Government Act 1972, the press and public be excluded from the meeting during consideration of item on the grounds that it involves the likely disclosure of exempt information as defined in the relevant paragraph 3 of Part 1 of Schedule 12A of the Act.
Part II: Item suggested for discussion with the press and public excluded
13. Long-term maintenance of Dawlish Countryside Park (Pages 83 - 94)
If you would like this information in another format, please telephone 01626 361101 or e-mail [email protected]
2 Agenda Item 2
EXECUTIVE
6 OCTOBER 2020
Present:
Councillors Connett (Leader), Dewhirst (Deputy Leader), J Hook, Keeling, Jeffries, MacGregor, Purser, Taylor and Wrigley
Officers in Attendance: Christopher Morgan, Trainee Democratic Services Officer Sarah Selway, Democratic Services Team Leader & Deputy Monitoring Officer Neil Blaney, Head of Place & Commercial Services Chris Braines, Waste & Cleansing Manager Tony Mansour, Housing Needs Lead Lorraine Montgomery, Head of Operations Phil Shears, Managing Director
52. MINUTES
The minutes of the meeting held on 8 September 2020 were approved as a correct record and will be signed at the earliest convenience.
53. DECLARATIONS OF INTEREST
None.
54. EXECUTIVE FORWARD PLAN
The Executive Member for Economy and Jobs raised concerns regarding the waste material being disposed of at Lyme Bay and the serious ecological impacts of this. The Council had raised significant objections and concerns with the Marine Maritime Organisation in 2019 on this matter although this objection has not been registered on their web site. A report on this matter would be brought to the Executive 3 November 2020 due to its urgency.
The Leader confirmed that an initial report on the Industrial scale ‘personal use’ harvesting of shellfish from the Exe and Teign Estuaries would be brought to Executive 3 November 2020 with a subsequent report in February 2021 on plans for the 2021 season. Also the future strategic planning working with Exeter, East Devon, Mid Devon and other partners would be brought to Executive 3 November 2020 and Council 23 November 2020.
3
RESOLVED that the Forward Plan be noted.
55. RURAL SKIP SERVICE
Executive Member for Recycling, Household Waste and Environmental Health presented the report to consider the future provision of the rural skip service. He commented that it was with a heavy heart that the Council would have to cease this non-statutory service which it had taken in when the County Council withdrew its support. The Council needed to look at savings to bridge the budget shortfall as a result of the COVID pandemic. Members attention was brought to alternative options available to residents which included the councils own bulky waste collection and charities in the district that collect and recycle goods.
The Leader brought Members attention to a letter, which had been circulated to Executive from Ipplepen Parish Council raising concerns regarding the cessation of this service.
Members discussed the costs of the service and the possibility of Towns and Parishes taking on the service either individually or jointly.
The Waste and Cleansing Manager clarified that the average cost of a skip was £1800 plus disposal costs and the council would share its information with regards to risk assessments for this work to assist the Town and Parishes if they wish to make their own arrangements.
RESOLVED that:-
(1) The discontinue the service be agreed and necessary arrangements with the existing contractor for early contract termination be made; and
(2) Support be provided to the Town & Parish Councils impacted to assist them with their own arrangements where requested.
Councillor Purser abstained from voting.
56. ORGANISATIONAL RECOVERY PLANS
The Recovery Project Lead gave a presentation (attached to minutes) on the Organisational Recovery plans, giving details of the work streams, partnership working and the member task and finish groups set up to support the recovery work.
The Recovery Project Lead clarified the work being undertaken with Devon County Council with regards to health and wellbeing as the lead authority in this service.
4 57. DEVON COUNTY COUNCIL TRIAL 20MPH SPEED LIMIT
The Executive Member for Climate Change presented the report regarding the Devon County Council Trial 20 mph Speed Limit for Newton Abbot and Kingskerwell. The trial was supported by Newton Abbot Town Council and Ward Members - Cllrs Hayes and Parker. Devon County Council had set up an Implementation Group which included representatives from the Police and Public Health.
The Leader read out a letter of support from a Ward Member - Cllr Parker.
Members discussed the benefits of speed limits to prevent accidents and encourage safe cycling and walking in the towns and villages across the district and the support of ‘Community Speed Watch’ to monitor compliance with the speed limits.
RESOLVED that the Executive express its preliminary support to Devon County Council regarding its proposed trial of a 20 mph speed limit in Newton Abbot.
The vote was unanimous.
58. RESPONSE TO THE GOVERNMENT CONSULTATION ON 'CHANGES TO THE CURRENT PLANNING SYSTEM
The Executive Member for Planning presented the Councils response to the Government consultation on 'Changes to the current planning system’.
Members raised serious concerns regarding the new proposed methodology which would see an increase in the districts housing units double to 1532 units.
Executive Members endorsed the submitted response.
The meeting started at 10.00 am and finished at 11.23 am.
Chair
5 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 7
TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE
3 NOVEMBER 2020
Report Title BUDGET MONITORING – REVENUE & CAPITAL, TREASURY MANAGEMENT LENDING LIST
Purpose of Report To update Members on the principal areas where there are likely to be departures from the 2020/21 budget and summarise those variations to the end of September 2020, to update Members on progress with the capital programme and funding and any amendments to the lending list for treasury management purposes.
Recommendation(s) The Executive Committee RESOLVES to:
(1) Note the updated revenue budget position (2) approve the updated capital programme as shown at appendix 1 (3) to note the updated lending list as shown at appendix 2
7 Financial Implications The financial implications are contained throughout the report. The main implication is the adverse variance of £4.6 million is currently the budget gap as at the end of September on the revenue budget – see section 4. Martin Flitcroft – Chief Finance Officer Tel: 01626 215246 Email: [email protected] Legal Implications See section 8 – budget monitoring is required by the Constitution and Financial Rules. The Accounts and Audit Regulations 2015 set out the requirements for the production and publication and audit of the annual statement of accounts. Martin Flitcroft – Chief Finance Officer Tel: 01626 215246 Email: [email protected] Risk Assessment Major risks are identified in sections 4 and 5 and summarised in section 7. The most significant of these is the level of future funding from Central Government Martin Flitcroft – Chief Finance Officer Tel: 01626 215246 Email: [email protected] Environmental/ The revenue budget supports the funding of a Climate Climate Change Change Officer and capital projects are highlighted which Implications contribute towards our climate change objectives – see 10. David Eaton – Environmental Protection Manager Tel: 01626 215064 Email: [email protected] Report Author Martin Flitcroft – Chief Finance Officer Tel: 01626 215246 Email: [email protected] Executive Member Councillor Richard Keeling – Executive Member for Resources Appendices Appendix 1 – Capital programme Appendix 2 – Treasury management lending list
Part I or II Part I Background Papers Current year budget monitoring files: capital files: Latest year end files
1. PURPOSE
To identify the principal areas where there are likely to be departures from the approved 2020/21 budget and summarise the likely overall variation based on the information available to the end of September 2020. Also to inform Members of progress that has been made with achieving savings and efficiencies.
To update Members on progress with the capital programme and funding and bring the latest details for members’ approval as shown in Appendix 1
8 To update Members on the lending list for treasury management purposes as shown in Appendix 2
2 BACKGROUND
2.1 Management accounts reports have traditionally been produced to a detailed service level. However the Covid 19 pandemic has created variations to budget at a level never previously seen and so it is appropriate to report these variations at a higher level based on the budget setting categories of Appendix 4 to the budget papers approved in February 2020.
2.2 It was apparent since lockdown on 23 March 2020 that the main area of loss to the Council would be in relation to income as the stay at home policy hit large income streams such as car parking and leisure centres – the latter were ordered to close and only commenced a phased reopening from the latter part of July. Further restrictions over the winter months may continue to supress the ability to generate income.
2.3 Government has provided funding which was initially based upon expenditure losses – much more relevant to upper tier authorities or unitary councils in relation to social care etc. Subsequently further funding was provided having regard to the fact that there had been widespread reported losses of income and the Government has been monitoring these losses by requiring Council’s to provide monthly returns to MHCLG. The latest return was completed providing information to the end of September and projections for the full financial year 2020/21. With considerable uncertainty around what level of funding might be forthcoming a list of potential savings was drawn up in relation to expenditure headings and these have been approved as part of the budget realignment recommendation to Full Council on 30 September to address the potential budget gap.
2.4 The first report to Members on the budget variations for 2020/21 was provided on 21 July 2020 together with an update on the capital programme and treasury management lending list. A further report was provided on 8 September 2020. This report updates on any subsequent revenue projections and changes to the capital programme and the treasury management lending list.
2.5 The 2019/20 draft accounts and closing reserve position were also reported to Members on 21 July 2020. These have now been published on the Council website and the external audit has been undertaken during August and September. The final version of these accounts should be brought to Full Council in November for approval.
3 EMERGENCY FUNDING TO DATE
3.1 The Government provided its first tranche of funding to support the revenue losses in March 2020. This amounted to £59,771. The second tranche of funding was calculated taking account of the awareness of income
9 losses/cash flow issues and amounted to £1,342,148 being received in May 2020.
3.2 This still left a considerable gap in funding. We had previously reported a gap of around £6.9 million even after taking account earlier tranches of these grants and the savings identified in 2.3 above.
3.3 Representations to Government resulted in two further offers of funding from Government. Firstly was a tranche of funding to support expenditure losses. This package was £500 million in total and our share was £202,938. In addition the Government identified an income funding package. This would help with losses from sales and fees and charges losses. The income funding package ignores income from rents and also there is no support for council tax or business rates losses other than to allow these losses to be recovered over the subsequent 3 years rather than the normal one year. Any income mitigations such as furlough income would also have to be offset. The support is for one year only (2020/21) and does not cover future years where income is still likely to be down compared to pre Covid 19 levels. The basis of the offer is such that where income from sales, fees and charges is down by more than 5% of the original budget set in February 2020 the Council will suffer the first 5% of loss and the Government will fund 75% of the remaining 95% - hence 71.25% overall. We have made our first claim under this scheme to cover the first 4 months of the year and this amounts to just over £1.4 million.
3.4 Other funding provided has included £940,055 being a Hardship Fund for which the expectation is for this to be used to offset impacts on Council tax income and new burden grant funding to cover costs incurred in relation to the business grant funding scheme administration etc.
4 REVENUE BUDGET VARIATIONS 2020/21
The most significant variations and points to note are as follows:
Prior to calculating the income support package in 3.3 above it is estimated that the overall net budget deficit is in the region of £4.6 million. This includes losses from Council tax and business rates in the region of £1.7 million. Monitoring of income from council tax and business rates will continue and it is anticipated this will improve. Fees and charges account for the biggest proportion of losses and this is calculated to be in the region of £4.8 million – the biggest losses relating to car parking and leisure centres. We still need to monitor these sources of income to determine what the regular pattern of occupancy/visits are with the latter service only having commenced operations from 25 July.
The income support package above should provide further grant from Government of approximately £4 million but will be subject to offset of any other support such as furlough income and expenditure savings which would reduce the net claim to around £3 million. The first claim has been submitted to Government under this scheme amounting to £1.4 million for the period April to July 2020.
10
Further monitoring of bad debts will be required throughout the year and subject to any further provision it is anticipated there may be only a small shortfall to the general fund this year as the losses from the Collection Fund for council tax and business rates can be funded over the next 3 years rather than the normal one year. We still await the guidance as to how this will work. It may be possible to meet the general fund deficit from existing earmarked reserves and/or a temporary reduction in the general reserve balance.
5. OUTLOOK 2020/21 AND BEYOND
5.1 As identified in section 4 – further monitoring of the bad debt situation will need to be carried out. In addition changes to the economy and in particular the impacts on businesses as the furlough scheme ends and the new job support scheme kicks in from November with any subsequent changes to levels of unemployment. This could impact further on income levels going forward together with any local lockdowns etc.
5.2 The support offered is only for the current financial year and discussions will continue via the LGA or through direct meetings with the MHCLG to determine what support may be considered in future years and whether this will be considered as part of any funding changes as part of the budget setting process over the winter and the provisional settlement. We will continue to look at how we may make savings going forward and utilisation of reserves to help reduce the deficit in conjunction with the clarity around what further funding may be received from Government to help support local services and how the local economic recovery plan will impact on our finances.
5.3 The savings identified in 2.3 above amounted to £2.0 million. These will continue to be monitored as they will be impacted by services opening back up to full operation or any subsequent closures due to local lockdowns. Consideration will also be given as to whether these savings can be made on a permanent basis for future years to meet likely variances in 2021/22 and beyond. Making accurate predictions of future receipts is difficult and dependent upon lock down release measures and reaction to this by the general public. There is also concern about our other income streams – in particular rents receivable if there are significant closures and potential loss of business rates. Higher levels of unemployment may reduce the income we receive from Council tax and a rise in council tax support. The slowdown in house building will have an impact on estimated council tax growth and any potential future receipts we may get from New homes bonus or its equivalent.
5.4 It is not clear how Government will support us going forward. At the start of the pandemic the Government had asked us to ‘do whatever it takes’ to react to the situation. We have made £2.0 million savings from the current year budgets which were approved at Full Council on 30 September. The savings included a freeze on recruitment for this year in relation to vacant posts where possible and unless externally funded, elimination of any contribution from revenue to capital to support the capital programme, savings in travel and
11 fuel, partly due to changed working patterns and a reduction in the predicted price of fuel. Other savings include reductions in repairs and maintenance, savings which naturally occur as a result of services not operating e.g. leisure centres, training and numerous ledger spends.
In addition we have taken advantage of the Coronavirus Job Retention Scheme and furloughed a significant number of posts in order to enable us to receive funding for staffing costs whilst services cannot operate or are disrupted due to Covid 19 – these are mainly in leisure as a result of the closure of the leisure centres. We now understand that furlough income used to mitigate income losses will have to be offset against any claim we make.
5.5 We will continue to work through all BEST2020 savings suggestions to deliver further savings where possible and re-visit those that may have their progress delayed by Covid 19.
6. CAPITAL & TREASURY MANAGEMENT 2020/21
Treasury Management
Net interest payable is currently forecast to be £30,776 compared to the base net interest receivable budget of £15,030. This is based on external borrowing from January, over a range of maturity dates in accordance with the Council’s treasury management strategy. The cash-flow planner currently assumes large capital projects gradually resuming. It is assumed remaining business grant funding will be repaid and further tranches of funding from the government’s income loss compensation scheme. Estimates around income are cautious and based on monitoring individual income stream trends over the year to date with a margin for potential deterioration as mentioned in 5.3 above. Cash-flow is reviewed regularly.
In addition to a higher borrowing requirement than forecast at the February budget (though the outlook has improved since the update provided to Executive in July), the bank of England base rate was cut twice in March – first from 0.75% to 0.25%, then to the historic low of 0.1%. No increase in this rate is anticipated in the 2020-21 financial year. The treasury management team has also focused on keeping investments in the very short term due to the uncertainty over income and funding and in order to manage cash-flow in relation to the payment of business grants. This has resulted in interest rates below the bank of England base rate, in some cases at zero or below.
The latest lending list is shown at appendix 2. The only change is Nationwide Building Society is moved to Tier 2 due to a change in ratings.
The following fixed lending was arranged during April to September.
Borrower Terms Amount (£) Start date End date Total Interest (%) days (£) Debt Management Office 0.100 44,000,000 01/04/20 08/04/20 7 843.84
12 Debt Management Office 0.040 5,000,000 08/04/20 09/04/20 1 5.48 Debt Management Office 0.045 4,500,000 08/04/20 14/04/20 6 33.29 Debt Management Office 0.095 34,500,000 08/04/20 16/04/20 8 718.36 Debt Management Office 0.055 1,000,000 14/04/20 17/04/20 3 4.52 Debt Management Office 0.080 1,000,000 15/04/20 23/04/20 8 17.53 Debt Management Office 0.080 1,500,000 15/04/20 27/04/20 12 39.45 Debt Management Office 0.040 12,500,000 16/04/20 17/04/20 1 13.7 Debt Management Office 0.045 18,000,000 16/04/20 20/04/20 4 88.77 Debt Management Office 0.080 500,000 17/04/20 29/04/20 12 13.15 Debt Management Office 0.040 1,400,000 20/04/20 21/04/20 1 1.53 Debt Management Office 0.045 2,000,000 20/04/20 22/04/20 2 4.93 Debt Management Office 0.055 1,000,000 20/04/20 23/04/20 3 4.52 Debt Management Office 0.060 5,000,000 20/04/20 24/04/20 4 32.88 Debt Management Office 0.080 7,200,000 20/04/20 27/04/20 7 110.47 Debt Management Office 0.080 1,000,000 22/04/20 29/04/20 7 15.34 Debt Management Office 0.080 3,000,000 24/04/20 30/04/20 6 39.45 Debt Management Office 0.080 6,500,000 27/04/20 04/05/20 7 99.73 Debt Management Office 0.080 1,000,000 29/04/20 11/05/20 12 26.30 Debt Management Office 0.080 1,000,000 30/04/20 19/05/20 19 45.81 Debt Management Office 0.080 1,400,000 30/04/20 22/05/20 22 67.51 Debt Management Office 0.055 2,000,000 01/05/20 26/05/20 25 75.34 Debt Management Office 0.055 1,500,000 01/05/20 27/05/20 26 58.77 Debt Management Office 0.040 1,000,000 04/05/20 06/05/20 2 2.19 Debt Management Office 0.040 1,000,000 04/05/20 12/05/20 8 8.77 Debt Management Office 0.050 3,400,000 04/05/20 19/05/20 15 69.86 Debt Management Office 0.040 400,000 11/05/20 27/05/20 16 7.01 Debt Management Office 0.040 1,000,000 12/05/20 27/05/20 15 16.44 Debt Management Office 0.040 2,000,000 14/05/20 27/05/20 13 28.49 Debt Management Office 0.040 1,000,000 15/05/20 18/05/20 3 3.29 Debt Management Office 0.040 4,500,000 15/05/20 27/05/20 12 59.18 Debt Management Office 0.050 1,000,000 15/05/20 08/06/20 24 32.88 Debt Management Office 0.040 2,500,000 15/05/20 22/06/20 38 130.14 Debt Management Office 0.040 1,000,000 19/05/20 20/05/20 1 1.10 Debt Management Office 0.040 1,000,000 19/05/20 23/06/20 35 38.36 Debt Management Office 0.040 1,400,000 19/05/20 26/06/20 38 58.30 Debt Management Office 0.020 1,000,000 26/05/20 28/05/20 2 1.10 Debt Management Office 0.020 1,000,000 29/05/20 24/06/20 26 14.25 Debt Management Office 0.035 1,000,000 01/06/20 03/06/20 2 1.92 Debt Management Office 0.020 1,000,000 01/06/20 10/06/20 9 4.93 Debt Management Office 0.020 1,000,000 01/06/20 02/07/20 31 16.99 Debt Management Office 0.020 1,000,000 10/06/20 07/08/20 58 31.78 Debt Management Office 0.020 4,000,000 15/06/20 02/07/20 17 37.26 Debt Management Office 0.020 4,500,000 15/06/20 07/08/20 53 130.68 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 24/06/20 02/07/20 8 2.19 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 26/06/20 02/07/20 6 1.64 Debt Management Office 0.010 2,500,000 01/07/20 02/07/20 1 0.68 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 02/07/20 06/07/20 4 1.10 Debt Management Office 0.010 4,000,000 15/07/20 20/07/20 5 5.48
13 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 15/07/20 23/07/20 8 2.19 Debt Management Office 0.010 2,000,000 15/07/20 07/08/20 23 12.60 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 23/07/20 29/07/20 6 1.64 Debt Management Office 0.010 500,000 29/07/20 21/08/20 23 3.15 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 31/07/20 07/08/20 7 1.92 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 03/08/20 07/08/20 4 1.10 Debt Management Office 0.010 500,000 03/08/20 12/08/20 9 1.23 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,250,000 03/08/20 19/08/20 16 5.48 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 07/08/20 14/08/20 7 1.92 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 12/08/20 19/08/20 7 1.92 Debt Management Office 0.010 500,000 14/08/20 26/08/20 12 1.64 Debt Management Office 0.010 500,000 17/08/20 28/08/20 11 1.51 Debt Management Office 0.010 250,000 17/08/20 04/09/20 18 1.23 Debt Management Office 0.010 250,000 17/08/20 09/09/20 23 1.58 Debt Management Office 0.010 2,000,000 17/08/20 15/09/20 29 15.89 Debt Management Office 0.010 2,500,000 17/08/20 21/09/20 35 23.97 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,250,000 17/08/20 23/09/20 37 12.67 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,500,000 01/09/20 14/09/20 13 5.34 Debt Management Office 0.010 2,000,000 01/09/20 30/09/20 29 15.89 Debt Management Office 0.010 250,000 08/09/20 25/09/20 17 1.16 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 09/09/20 12/10/20 33 9.04 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,500,000 15/09/20 19/10/20 34 13.97 Debt Management Office 0.010 500,000 18/09/20 28/09/20 10 1.37 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 21/09/20 22/10/20 1 0.27 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,000,000 22/09/20 21/10/20 29 7.95 Debt Management Office 0.010 1,250,000 23/09/20 23/10/20 30 10.27
We had £18.7 million lent out or in call accounts at the end of April. We had £15.0 million lent out or in call accounts at the end of May We had £20.6 million lent out or in call accounts at the end of June We had £17.0 million lent out or in call accounts at the end of July We had £14.7 million lent out or in call accounts at the end of August We had £13.3 million lent out or in call accounts at the end of September
Capital - Economy & Assets
Council of 6 June 2016 resolved to commit funding to the Superfast Broadband Connecting Devon and Somerset phase 2 programme. An investment of £250,000 financed from capital receipts was confirmed and the collaboration agreement signed. Following further scrutiny, it is anticipated to be paid in 2022/23.
Following Council on 25 April 2018, the Minerva Building on the Brunel Industrial Estate was purchased for £2 million plus £125,000 costs. Further works were undertaken at a cost of £1.6 million to prepare the building for the new tenant. The new tenants are now occupying the building, with the project completed within budget.
14 Council on 28 February 2019 resolved to progress plans to develop a hotel, including car park re-provisioning as part of the town centre regeneration outlined in the Newton Abbot master plan. This project is funded mainly from prudential borrowing. A planning application has been submitted in line with agreed contractual milestones.
Council of 29 July 2019 (as updated at Council on 24 September) resolved to grant the necessary authority to advance the Sherborne House regeneration and Social Housing project in Newton Abbot. This project will be funded from prudential borrowing and grant from Homes England and is anticipated to provide accommodation for Health services in addition to Social Housing units. The acquisition was completed in March 2020, with conversion works to follow in early 2021.
Newton Abbot is the subject of a bid to Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government’s Future High Streets Fund for town centre regeneration. Teignbridge successfully submitted an expression of interest and was shortlisted along with 100 other towns. Following consultation with residents and presentation to Executive on 21 July 2020, the final business plan was submitted at the end of July. Details of this opportunity to fund and invest in Newton Abbot will be brought to members for consideration in due course, once the results of the bid are known.
Council of 29 July 2019 also resolved to grant authority to enable progression of the regeneration in the Brunswick Street area of Teignmouth town centre. This project will be funded mainly from prudential borrowing. It is anticipated construction will commence in November, subject to planning permission and satisfactory tender results.
Capital - coastal & drainage
The current year’s programme is fully funded by budgeted grants of £1.9 million from the Environment Agency for regional coastal monitoring, and flood alleviation and prevention. Of this £1.8 million was received in the previous and current year, with the remainder anticipated in the current financial year.
Capital - Housing
Teignbridge were allocated £1.329 million of the government Better Care capital funding for 2020/21 towards statutory disabled facilities and other discretionary grants. Devon County Council administer the local Better Care Fund and following the local allocation formula, the final grant figure for Teignbridge is £1.333 million. We also have £0.922 million carried over from last year giving an estimated £2.254 million for 2020/21. Of this, £0.390 million will be used to support Warm Homes Fund grants, with the remainder allocated to Disabled Facilities and other energy and renovation grants.
15 We have been successful in bidding for £1.190 million from the Warm Homes Fund (Affordable Warmth Solutions) to provide central heating for vulnerable residents.
£1.426 million is budgeted in 2020/21 for additional social housing at East Street and Drake Road in Newton Abbot, (funded from a combination of government grant, Section 106 contributions, capital receipts and prudential borrowing). Planning permission was granted in February 2020 and contractors appointed in May. It is anticipated this project will start during autumn 2020, subject to the resolution of site issues. The £667,000 shared equity scheme in Chudleigh is being progressed.
£300,000 is budgeted in 2020/21 for right to buy receipts towards the affordable housing programme. We received £601,000 for last year in April 2020, however do not anticipate the same level of income in the current year due to Covid-19 restrictions. This income will cease in January 2024. No previously paid renovation grants have so far been recovered by Teignbridge this year.
Capital – spatial planning
£4.305 million of CIL (Community Infrastructure Levy) and temporary internal borrowing is budgeted in 2020/21 towards infrastructure projects. This includes £535,000 towards cycle paths, £1.300 million towards Marsh Barton Station, £810,000 in forward funding for the Houghton Barton link road, £1.000 million towards the A382 improvements and £219,000 toward the play area refurbishment at Decoy countryside park. A provision for £2.000 million for District Heating has been noted; this payment is anticipated in 2025, as approved by Council on 30 September 2020. Available CIL as at the end of 2019/20 was £4.097 million, with £2.352 million forecast to be received in 2020/21, using a more cautious model than previously to reflect reduced house-building activity.
At Council on 25 September 2017, the acquisition of approximately 38 hectares of land at South West Exeter for the creation of SANGS was approved. This is occurring in phases, with parcels K, 1 and 1A purchased to date in 2019/20. Instatement works will take place in line with the acquisition phasing.
Teignbridge has been successful in bidding for £150,000 of capacity funding to support the delivery of Newton Abbot as a garden town from the Garden Communities Programme. The Programme is to transform local communities focused on sustainability and supported by the right infrastructure.
The Capital Review Group are keeping all projects under review to identify increased risks due to the economic consequences of Covid-19. This includes the potential for delays, associated cost increases and changes to
16 ongoing revenue assumptions and how this might affect the viability of projects.
7. RISKS
The major risks in examining and projecting financial forecasts are predicting future trends and variances. This is mitigated through monthly monitoring and discussions with service managers. The most significant concerns are detailed in sections 4 and 5 above in relation to the revenue budget and Government funding to bridge the likely revenue gap. There is no clarity on funding for future years or how any further funding reviews will take shape. There is no clarity on predicted changes to business rates retention and the abolition of New Homes Bonus and what it may be replaced with and how our funding from these sources will change as a result. The long term impacts of leaving the European Union and the economic changes are difficult to determine and any impacts on business rates, council tax support, debt recovery etc. Covid 19 represents a very serious threat to delivery of services moving forward and the ability to generate income in the same way. Next steps will involve establishing a plan in conjunction with any Central Government support to stimulate the economy and deliver on key objectives and priorities. This has required a reset of the budget for the current financial year taking account available support and advice from the Government which will be monitored as we move towards establishing a draft budget for 2021/22.
8. MAIN IMPLICATIONS
The implications members need to be aware of are as follows:
8.1 Legal
Budget monitoring is required by the Constitution and Financial Rules.
The Financial Accounts for 2019/20 need to be produced and audited in accordance with the Accounts & Audit Regulations 2015.
Monitoring and reporting of the treasury management results is required by the CIPFA Treasury Management Code
8.2 Resources
The report notes a revenue gap for 2020/21 of £4.6 million which will reduce by approximately £3 million from funding for losses from sales/fees & charges income (less furlough income and other expenses saved). £1.7 million losses from council tax and business rates for 2020/21 will be part of the funding exercise for 2021/22 to 2023/24 and will require further clarification from Government and CIPFA as to how this will be applied. A realignment of the budget has taken place for 2020/21 incorporating the savings above and approved at Full Council on 30 September 2020. Cash flow is forecast to require external borrowing during the second half of 2020/21. This is likely to
17 be a mixture of short and long term loans in line with the treasury management strategy and prudential indicators. Capital is funded over the three year plan period 2020/21 to 2022/23 with the use of prudential borrowing where necessary.
9. GROUPS CONSULTED
As described in paragraph 2.5 the external auditors have been auditing the financial records and accounts during August and September.
10. ENVIRONMENTAL/CLIMATE CHANGE IMPACT
The revenue budget supports the appointment of a climate change officer and the capital programme identifies projects which have an impact on climate change denoted with a green leaf in appendix 1.
11. DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION (CONFIRMATION OF DECISION SUBJECT TO CALL-IN)
10.00 a.m. on 10 November 2020
18 TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL Appendix 1 CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2020-21 TO 2022-23
32,632 28,001 30,991 17,663
Bid/ Code Asset/Service Area Description Complete C/f ? ORIGINAL LATEST LATEST LATEST Council Strategy /bid no. ?
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
2020-21 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees)
KG1 Bakers Park Bakers Park development (S106) √ 402 718 8. Out and about and active
Contribution to Superfast Broadband subject to procurement arrangements (RS) KL1 Broadband (2022/23) subject to satisfactory assurances 250 6. Investing in prosperity of funds being spent within Teignbridge area.
Provision for Broadmeadow Sports Centre Bid 4 Broadmeadow Sports Centre 1,765 1,765 8. Out and about and active Improvement Plan (S106/BC). *
KY3 Broadmeadow Sports Centre Hot water boiler replacement (RS) 20 8. Out and about and active
Bid 245 Churchyards Provision for Churchyards (RS) * √ 43 4. Great places to live & work
KY5 Climate Change CC Provision for carbon reduction projects (RS) √ 132 232 10. Zero heroes
Provision for Forde House replacement Bid 229e Climate Change CC 340 - 340 10. Zero heroes heating system (CR) *
SW Regional Coastal Monitoring KR3 Coastal Monitoring 724 1,532 9. Strong communities Programme. (GG,EC) √
Coastal asset review: project management KR5 Coastal Monitoring 77 9. Strong communities support (GG) √
KR6 Coastal Monitoring Coastal asset review (GG) √ 210 9. Strong communities
KG8 Cycle paths CC Teign Estuary Trail (CIL) 100 100 7. Moving up a gear
Bid 211 Cycle paths CC Provision for Other cycling (CIL) * 280 280 170 7. Moving up a gear
Bid 211 Cycle paths CC Dawlish/Teignmouth Cycle Schemes (CIL) * 65 65 340 7. Moving up a gear
Bid 211 Cycle paths CC Heart of Teignbridge Cycle Provision (CIL) * 90 90 7. Moving up a gear
KX7 Dawlish Dawlish link road and bridge (GG) √ - 3,344 1,433 7. Moving up a gear
Provision for Dawlish Leisure Centre Bid 2 Dawlish Leisure Centre - - 1,321 8. Out and about and active Improvement Plan (S106,BC). *
KB6 Dawlish Warren Dawlish Warren Boardwalk (S106) 107 107 4. Great places to live & work
K34 Energy Company CC Energy Company (CIL) 177 - 9. Strong communities
KD2 Forde House Corporate Services Refurb feasibility (CR) √ - 10. Vital, Viable Council
Provision for Heart of Teignbridge Heart of Teignbridge: Bid 297 Employment Sites (BC: Prudential 425 6. Investing in prosperity Employment * Borrowing)
Provision for other employment land Heart of Teignbridge: Bid purchase and infrastructure (BC: Prudential 2,000 2,000 6. Investing in prosperity Employment * Borrowing)
Heart of Teignbridge: Newton Abbot employment land feasibility KL2 17 6. Investing in prosperity Employment (BC: Prudential Borrowing) √
A382 Improvements (CIL) (£5.1 m by 2022- KX8 Heart of Teignbridge 1,000 1,500 2,600 7. Moving up a gear 23)
Houghton Barton Link Rd (Prudential KW2 Heart of Teignbridge 810 440 7. Moving up a gear temporary internal Borrowing)
KW8 Heart of Teignbridge Houghton Barton land (EC) √ 146 4. Great places to live & work
Discretionary - Disrepair Loans & Grants JW/JV Housing 24 24 24 50 1. A roof over our heads (GG/CR)
19 ] TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2020-21 TO 2022-23 Appendix 1
32,632 28,001 30,991 17,663
Bid/ Code Asset/Service Area Description Complete C/f ? ORIGINAL LATEST LATEST LATEST Council Strategy /bid no. ?
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
2020-21 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees)
Better Care-funded grants re: Housing loans JW/JV Housing and grants policy, including Disabled √ 1,030 1,864 1,000 1,000 1. A roof over our heads Facilities (GG)
JV7 Housing CC Warm Homes Fund (Park Homes) (GG) √ 234 425 1. A roof over our heads
Warm Homes Fund (Category 1 Gas and JV8 Housing 1,655 1,655 1. A roof over our heads Category 2 Air Source Heat Pumps) (GG)
Broadhempston Community Land Trust JY7 Housing 5 1. A roof over our heads (CR,RS) C √
JY3 Housing Exception site Starcross (CR) 65 65 1. A roof over our heads
Additional Social Housing in Newton Abbot JY3 Housing (East St) (CR, RS,GG, BC: Prudential √ 890 909 1. A roof over our heads Borrowing,S106)
Additional Social Housing in Newton Abbot JY3 Housing (Drake Road) (CR,RS,GG,BC: Prudential √ 509 517 1. A roof over our heads Borrowing,S106)
JY3 Housing Longstone Cross Ashburton (CR) √ 100 1. A roof over our heads
JY3 Housing Aller Road Kingsteignton 20 1. A roof over our heads
JY8 Housing Shared Equity Scheme (S106) 667 668 1. A roof over our heads
Bid Housing Provision for Shared Equity Scheme (CR) * 158 158 1. A roof over our heads
JY3 Housing Affordable Housing unallocated (CR) 200 40 200 1. A roof over our heads
JY5 Housing Additional plots Haldon (S106,CR) C √ 4 1. A roof over our heads
Provision for Habitat Regulations Bid 80 Habitat Regulations 179 179 70 88 4. Great places to live & work infrastructure measures (CIL) *
IT - provision for Mobile KV3 CC Mobile Working (RS) 84 86 10. Vital, Viable Council Working √
KV4 IT - Customer Services Customer Portal (RS) 32 10. Vital, Viable Council
KV6 IT - Convergence Strata projects: Convergence Projects (RS) √ 16 10. Vital, Viable Council
KV6 IT 17-18 Strata projects Cemeteries (RS) √ 8 10. Vital, Viable Council
KV6 IT 17-18 Strata projects Grounds, Street, Public Realm (RS) √ 27 10. Vital, Viable Council
KV6 IT 17-18 Strata projects Environmental Health: Idox (RS) √ 13 10. Vital, Viable Council
Strata projects: Uniform Implementation KV7 IT - Planning - 10. Vital, Viable Council (RS) √
KV7 IT - Planning Planning system improvements (RS) 36 10. Vital, Viable Council
KV8 IT - Capital contribution Ongoing contributions towards Strata (RS) 41 41 41 41 10. Vital, Viable Council
KV9 IT - HR Strata projects: Human Resources (RS) √ 3 10. Vital, Viable Council
KX6 IT - Legal Services Legal Case Management (RS) √ 7 10. Vital, Viable Council
KV1 IT - Finance Adelante upgrade (RS) C 16 10. Vital, Viable Council
Bid IT - Finance Provision for Finance Convergence (RS) * 100 100 167 10. Vital, Viable Council
Bid IT - Finance/HR Provision for Winnix replacement (RS) * 13 13 10. Vital, Viable Council
Provision for Street Cleansing, Grounds Bid IT - Property and Assets 103 103 10. Vital, Viable Council Maintenance and Asset Management (RS) *
IT - Corporate: Strata Windows 10/ infrastructure resilience KV5 47 10. Vital, Viable Council Business Plan 2020-21 measures
KV2 IT - Revenue & Benefits Civica upgrade (RS) 41 10. Vital, Viable Council
KB3 Kingskerswell Purchase of land for open space 17 4. Great places to live & work
KG2 Leisure Playing Pitch Improvement Plan (S106) 23 8. Out and about and active
20 ] TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2020-21 TO 2022-23 Appendix 1
32,632 28,001 30,991 17,663
Bid/ Code Asset/Service Area Description Complete C/f ? ORIGINAL LATEST LATEST LATEST Council Strategy /bid no. ?
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
2020-21 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees)
KX9 Marsh Barton CC Marsh Barton Station (CIL) 1,300 1,300 7. Moving up a gear
3G artifical playing pitch, Coach Road, KG4 Newton Abbot 120 8. Out and about and active Newton Abbot (S106, CR) √
Provision for Newton Abbot Leisure Centre Bid 23 Newton Abbot Leisure Centre 30 8. Out and about and active fire alarm control panel (RS) *
Bid Provision for Newton Abbot Leisure Centre 236a/b & Newton Abbot Leisure Centre AC Unit , Accoustic main sports hall & * 62 8. Out and about and active 237 sports hall cooling system. (CR)
Provision for Newton Abbot Leisure Centre Bid 3 Newton Abbot Leisure Centre 350 8. Out and about and active Improvement Plan (S106;RS;CR) *
Newton Abbot Leisure Centre Gym KF5 Newton Abbot Leisure Centre 56 96 40 40 8. Out and about and active Equipment (RS,S106) √
Newton Abbot Town Centre Provision for Newton Abbot Town Centre Bid 299 400 400 3. Going to town Regeneration Improvements (GG) *
Newton Abbot Town Centre KX1 Halcyon Rd (BC:Prudential Borrowing) 3,381 585 3,000 3,000 3. Going to town Regeneration √
Newton Abbot Town Centre KL9 Cattle Market Enabling Works (CR) 200 3. Going to town Regeneration √ Newton Abbot Town Centre KL7 Bradley Lane Enabling Works (RS,CR) 32 3. Going to town Regeneration √
Newton Abbot Town Centre KW9 Cinema (RS) 18 3. Going to town Regeneration √
Sherborne House: town centre Newton Abbot Town Centre KX2 regeneration/Social Housing (BC: Prudential 2,282 309 2,400 3. Going to town Regeneration √ Borrowing)
Provision for Future High Street Fund Bid Newton Abbot Town Centre projects (GG, CIL, EC, BC: Prudential * 4,087 6,207 6,646 6,930 3. Going to town Borrowing)
KW5 Open Spaces Cirl bunting land (S106) 250 250 125 4. Great places to live & work
Provision for Dawlish play space flagship Bid 44 Play area equipment/refurb 75 - 75 8. Out and about and active provision (S106) *
Provision for Powderham Newton Abbot Bid 45 Play area equipment/refurb 30 30 8. Out and about and active play space equipment (S106) *
Provision for Newton Abbot Play Area Bid 47 Play area equipment/refurb 74 74 8. Out and about and active (S106) *
KJ2 Play area equipment/refurb Ogwell Play Area (S106) C 33 8. Out and about and active
KJ4 Play area equipment/refurb Decoy refurb (S106/CIL) 300 300 8. Out and about and active
Provision for Den, Teignmouth play area Bid 49 Play area equipment/refurb 200 8. Out and about and active overhaul (S106/CIL) *
Higher Woodway, Teignmouth play area KJ3 Play area equipment/refurb 30 30 8. Out and about and active refurb (S106)
Provision for Meadow Centre Teignmouth Bid 51 Play area equipment/refurb 30 8. Out and about and active play area major refurb (S106) *
Provision for Palace Meadow, Chudleigh Bid 58 Play area equipment/refurb 15 15 8. Out and about and active play space overhaul (S106) *
KJ6 Play area equipment/refurb Furlong Close, Buckfastleigh (CR) 28 28 8. Out and about and active
Provision for Teignbridge-funded play area Bid 67 Play area equipment/refurb 86 - 86 8. Out and about and active refurb/equipment (CR) *
KB1 SANGS/Open Spaces SANGS land purchase (GG; CIL) √ 611 4. Great places to live & work
KB1 SANGS/Open Spaces SANGS instatement (GG; CIL) √ 262 95 4. Great places to live & work
Provision for South West Exeter Transport Bid 95 South West Exeter 7. Moving up a gear (2023-28) (CIL) *
(Updated) SW Exeter Education Provision K13 South West Exeter 1,000 4. Great places to live & work (CIL)
District Heating (CIL) £2 million loan KY1 South West Exeter 3,000 9. Strong communities payment anticipated in 2025. *
Bid 5 Sport & Leisure Provision for Sports Provision (CIL) * 664 664 8. Out and about and active
21 ] TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2020-21 TO 2022-23 Appendix 1
32,632 28,001 30,991 17,663
Bid/ Code Asset/Service Area Description Complete C/f ? ORIGINAL LATEST LATEST LATEST Council Strategy /bid no. ?
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
2020-21 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees)
Provision for Outdoor sport facility to serve Bid 72 Sport & Leisure 230 - 8. Out and about and active Newton Abbot area (S106) *
Bid 90 Teignbridge Provision for Education (CIL) * 350 1,700 4. Great places to live & work
Provision for Teignmouth Lido boiler Bid 40 Teignmouth Lido 100 100 8. Out and about and active replacement (CR) *
Teignmouth Town Centre Regeneration KX3 Teignmouth Town Centre (includes feasibility budget) (BC: Prudential √ 3,531 2,200 4,784 6. Investing in prosperity Borrowing)
Provision for Teignmouth open space Bid 77 Teignmouth 50 4. Great places to live & work (S106) *
KR1 Teignmouth Beach Management Plan (GG) √ 115 9. Strong communities
Eastcliff flood remediation feasibility KR2 Teignmouth 3 9. Strong communities (CR)
Provision for Bulking Station - replace Bid 116 Waste Management 50 50 50 2. Clean scene telehandlers (RS) *
Provision for Bulking Station - replace Bid 118 Waste Management 75 100 2. Clean scene Sortline (RS) *
Bid 120 Waste Management Provision for Waste vehicles (RS) * 200 2. Clean scene
Bid Waste Management Provision for replacement card baler (2026) * 2. Clean scene
KS0 Waste Management Purchase of Wheeled Bins (RS) 104 104 104 104 2. Clean scene 32,632 28,001 30,991 17,663
22 ] TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL CAPITAL PROGRAMME 2020-21 TO 2022-23 Appendix 1
32,632 28,001 30,991 17,663
Bid/ Code Asset/Service Area Description Complete C/f ? ORIGINAL LATEST LATEST LATEST Council Strategy /bid no. ?
BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET BUDGET
2020-21 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 £'000 £'000 £'000 £'000 (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees) (Inc Fees)
FUNDING GENERAL
Revenue contributions to reserve (44) - - - towards future expenditure Revenue contributions applied to (252) - - - existing expenditure Capital Receipts Unapplied - Brought (3,290) (3,633) (3,144) (1,670) forward
Capital Receipts - Anticipated (1,700) (247) - -
Budgeted Revenue Contribution plus (271) (20) - (681) additional for specific schemes
Use of Revenue Contributions Reserve (26) (477) (254) -
Government Grants (2,507) (9,460) (6,357) (4,602) S106 (1,413) (1,333) (586) - Other External Contributions (803) (146) - (180) Community Infrastructure Levy (6,115) (3,495) (3,875) (5,600) Internal Borrowing (235) (810) - - Capital Receipts Unapplied - Carried 3,776 3,144 1,670 1,226 forward
Business cases: Prudential borrowing (13,614) (4,834) (16,656) (5,106)
HOUSING Capital Receipts Unapplied - Brought (2,235) (2,325) (1,512) (1,373) forward Capital Receipts - Anticipated (50) (50) (50) (50)
Capital Receipts - Right to Buy (700) (300) (600) (600)
Better Care Funding and other government (3,374) (4,224) (1,000) (1,000) grants.
S106 (667) (672) -
Other External Contributions - - -
Internal or Prudential Borrowing (801) (583)
Budgeted Revenue Contribution plus - - - additional for specific schemes.
Use of Revenue Contributions Reserve (34) (48)
Capital Receipts Unapplied - Carried 1,427 1,512 1,373 1,973 forward
TOTAL FUNDING (32,632) (28,001) (30,991) (17,663) - - - Revenue contribution re: previous years' (252) - - - expenditure
Revenue contributions to reserve (44) - - - towards future expenditure Programme Funding Budgeted and additional Revenue (271) (20) - (681) Contribution
Revenue Contributions earmarked (60) (525) (254) - reserve. Capital Receipts (2,772) (1,900) (2,264) (494) Section 106 (2,080) (2,005) (586) - Other External Contribution (803) (146) - (180) Grant (5,881) (13,684) (7,357) (5,602) Community Infrastructure Levy (6,115) (3,495) (3,875) (5,600) Internal borrowing (235) (810)
Business cases: Prudential borrowing (14,415) (5,417) (16,656) (5,106)
Total (32,632) (28,002) (30,992) (17,663)
Balance of capital receipts (5,203) (4,657) (3,043) (3,199)
Key: EC - External Contributions GG - Government Grant (1) CR - Capital Receipt RS - Revenue Savings BC - Business Case C - project complete. Where this relates to payment of a contribution, indicates contribution has been paid. * - Provisional scheme, pending full approval
Climate Change project
Bold Denotes a change in the programme
23 ] This page is intentionally left blank Appendix 2
TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL TREASURY MANAGEMENT: AUTHORISED LENDING LIST FROM 3 NOVEMBER 2020
Lending list The current authorised lending list has been updated to take account of changes in ratings and banks and is shown below for approval. Specified Investments Type of Lender Details 1. Current Banker Lloyds Bank £3,000,000 limit 2. Local Authorities All No limit 3. UK Debt Management Office Deposit Facility (UK government AA/Aa2/AA rated) no limit. 4. UK Treasury Bills (UK government AA/Aa2/AA rated) no limit. 5. Money market funds, subject to maintenance of LNAV status and AAAmf rating. CCLA Public Sector Deposit Fund AAAmmf £3,000,000 limit Aberdeen Liquidity Fund AAAmmf £3,000,000 limit Blackrock Liquidity Fund AAAmmf £3,000,000 limit LGIM Liquidity Fund AAAmmf £3,000,000 limit 7. Top UK-registered Banks and Building Societies, subject to satisfactory ratings. Updated below to reflect information provided by treasury advisors. 8. Non-specified: CCLA Property and Diversified Income Funds - £2,000,000 limit
90 day 180 day 364 day Overall Institution Tier limit limit limit limit £ £ £ £ HSBC Bank plc 1 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 Santander UK plc 1 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 Lloyds Bank plc and 1 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 Bank of Scotland plc Handelsbanken plc 1 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 Sumitomo Mitsui Banking 1 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000 Corporation Europe Ltd Goldman Sachs International Bank 1 3,000,000 2,000,000 1,000,000 3,000,000
Close Brothers Ltd 2 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Standard Chartered Bank 2 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Nationwide Building Society 1 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 NatWest Bank 2 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Coventry Building Society 2 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000 Royal Bank of Scotland 2 2,000,000 1,000,000 2,000,000
Clydesdale Bank 3 1,000,000 1,000,000 Nottingham Building Society 3 1,000,000 1,000,000 Skipton Building Society 3 1,000,000 1,000,000 Yorkshire Building Society 3 1,000,000 1,000,000 Leeds Building Society 3 1,000,000 1,000,000 Principality Building Society 3 1,000,000 1,000,000
25
Appendix 2
TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL TREASURY MANAGEMENT: AUTHORISED LENDING LIST FROM 3 NOVEMBER 2020
Bank regulations force banks to maintain “capital buffers”, classifying their deposits according to duration. Instant access accounts and short deposits are not attractive to banks as they cannot be counted towards those buffers. For this reason, interest rates on most “call” accounts remain low.
Other Non-specified investments
These will be considered on a case-by case basis, using the decision-making framework laid out in the Commercial Strategy. Investments which may be considered include Renewable energy/social impact investments On-lending to key partners/stakeholders in relation to jointly beneficial projects Lending in instances where doing so would protect the local economy
26 Agenda Item 8
TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE
03 NOVEMBER 2020
Report Title Future strategic planning working with Exeter City Council, East Devon District Council, Mid Devon District Council and Devon County Council Purpose of Report To set out options for future joint strategic planning arrangements with East Devon, Exeter and Mid Devon Councils and agree a preferred approach. Recommendation(s) The Committee RESOLVES to:
1. Recommend that Full Council formally withdraws from the preparation of the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan.
2. Recommend that Full Council support in principle the production of a joint non-statutory plan, to include joint strategy and infrastructure matters, with East Devon, Exeter and Mid-Devon Councils, and in partnership with Devon County Council. This will be subject to agreement of details of the scope of the plan, a timetable for its production, the resources required, and governance arrangements to be agreed at a later date.
Executive 03 November 2020 27 Financial Implications These are as set out at paragraph 2.1.1 Martin Flitcroft Chief Finance Officer Tel: 01626 215246 Email: [email protected] Legal Implications These are as set out at paragraph 2.2.1 Paul Woodhead, Legal Services Team Leader and Deputy Monitoring Officer Tel: 01626 215139 Email: [email protected] Risk Assessment These are as set out at paragraph 2.3.1 Michelle Luscombe Principal Planning Policy Officer Tel: 01626 215754 Email: [email protected] Environmental/ The preparation of joint plans is a key method for climate Climate Change change mitigation and environmental protection, through Implications appropriate policies and development strategy. Commitment to joint planning will give an opportunity to consider climate and strategic environmental matters at a more effective larger-than-local scale. William Elliott Tel: 01626 215754 Email: [email protected] Report Author Michelle Luscombe Principal Planning Policy Officer Tel: 01626 215706 Email: [email protected] Executive Member Executive Member for Planning (Gary Taylor)
Appendices 1. Joint Strategic Planning Options Appraisal Part I or II Part 1 Background Papers None
1. PURPOSE 1.1 The purpose of this report is to seek formal agreement on withdrawal from the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan (GESP) project and to present options for alternative joint strategic planning approaches. The report recommends that joint strategic planning should continue in the form of a non-statutory joint plan prepared by the four authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge Councils, in partnership with Devon County Council.
2. REPORT DETAIL 2.1. Financial 2.1.1. Since the start of the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan project, each Local Planning Authority has contributed £170,000 towards shared evidence Executive 03 November 2020 28 and plan making costs. There are no commitments to make any further contributions to the GESP budget. There are unspent funds in the budget in the region of £500,000, some of which will need to be retained for future joint plan making purposes whilst the remainder can be returned to the partner authorities. This will be looked at further following a decision on this ‘in principle’ proposal to proceed with a non-statutory plan.
2.2. Legal 2.2.1. Section 19 (1B) of the Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act 2004 places a statutory duty on each Council to prepare a plan which identifies their strategic priorities and policies for managing the development of land in their area. The Council is in the process of preparing a review of its Local Plan. It had previously been agreed that the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan would be prepared alongside the Council’s Local Plan to cover all strategic policies and site allocations. However, there is no statutory requirement to prepare a joint strategic plan and, in the absence of this, the Local Plan will absorb all strategic matters alongside local issues.
2.3. Risks 2.3.1. The main risks associated with the recommendations relate to the potential loss of ability to attract Government support and investment as a result of not having the Greater Exeter Strategic Plan ‘brand’ and agreed partnership aspirations. A joint statutory plan would provide most opportunity to present our plan as a nationally significant proposition to Government.
2.3.2. Without any joint plan, there would be significantly less opportunity to agree a positive framework for matters like climate change, biodiversity net gain, connectivity and transport.
2.3.3. However, a joint non-statutory plan would enable us to coordinate a response to wider are aspirations and constraints, particularly in relation to transport, infrastructure and the environment. It would demonstrate a Executive 03 November 2020 29 joined approach for addressing cross boundary and strategic issues and therefore provide a platform on which to bid for Government financial support.
2.4. Environmental/Climate Change Impact 2.4.1. Climate change mitigation and adaptation forms a key part of joint planning work. By its nature, climate change is something which cannot be considered in one isolated area, but can only be tackled through work which reflects cross-boundary transport movements and other strategic matters. Involvement in joint strategic planning provides an opportunity to consider carbon emission and climate change impacts of development and transport over a wider area. Because of this, involvement in joint planning is likely to be beneficial to climate change policy compared with seeking to achieve carbon neutrality in just one district. The key impacts will arise from the specific strategy chosen, however. These implications will be addressed as joint plan-making is progressed.
2.5. Background 2.5.1. On 26th September 2016, Full Council resolved to prepare a strategic plan (GESP) covering the wider area in partnership with East Devon, Mid Devon and Exeter Councils with the support of Devon County Council. Since this time, the four authorities have worked collectively to produce evidence for the plan and prepared a Draft Plan which was brought to the relevant committees of each authority in the summer of 2020 to seek approval for consultation.
2.5.2. At the Executive meeting of Teignbridge District Council on 21st July 2020, it was resolved to publish the GESP Draft Plan for consultation. However, on the 23rd July, East Devon District Council’s Strategic Planning Committee resolved to recommend to their Council that EDDC withdraw from working on the GESP while making a commitment to continue to work with the partner authorities. This recommendation was then agreed at their Council on the 29th August.
Executive 03 November 2020 30 2.5.3. Since that time discussions have continued between leaders and relevant portfolio holders/executive members on alternative options for continuing partnership working outside of GESP. Discussions have focused on the issues that bring the partner authorities of East Devon, Exeter, Mid Devon and Teignbridge together. These are primarily that the collective authorities comprise a functional economic area and form an extensive housing and travel to work area. The wider area also faces common issues; housing affordability and the need to deliver greater numbers of homes; constraints on our infrastructure and limits to the availability of funding; the need for a flexible and efficient transport system which supports prosperity and access to services; the need to respond to the climate emergency, achieve net zero carbon development and increase habitat creation; and the need to improve accessibility for urban and rural areas by widening digital connectivity. These vital issues affect the whole area and therefore can be effectively considered in a strategic, cross-boundary manner.
2.6. Benefits of continued joint strategic planning 2.6.1. While there are real-life, practical reasons for collaboration, the need to work together effectively is currently supported by the Duty to Cooperate, a legal duty in plan preparation. Although the planning White Paper is considering the abolition of the Duty, this is some time from being removed in practice. The White Paper is also clear in identifying the on- going need to cooperate on significant matters such as infrastructure provision and central government has confirmed it is giving this further thought.
2.6.2. Turning to delivery, discussions with Homes England have shown the importance of demonstrating common aspirations, priorities and approaches to current issues when seeking funding. Joint working will be vital to help lever in this funding to support delivery, particularly regarding critical, strategic infrastructure with wide-spread benefits and where there is a large funding gap. Such an approach would help to establish a
Executive 03 November 2020 31 recognisable brand reflecting a tangible and clear location which would be received favourably by the government.
2.6.3. In practical, plan-making terms, there are also significant benefits in working together because collaboration enables evidence to be commissioned jointly, expertise to be shared and effort focused flexibly. It also provides the opportunity to seek funding or work jointly with agencies such as Homes England on plan-preparation (e.g. by sharing evidence) which could have financial and consistency benefits.
3. OPTIONS 3.1. Consideration of options for future joint planning 3.1.1. The GESP Project Assurance Group (comprised of the Heads of Planning from the participating authorities) have identified 6 options for future joint working. A summary of these is provided in Table 1. The options range from continuing to prepare a joint statutory plan in the form of the GESP, to the bare minimum requirement of meeting our Duty to Cooperate obligations whilst preparing individual Local Plans. A detailed appraisal of these options is provided in Appendix 1.
3.1.2. Although in purely technical planning terms the options which include statutory joint plans and strategies would be preferred, it is considered that these are unlikely to be politically acceptable for all authorities in the current period post-GESP and taking forward such a plan without all of the partners from the sub-region would undermine the status of a statutory document and risk the soundness of the plan. This means that options 5 and 6 in Table 1 are unlikely to be deliverable.
3.1.3. It is considered that there is a clear need for joint working if we are to successfully address the shared issues the partner authorities face and lever in the infrastructure funding needed. Therefore undertaking a more co-ordinated approach than simply complying with the duty to co-operate
Executive 03 November 2020 32 is considered essential. On this basis, option 1 would not be sufficient to meet the collective Councils’ objectives.
3.1.4. As such, in order to effectively address the strategic cross boundary issues set out in 2.5.3, to demonstrate proactive joint working on strategic infrastructure delivery, and to have a solution which is politically acceptable to all partners, it is necessary to explore a middle ground scenario. In this case, the middle ground is the preparation of a non- statutory strategy which would ensure that there is a shared approach to strategic matters such as economic development, carbon reduction, digital connectivity, infrastructure delivery and habitats mitigation whilst enabling the individual local planning authorities to retain control over the timetable and scope of statutory Local Plans. Option 4 provides the best scenario for achieving this.
3.1.5. The following options have been considered. A full appraisal is available in Appendix 1.
Option Scope Comments 1. Determined by each LPA Minimum opportunity to agree a Baseline: (*). positive planning framework for Each LPA critical issues and to lever in progresses its Could include some joint central government funding. own Local Plan evidence on defined topics and works with as has happened in the Maximum opportunity to the other LPAs to past (e.g. housing, gypsy prepare an unencumbered meet Duty to Co- and travellers. habitat Local Plan review. operate (or mitigation, transport) replacement)
2. Similar to option 1, but with Some opportunity to have a Each LPA model policies that can be shared approach towards progresses its adapted to suit local common issues but unlikely to own Local Plan circumstances and limited sufficiently demonstrate a and works to in scope to cross-boundary collective approach to attract meet the DtC. matters (e.g. climate central government support for Local Plans change) (*). infrastructure delivery. include model strategic policies (*) and are Executive 03 November 2020 33 informed by shared evidence where appropriate. 3. Government-facing Would provide a co-ordinated Non-statutory document aimed at planned response to the area’s Joint securing funding to deliver infrastructure priorities and help Infrastructure infrastructure needed to to secure central government Plan support growth. investment. However, without an overarching strategy to hang This could just be growth the plan on, it could lack identified in adopted Local ambition and a shared Plans and/or growth understanding of strategic proposed in emerging issues. plans. As a non-statutory plan it would As a non-statutory plan it not be subject to statutory would not be subject to consultation or examination and statutory consultation or therefore would be faster to examination and therefore prepare and more able to would be a faster and respond to changing more flexible plan. circumstances. 4. Place-making, aspirational Would provide a co-ordinated Non-statutory non-statutory plan covering response to the area’s strategic joint strategy and strategic place making and economic, climate, housing, infrastructure infrastructure delivery. environmental and plan infrastructure issues and help to Used to promote the secure central government Garden Communities and investment. sub-regional brand, in addition to identifying As a non-statutory plan it would infrastructure not be subject to statutory requirements. consultation or examination and therefore would be faster to Part Government- facing prepare and more able to document and part respond to changing strategy document. circumstances.
5. High-level statutory plan Would provide a co-ordinated Statutory joint containing strategic response to the area’s strategic strategy and policies and infrastructure economic, climate, housing, infrastructure requirements. This would environmental and plan essentially be GESP infrastructure issues and help to without East Devon. secure central government investment, with added weight Matters/sites not covered because it would be in a in the strategic plan will be statutory plan. covered in Local Plans. Given recent decisions made by East Devon District Council it is Executive 03 November 2020 34 unlikely that this option will be politically acceptable.
6. A statutory plan containing Would provide a co-ordinated Full statutory joint strategic and local policies, response to the area’s strategic plan infrastructure requirements economic, climate, housing, and all site allocations. environmental and infrastructure issues and help to There would be no Local secure central government Plans prepared by investment, with added weight individual LPAs. because it would be in a statutory plan.
Given recent decisions made by East Devon District Council it is unlikely that this option will be politically acceptable.
Perceived loss of local control over more locally relevant policies.
(*) Comments are caveated by the Government’s proposals in the recent Planning White Paper. Table 1: Options for Joint Strategic Plan Making
3.2. Resourcing future joint planning 3.2.1. At this stage, we are seeking an ‘in principle’ agreement to proceed with a non-statutory infrastructure and strategy plan based on option 4 in Table 1 with details relating to budget, detailed scope, and governance reserved for discussion at a later date. However, it should be noted that any resource required for option 4 will be less than was previously committed for GESP. This is due to the fact that a non-statutory plan: would not be subject to statutory consultation arrangements or a public examination. Costs for the examination would have been in the region of £150k to be split across the 4 authorities and is not currently within the GESP budget; would not include details relating to development sites which would have required extensive site investigation work and
Executive 03 November 2020 35 masterplanning (NB. it should be noted however that this work will have to be picked up as part of the Local Plan); can draw on the significant amount of evidence already collected as part of the GESP project. Additional evidence may be required to support the non-statutory plan but would not be above and beyond what would have been required for the GESP; is likely to require less staffing resource than the preparation of a statutory plan.
4. CONCLUSION 4.1. Proposed future joint strategic planning approach 4.1.1. Having considered the various merits and risks associated with each of the options, it is recommended that a decision is made to formally withdraw from the GESP project on the basis that there is not commitment from all of the necessary partner authorities to proceed with a joint statutory plan. Proceeding on a statutory plan in the absence of East Devon would significantly risk the soundness of the plan and our collective ability to meet our agreed goals of having shared solutions to common issues and being a nationally significant proposition to government to lever in critical infrastructure funding to support our new and existing communities.
4.1.2. If this is agreed, then in light on not being able to proceed with the GESP, it is recommended that a non-statutory strategy and infrastructure plan is prepared alongside a Local Plan for Teignbridge, in order to address the vital issues that affect the whole of the wider sub-region.
4.1.3. Each of the partner authorities will be taking a similar report through their relevant committees in the next few months to seek agreement on this revised joint planning approach.
Executive 03 November 2020 36 Appendix 1 Joint planning options appraisal matrix
Option Scope Timetable Resources Pros Cons Comments
1. Determined by Determined by Determined by Greater political certainty than No opportunity to agree a Minimal joint each LPA (*). each LPA (*). each LPA. joint-working options. positive planning framework working, including Baseline: for cross-boundary planning no joint strategic Each LPA Could include No sharing of No need for joint Governance. matters, e.g. climate change, planning (although progresses its own some joint resources biodiversity net gain, possibility to Local Plan and evidence on (although could LPA only needs to fund a Local connectivity and (*). implement works with the defined topics as allow for Plans team. alongside options 3 other LPAs to meet has happened in procurement of Reliant on DtC to address and 4). Therefore Duty to Co- the past (e.g. shared evidence Timescale fully under control strategic cross boundary the implications of
37 operate (or housing, gypsy where considered of the LPA and can reflect how issues (*). taking a strategic replacement) and travellers. appropriate). far it has progressed to date. boundary blind habitat The option least likely to approach towards mitigation, LPA only has to resource 1 attract Gov’t /Homes England meeting housing transport) Examination (Local Plan). support for housebuilding / needs would not be infrastructure delivery. felt. Most likely the quickest route Also, no to achieving an adopted Plan Minimum opportunity to opportunity to for each LPA for the purpose of attract external funding for ‘spread’ any meeting housing needs, studies / evidence base potential housing securing a 5 year supply of required to support the Local need asks made by deliverable housing sites, and Plan. neighbouring having up to date policies on authorities (e.g. key matters such as climate Procurement of evidence by Torbay). change, carbon reduction etc. individual LPAs likely to be less efficient 2. Similar to option Similar to Determined by Opportunity to agree a positive Reliant on DtC to address No comprehensive 1, but with model option 1, but each LPA. framework for cross-boundary strategic cross boundary joint strategic Each LPA policies that can will require an matters like climate change, issues (*). planning (although progresses its own be adapted to suit element of No sharing of biodiversity net gain, possibility to Local Plan and local common Local resources connectivity and transport. implement Executive 03 November 2020 Option Scope Timetable Resources Pros Cons Comments
works to meet the circumstances Plan timescales (although could Could therefore satisfy many Potential for the model alongside options 3 DtC. Local Plans and limited in across the allow for DtC requirements (*). Model policies to be diluted and and 4). The include model scope to cross- LPAs, with procurement of wording would not be binding amended away from the implications of strategic policies boundary matters agreement on shared evidence on any LPA. common elements. taking a strategic (*) and are (e.g. climate model policies where considered boundary blind informed by change) (*). to meet those appropriate). Greater political certainty than Questionable if this will approach towards shared evidence timescales (*). other joint-working options. demonstrate a collective meeting housing where Model policies will approach sufficient to attract needs would not be appropriate. require some form No need for joint Governance. Gov’t /Homes England felt. Also, no of joint working. support for housebuilding / opportunity to LPA only needs to fund a Local infrastructure delivery. ‘spread’ any Plans team. potential housing Timescale less under the need asks made by LPA only needs to resource 1 control of the LPA than neighbouring Examination (Local Plan). option 1 and may not reflect authorities (e.g. how far it has progressed to Torbay).
38 Compared to option 1, date in its Local Plan review. provides greater scope for attracting external funding for studies / evidence base required to support the Local Plan.
Potential for procuring shared evidence, which may result in efficiency savings.
Model policies on key matters may result in less developer confusion (*).
Model policies / S106 requirements may reduce opportunity for developers to
Executive 03 November 2020 Option Scope Timetable Resources Pros Cons Comments
‘take advantage’ of individual LPAs (*). 3. Government- Could be Determined by Fewer joint governance Still reliant on DTC to address A non-statutory facing document undertaken each LPA, although pressures than options 4-6. some strategic cross document, Non-statutory aimed at securing outside of will require some boundary issues (*). therefore Joint Infrastructure funding to deliver formal Local form of joint Provides a co-ordinated fundamentally Plan (all 4 LPAs) infrastructure Plan timetables working. Would planned response to the area’s If LPAs want the joint plan to different to GESP. needed to if only covering need specific DCC infrastructure aspirations and cover growth proposed in support growth. growth in involvement. constraints. emerging plans, the Can work alongside adopted Local timescale will rely on options 1 or 2. This could just be Plans. Could be Potential to be led Confirms common aspirations individual Local Plan growth identified prepared more by DCC. for proactive infrastructure timescales. These may vary in adopted Local quickly than a delivery linked to development LPAs. Plans and/or, statutory plan. proposal without the 39 growth proposed difficulties of joint plan Potential difficulties of in emerging making. preparing a joint plans. infrastructure plan without a Could be successful in securing cogent joint strategy to hang Could cover all Gov’t / Homes England funding it on. strategic for infrastructure (e.g. the Kent infrastructure, or and Medway Growth and An infrastructure plan that just DCC Infrastructure Framework1. only sets out infrastructure infrastructure. funding requirements for Could be Opportunity for a Devon-wide ‘already planned’ growth prepared by DCC, Infrastructure Plan with sub- may not demonstrate a although would sections focussing on different collective and ambitious need a level of areas of Devon to avoid approach sufficient to attract buy-in from the ‘watering down’ the sub- Gov’t /Homes England LPAs in order to regional branding. support for housebuilding / secure external infrastructure delivery unless funding. Budget support from LPAs some form prioritisation is Geographic scope would be significantly less than
1 Latest Kent and Medway Framework can be viewed here: https://www.kent.gov.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0018/80145/GIF-Framework-full-document.pdf. Executive 03 November 2020 Option Scope Timetable Resources Pros Cons Comments
would need existing GESP budget undertake which could be consideration if requirements. challenging. prepared by DCC. Although challenging, this An Infrastructure Plan that May need an provides an opportunity for sets out infrastructure associated some form of infrastructure funding requirements for governance prioritisation which improves planned and emerging regime covering the deliverability of key growth will require a greater funding projects. degree of joint governance. prioritisation. 4. Place-making, Prepared Small project team Allows for more effective Will require Local Plans to be A non-statutory aspirational non- alongside Local of officers from the strategic and infrastructure adopted before aspirations in document, Non-statutory statutory plan Plan LPAs / DCC planning and would be more the plan can be enforced. therefore joint strategy and covering strategic preparation. required. likely to attract Gov’t / Homes fundamentally infrastructure plan growth and The strategy England funding than options 2 Relies on decision-making different, to GESP. infrastructure. elements and 3. across multiple Councils for
40 would be likely key strategic matters. Can work alongside Used to promote to increase the Provides a co-ordinated Therefore potentially more option options 1 the Garden time required planned response to the area’s political risky than options 2 and 2. Communities and to deliver the strategic growth and and 3). sub-regional project when infrastructure aspirations and brand, in addition compared with constraints (more so than 2 Risks diverting resources to identifying option 3. and 3). away from statutory plan infrastructure preparation. requirements. Opportunity to agree a positive framework for cross-boundary Non-binding on each Council Part Government- matters like climate change, and at risk of not being facing document biodiversity net gain, followed. and part strategy connectivity, transport and document. development needs. Could therefore satisfy a number of DtC requirements (more so than 2/3) (*)
Executive 03 November 2020 Option Scope Timetable Resources Pros Cons Comments
Will identify and help to prioritise common infrastructure requirements
Budget support likely to be less than existing GESP budget support.
Can be prepared alongside Local Plans.
Can be used to promote the Garden Cities.
41 Potential for procuring shared evidence, which would result in efficiency savings.
DCC likely to be able to continue supporting the plan’s preparation. 5. High-level Will need to be Will require a Allows for more effective Unlikely to be politically Same status as statutory plan adopted in dedicated team of strategic and infrastructure viable at the present stage, GESP. However, Statutory joint containing advance of officers from the planning and is more likely to given EDDC’s Council scope may differ strategy and strategic policies Local Plans. LPAs / DCC. It is attract Gov’t / Homes England decision. due to the infrastructure plan and infrastructure likely that funding than options 2/3/4. potential omission requirements. Timetable additional LPA Provides a co-ordinated This option is most of site allocations. would need to resource will be planned response to the area’s inconsistent with the White From the outset, be jointly needed, as set out strategic growth and Paper proposals. E.g. two- LPAs will need to agreed. in the GESP infrastructure aspirations and tier planning may be Opportunity to agree: Options constraints (more so than inconsistent with zoning introduce district - If the plan Consultation 2/3/4). proposals. It therefore housing targets to will include Committee paper. presents the greatest risk of help overcome strategic site abortive work. political concerns Executive 03 November 2020 Option Scope Timetable Resources Pros Cons Comments
allocations or Opportunity to agree a positive over boundary growth areas; framework for cross-boundary Relies on decision-making blind approach. - If the housing matters like climate change, across multiple Councils for requirement biodiversity net gain, key strategic matters across will be connectivity, transport and all four LPAs. planned for development requirements. on a Could therefore satisfy many If the plan did not allocate boundary- DtC requirements (more so sites it may be of limited blind basis; than 2/3/4) (*) value as a statutory - If a joint 5YLS document will operate*. Will identify and help to prioritise common Any timetable delays will Matters/sites not infrastructure requirements potentially affect the covered in the timetables of Local Plans. strategic plan will Budget support likely to be be covered in equal to or less than existing Will require the preparation
42 Local Plans. GESP budget support. of another Regulation 18 plan, which is likely to involve Can be used to promote the at least another 6 months. Garden Cities. Greater budgetary Would require some shared requirements for the LPAs evidence, which would result than options 2, 3, and 4. in efficiency savings.
DCC likely to be able to continue supporting the plan’s preparation. 6. A statutory plan A single The 4 LPAs will It is technically achievable – Unlikely to be politically Same statutory containing timetable for a pool their existing e.g. Plymouth and South West viable at the present stage, status as, but Full statutory joint strategic and local single plan. Local Plans teams, Devon Joint Local Plan and given EDDC’s Council significantly greater plan (all 4 LPAs) policies, ideally also with North Devon and Torridge decision. scope than, GESP. infrastructure Timetable resource input Local Plan. requirements and would need to from DCC. Executive 03 November 2020 Option Scope Timetable Resources Pros Cons Comments
all site be jointly Potential for significant skills / Relies on decision-making Opportunity to allocations. agreed. One plan would resource sharing benefits, across multiple Councils for introduce district offer significant through the pooling of existing key strategic matters across housing targets to From the outset, efficiencies in staff. all four LPAs. help overcome the LPAs will need terms of evidence political concerns to agree: costs Of all the options, this will Potential for perceived loss over boundary - If the housing provide the most co-ordinated of individual LPA control. blind approach. requirement and comprehensive planned will be response to the area’s Potential for abortive work, Potential to planned for strategic growth and as may find that the plan consider single plan on a infrastructure aspirations and boundaries don’t coincide without the need boundary- constraints. with possible future unitary for district local blind basis; boundaries. plans, particularly if - If a joint 5YLS This option will demonstrate the Government 43 will operate. to Gov’t / Homes England the reforms establish a greatest level of ambition and national set of collaboration on planning development matter. It’s therefore most management likely to attract funding and policies. support for delivery.
This presents the greatest opportunity to deliver a positive framework for cross- boundary matters like climate change, biodiversity net gain, connectivity, transport and development requirements. It will satisfy all DtC requirements within the sub- region (*).
Executive 03 November 2020 Option Scope Timetable Resources Pros Cons Comments
Will identify and help to prioritise common infrastructure requirements.
Can be used to promote the Garden Cities.
Requires procuring shared evidence, which would result in efficiency savings.
Isn’t contrary to Government thinking in White Paper.
44
Executive 03 November 2020 Agenda Item 9
TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
3 NOVEMBER 2020
Report Title SHELLFISH COLLECTION ON THE TEIGN AND EXE ESTUARIES Purpose of Report To update Members regarding shellfish collection and to offer support to the Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority in the management of the resource. Recommendation(s) The Committee RESOLVES to:
(1) Note the report; and (2) Support the Devon and Severn IFCA in efforts to manage the shellfisheries in the Teign and Exe Estuaries.
Financial Implications None – see 2.4 Martin Flitcroft – Chief Finance Officer Tel: 01626 215246 Email:[email protected] Legal Implications None Paul Woodhead, Legal Services Team Leader and Deputy Monitoring Officer Tel: 01626 215139 Email: [email protected] Risk Assessment None Graeme Smith – Coastal Officer Tel: 01626 215748 Email: [email protected] Environmental/ Climate Change – None Climate Change Environmental – over extraction has potential to alter local Implications biota and increase disturbance to feeding birds William Elliot / Climate Change Officer Tel: 07920232862 Email: [email protected] Report Author Graeme Smith – Coastal Officer Tel: 01626 215748 Email:[email protected] Portfolio Holder Cllr Jackie Hook
Appendices
Background Papers
1. PURPOSE
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 45 1.1 To update Members regarding concerns raised by the public regarding informal and largely unregulated public collection of shellfish from the Teign and Exe estuaries, and to offer support where practicable to the Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority as the lead Agency in the management of the resource.
2. REPORT DETAIL 2.1 Background The Teign and Exe estuaries are productive environments for shellfish including species which are consumed such as mussels, native oysters, pacific oysters, clams and cockles. Areas within both estuaries are used and regulated for commercial production and harvesting of shellfish, principally mussels and oysters. The general public are entitled to collect shellfish from the foreshore where they have a public right of access, and where those shellfish are not being commercially grown/harvested on ground subject to a Regulatory Fisheries Order or private ownership.
There is currently no legally enforceable limit to the amount of shellfish that can be collected by a member of the public. There is a pragmatic working assumption that collecting up to 5kg (approximately a bucket full) could be considered as appropriate for ‘personal consumption’ and that volumes above this figure raise concerns about whether this is being undertaken as part of a commercial activity or that stock is entering the wider food chain.
Teignbridge District Council’s Environmental Health Team are responsible for ensuring the safety of food entering the wider food chain but do not have powers to intervene with individuals collecting smaller amounts or in regard to the overall health of the wider environmental and/or economic resource. The commercial shellfish beds are tested monthly and harvested stock is purified and traced through the food supply chain.
2.2 Fisheries management The shellfish fishery and the health of the wider resource come under the management of the Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries Authority (D&SIFCA)
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 46
Commercial Fisheries On the Teign Estuary commercial activities are permitted by the River Teign Mussel Fishery (Variation) (Oysters) Order 1996, which creates a Regulated Fishery in the area 18.3m (60ft) west of the Shaldon Bridge to a line drawn between Archbrook and Luxton Steps. This Act applies to the collection of mussels and oysters but not to cockles or clams. The area largely east of the bridge known as the ‘Salty’ is subject to a temporary ban for mussels imposed by D&SIFCA, but doesn’t apply to other species in that area.
The western (Teignbridge) side of the Exe a private fishery over ground owned by the Earl of Powderham and leased to, and farmed by, Exmouth Mussels. Exmouth Mussels predominately lands farmed mussels but could commercially harvest oysters from the same grounds.
In both rivers people collecting cockles or other species are also at risk of damaging the fishery by trampling on existing mussels or oyster beds, or increasing disturbance to feeding birds which can be protected under separate environmental legislation.
2.3 Issue of concern Over the last couple of years both the Council and D&SIFCA have received ongoing concerns being raised by members of the public regarding a prevalence of unregulated, informal and sometimes reported as being excessive, shellfish gathering by individuals and groups on the foreshore. One of the concerns cited is that the level of activity and volumes being removed appears to be above that which would be expected for personal consumption. This leads to an assumption that the shellfish are being collected to enter the wider food chain and circumventing the normal regulations and control mechanisms.
This reported activity can raise other issues such as theft of commercial stock, questions regarding modern slavery concerns and potential changes to the ecology and species distributions on the foreshore.
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 47
D&SIFCA have worked with Council Officers and other agencies to try and quantify the issue of over-extraction, but this can be problematic given the nature of the environment, the number of access points and the difficulties of proving whether collection is for private or commercial purposes. There can be cultural factors involved where several members of an extended and multi- generational family who may be legitimately gathering food as a collective activity are reported as undertaking over-extraction.
2.4 Financial There are no financial implications arising from this report
2.5 Legal There are no legal implications arising from this report
2.6 Risks There are no risk implications arising from this report
2.7 Environmental/Climate Change Impact Climate Change Impact - There are no implications arising from this report Environmental Impact - Limitations over the quality and availability of data relating to un-regulated shellfish collection means that it is difficult to fully quantify the impact of shellfish collection on wildlife and the wider environment.
3. OPTIONS
D&SIFCA as the responsible agency for fisheries regulation are in the process of reviewing relevant Fisheries Byelaws which could potentially set a recognised catch limit for personal gathering, for example at 5kg. This Hand Gathering Byelaw process is expected to take at least twelve months as would be required to cover the whole IFCA area as well as associated activities such as bait digging, crab tiling and lobster hooking.
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 48 D&SIFCA have relatively modest patrol and enforcement resources to cover the area and actively welcomes any local information and assistance which can be offered by other agencies such as Local Authorities, Harbour Authorities, Police, Gangmasters and Labour Abuse Authority or Environment Agency. It may be possible to consider potential for cross-warranting arrangements between agencies at a later date.
4. CONCLUSION The Committee is recommended to note that concerns have been raised by the public regarding the position of shellfish collection on the Teign and Exe estuaries and to offer support where appropriate or practicable to the Devon and Severn Inshore Fisheries and Conservation Authority in the management of this issue.
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 49 This page is intentionally left blank Agenda Item 10
TEIGNBRIDGE DISTRICT COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE
3 NOVEMBER 2020
Report Title MARINE DREDGE DISPOSAL (Exmouth Marina) Purpose of Report To update the Committee in regard to a Marine Licence Recommendation(s) The Committee RESOLVES to:
(1) Maintain an existing objection to Marine Licence MLA/2016/00372/2 pending resolution of outstanding issues; and (2) Recommend that the Marine Management Organisation support properly representative sediment testing methodologies be incorporated within License criteria.
Financial Implications Limited implication if recommendation agreed Martin Flitcroft – Chief Finance Officer Tel: 01626 215246 Email:[email protected] Legal Implications As set out at paragraph 2.3 Paul Woodhead - Legal Services Team Leader and Deputy Monitoring Officer Tel: 01626 215139 Email: [email protected] Risk Assessment Limited implication as determining Authority is the Marine Management Organisation Graeme Smith – Coastal Officer Tel: 01626 215748 Email: [email protected] Environmental/ Climate Change – None Climate Change Environmental – Identified within Background Paper Implications William Elliot / Climate Change Officer Tel: 07920232862 Email: [email protected] Report Author Graeme Smith – Coastal Officer Tel: 01626 215748 Email: [email protected] Portfolio Holder Cllr Jackie Hook
Appendices
Background Papers Paper 1 – Consultation response submitted in respect of MLA/2016/00372/2 on behalf of Teignbridge District Council.
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 51 1. PURPOSE 1.1 To update the Committee in regard to a Marine Licence (MLA/2016/00372/2) determined by the Marine Management Organisation to consent the dredging of Exmouth Marina and to deposit the resultant waste off shore from Teignmouth.
2. REPORT DETAIL 2.1 Background The consent to dredge and deposit marine sediments is regulated under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MACAA) and determined by the Marine Management Organisation (MMO) as the relevant Authority through the award of a Marine Licence.
Exmouth Marina Ltd applied to the Marine Management Organisation to dredge the marina basin and dispose of the silt at sea.
The License originally allowed the deposition of marina wastes into an existing disposal site close to and actually on the inter-tidal foreshore (the beach) between Eastcliff and Sprey Point, Teignmouth. The original consultation process did not include Teignbridge District Council in whose area the disposal site is situated, or the Town Councils of Teignmouth and Dawlish.
The Sprey Point disposal site is well known as this site is also used by the Teignmouth Harbour Commission (THC) to deposit clean sands and gravels dredged as part of ongoing maintenance of the shipping approach channel to the Port of Teignmouth. The dredged sands and gravels being deposited are derived from the same sediment cell as the beach. This local maintenance process has been supported by the Council as it is thought to help ‘feed’ or recharge the beach with like for like material.
Given widespread concern following the deposition of marina silts (reported in the press and social media outlets as ‘black sludge’) on the foreshore, the MMO suspended Exmouth Marina’s license and there has been a process of scoping reports, characterisation reports and licence variation requests to lift
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 52 the suspension and allow the marina silts to be deposited in an alternative site around 7km off shore from Teignmouth.
The Council has sustained a consistent approach throughout this process, maintaining an objection to the proposals until clarification of concerns raised have been received or remedied. The most recent consultation response highlighting principal concerns is presented as Background Paper 1.
In September 2020 the MMO determined a characterisation request and variation to the existing License, lifting a suspension and consenting Exmouth Marina Ltd to restart dredging operations. This was accompanied by the re- opening of a disused off shore disposal site approximately 7.7km off Teignmouth as being suitable to receive the resultant waste from the marina.
2.2 Financial Limited implication if recommendation accepted.
2.3 Legal There are no legal implications arising from this report other than the risks (financial and otherwise) and resource implications associated with Option 2.
2.4 Risks Limited implication if recommendation accepted.
2.5 Environmental/Climate Change Impact Climate Change – No or limited impact Environmental – Environmental implications associated with this committee report have been identified within the attached Background Paper.
3. OPTIONS Marine Licenses are determined under the Marine and Coastal Access Act 2009 (MACAA). This Act does not have an appeal processes for third parties (considered to have sufficient interest) other than by way of a Judicial Review
Three options
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 53
(Option 1) Do nothing - The relevant Statutory Agency, the MMO, determined an application and granted a Marine License it deemed compliant with the MACAA and advice from the Centre for Environment, Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS) as the Governments advisors, and under the Convention for the Protection of the Marine Environment of the North-East Atlantic (OSPAR) guidelines.
(Option 2) Undertake Judicial Review (JR) – Challenge the basis on which the determination was judged. Principally that best practice was not applied in that the sampling regime and methodology whilst being judged by MMO/CEFAS to be compliant with OSPAR guidelines does not sufficiently represent the material to be dredged and disposed of, and that the desk based dispersion modelling did not investigate post disposal effects in adequate detail.
This would instigate a challenge that the advice given to the MMO by CEFAS was inadequate and that the methodologies for sampling, analysis and modelling were not fit for purpose, although these met the existing legal standards OSPAR Guidelines. The JR process would not necessarily consider the merits of the individual License decision but whether the decision was made lawfully and that the process is fit for purpose. This is a two stage process, initially a High Court Judge will determine whether a case is arguable, and if a matter is granted permission this then could proceed to a substantive hearing. It is likely that detailed legal arguments and documentation would have to be lodged at Court within a maximum of a three month period from the decision date, 10 Sept 20 (i.e. by early Dec 20). Initial advice indicates that a resource of at least £50,000 would be needed to see the process through to any meaningful stage.
(Option 3) Lobby for additional clarification of sampling methodology and determinates, and feedback to consultation points and objections raised. This could be joint approach by the Council through available means such as the Local Government Association – Special Interest Group for the Coast, in conjunction with the local Member of Parliament.
Recommendation - Option 3
As part of Licence MLA/2016/00372/2 the MMO has requested of the applicant that a new sample plan and analysis must be submitted by May 2021, and subsequently repeated every five years.
Notwithstanding that the MMO considers that the existing sampling process was compliant with OSPAR obligations, there may be an opportunity to persuade the MMO that a more representative sampling regime be instigated by May (and/or that date brought forward). Any additional request could potentially be challenged by the applicant who has complied with the existing requirements of the regulator.
4. CONCLUSION
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 54 The MMO as the determining Authority has awarded a Marine Licence for the dredging of silts from Exmouth Marina to be deposited off-shore from Teignmouth. The Committee is recommended to note the concerns as previously raised by the Council (and presented as Background Paper 1) and undertake Option 3 as above.
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 55 Teignbridge District Council Executive Committee November 2020 Background Paper - Marine Dredge Disposal Copy of Consultation response submitted to the Marine Management Organisation in respect of MLA/2016/00372/2 on behalf of Teignbridge District Council.
MLA/2016/00372/2
The following is presented as an Officer response on behalf of Teignbridge District Council to an application to vary a Marine License and associated application to characterise (re-open) a potential dredge disposal site at PO050. Comments should be read across both applications.
This Council previously objected to a proposed Marine License variation MLA/2016/00372/1 in which we highlighted concerns regarding sampling methodology and sampling results in respect to these works. This challenge was re- emphasised in July 2019 in response to a scoping exercise by MarineSpace on behalf of Exmouth Marina Ltd (document ref J/6/52/18) and copied to the MMO.
This challenge, in part to the MMO and CEFAS, remains outstanding
Sampling Methodology
The variation application does not address one of our key concerns namely that the sampling methodology should have included core sampling within the whole depth of the proposed dredge, rather than just relying on analysing material from surface or near-surface grabs which we have consistently indicated may not be representative of the consolidated sediments at depth within the body of the marina silts. It is recognised that this is however a challenge of best practice with CEFAS and the MMO as the advisors and regulators rather than the applicant. Without knowing what is being dredged it is impossible to be able to determine permission to dredge.
The practice of only taking surface grab type samples and agglomerating these to run a single suite of analysis does not give any confidence that the sampling methodology is fit for purpose. The identification even within a single analysis run of elevated levels of chromium, copper and zinc above Action Levels and elevated levels of PAHs should at the very least necessitate the requirement for a more comprehensive sampling and analysis regime.
Our request for a more representative suite of samples (numbers of locations and range of depths through material to be dredged) would appear to be supported by the underlying Revised OSPAR Guidelines for the Management of Dredged Material
5. DREDGED MATERIAL CHARACTERISATION 5.2 If dredged material is so poorly characterised that proper assessment cannot be made of its potential impacts on human health and the environment, it shall not be dumped.
7. DREDGED MATERIAL SAMPLING 7.2 A survey of the area to be dredged should be carried out. The distribution and depth of sampling should reflect the size and depth of the area to be
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 56 dredged, the amount to be dredged and the expected variability in the horizontal and vertical distribution of contaminants. Core samples should be taken where the depth of dredging and expected vertical distribution of contaminants suggest that this is warranted.
7.3 The following table gives an indication of the number of separate sampling stations required to obtain representative results, assuming a reasonably uniform sediment in the area to be dredged:
Amount dredged (m3) Number of Stations Up to 25 000 3 25 000 - 100 000 4 - 6 100 000 - 500 000 7 - 15 500 000 - 2 000 000 16 - 30 >2 000 000 extra 10 per million m3
The number of sample stations can also be determined on the basis of the area to be dredged. The number of sample stations should take account of the exchange characteristics of the area; more samples may be required in enclosed and semi-enclosed areas and less in open areas.
This clearly indicates that there needs to be a proper assessment, which requires to include a suite of horizontal and vertical (core) samples, from a minimum of three sites with a likelihood that there should be an increased number being that this is related to an enclosed area.
Sampling results
1.5. Consideration of Alternatives
Terrestrial disposal and other potential alternative disposal options The sediment dredged from Exmouth Marina would not be appropriate for other disposal options such as beach nourishment / land reclamation due to its nature and the volumes proposed. This statement appears to now concede that the same material shouldn’t have been previously placed on the inter-tidal beach at Sprey Point (PO070) where material is known to nourish Teignmouth Beach, but also from where the material was released into the local marine environment, as is the intention of the current application. Alternative marine disposal site Following sampling undertaken by Cefas on material from within Exmouth Marina, results showed that levels of determinands were slightly elevated above Cefas Action Level 1 but not so elevated as to cause concern
6.4.1. Sediment and Water Quality …it is assessed here that the levels of determinands (slightly elevated above Action Level 1 but not cause for concern) recorded within the sediment samples means negligible effects are predicted on the chemical parameters of sediment or water quality as a result of the disposal of dredged material.
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 57 These two statements by the applicant are not accepted and the MMO are requested to respond directly to the applicants’ assumption that levels recorded above Action Levels can be dismissed as either not causing concern or are negligible Sampling Summary It would be reasonable to assume that sediments at various depths throughout the basin will have been deposited at different times, including instances when the usages of TBT’s and other chemicals were more prevalent, and that levels within consolidated deposits may be different from those on the surface which are potentially diluted by current conditions. Similarly particle sizes may vary throughout the core of material laid down within the basin, depending on historical local conditions, and that different size particles may behave differently when released as compared to the uniform size used in the model. At the very least these parameters should be investigated properly before determination of Characterisation or License Variation.
Consideration of Alternatives
Terrestrial disposal and other potential alternative disposal options It is not agreed that the lack of space for a ‘storage lagoon’ to enable a de-watering process to be explored is sufficient rationale to rule out the option of disposal to a terrestrial site. Given the reduction in volumes being requested then the use of dewatering facilities, including possible use of a flocculant unit, mounted on a lighter, pontoons or adjacent quayside should be investigated. This practice is understood to be successfully deployed in other locations. This would eliminate any need to dispose of marina derived waste into the marine environment, and would better address the requirement for the overall project to be considered under a waste hierarchy.
The OSPAR convention, EU Waste Framework Directive, Marine Policy Statement and the South Inshore Marine Plan all stipulate that tests of waste hierarchy and alternative disposal methodologies should be explored fully, whereas neither the Variation Application or site characterisation, evidence (or at least report) sufficient effort in this regard. Options should be properly assessed and reported before any progress of the current application. Modelling
The applicant does not appear to present any new information regarding modelling therefore previous comments (to the informal process July ’19) remain relevant and are repeated here:
The modelling uses a particle size of 64 microns – it is unclear from exactly where this figure was derived, i.e. whether this is taken from a single surface grab sample (as per earlier comments) or whether this is based on a properly representative suite of samples (historic or contemporary) taken from several locations across the basin
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 58 and crucially from a range of depths commensurate with the proposed dredge depths.
Model Limitations Consideration was limited to a single day desk top exercise utilising a single driving factor of tidal current and does not accommodate either wind or wave dynamics which would be expected to be of influence in relatively shallow water (approx. 21- 25m). CEFAS are able to indicate a reasonable confidence in their findings but also indicate that the model resolution was coarse and that a through calibration and validation process wasn’t undertaken. Given the importance of the question, the direct relevance of wave and wind factors and the ten year period of the project then these omissions should be addressed.
CEFAS advice ‘It is not possible to conclusively exclude the need for site specific surveys of PO050 at this stage, however I would expect surveys would only be required if an initial desk-based assessment identified considerable uncertainty or potential significant impacts.’ It would be reasonable to assume that for this expectation to be validated then there should at least be a rigorous certainty regarding the material being dumped and as highlighted earlier there is no confidence that surface sampling alone equates to any form of scientific rigour and that samples should be taken from several sites within the marina basin and throughout the depth of the projected dredge.
Human Environment – Commercial Fisheries and Other Users
CEFAS previously urged the applicant ‘to identify any local fisheries concerns early and encourage public consultation on the characterisation report before any disposal site is opened’, this does not appear to have been undertaken to date with no reports of consultation being undertaken with local fishermen other than at Exmouth. The importance of the area should be reviewed with representatives from both the Teignmouth and Torbay fleets.
This section fails to recognise the local charter angling economy or aquaculture, both in close proximity to the site and potentially further afield in Lyme Bay.
Charter (and recreational) angling The impact on charter angling businesses and recreational sea angling stakeholders using the multitude of wreck sites (as demonstrated through the INSPIRE portal) SW,S and SE of, and in close proximity to, PO050 requires to be properly assessed. This is an important sector within many smaller ports, including Teignmouth and the harbours of Torbay, and the perception of fishing over normally productive rough ground and adjacent wreck sites which could be blanketed with 10,000m3 of waste material would obviously be commercially detrimental to this sector.
Aquaculture
The proposed disposal site (PO050) is close to the Labrador Bay rope grown mussel array to the West and slightly further away from the Offshore Mussel arrays to the North East and the impact of suspended marina derived sediments on these
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 59 commercial operations requires to be properly assessed. This should include the influence of wind and/or wave factors on plume and sediment dispersion to evaluate the risk to these potentially susceptible receptors, especially given the elevated levels of heavy metals TBT, PCBs and PAHs in the (limited) sediment analysis, including some above CEFAS action levels.
Human Environment - 5.4.1.1. Aquaculture There are three existing offshore shellfish mussel farm lease sites within Lyme Bay and within the vicinity of the proposed disposal location (Figure 1.1). The closest site lies around 9 km northeast of the proposed disposal site PO050). There are also a number of other sites within western Lyme Bay, including Labrador Bay mussel farm, Torbay scallop nursery site and mussel farm and shellfisheries of the Exe and Teign Estuaries.
Commercial Fisheries 6.8.1. Aquaculture It is possible that the disposal of dredged material at PO050 has the potential to impact upon aquaculture regions identified within western Lyme Bay due to an increase in suspended sediment and smothering. Cefas plume model results show that even 4 days after deposition the footprint of sediment dispersion does not interact with any of the aquaculture areas (Figure 6.1). Indeed, the boundary of the closest aquaculture area is approximately 5.9 km from the boundary of the 4 day sediment dispersal envelope. The Labrador bay site appears not to be fully recognised / impacts assessed / mapped on Figures 1.1 and Figure 6.1, and is approximately 2km from site not 5.9km as stated. This omission requires to be addressed before either application could be determined properly.
Marine Planning
The applications do not properly consider, or report under, the relevant policies of the South (Inshore) Marine Plan, particularly in regard to Policies:
S-DD-2 Reuse of dredged materials S-WQ-1 Water quality S-FISH-2 Impacts on aquaculture S-BIO-1 Biodiversity
Summary
This Council recognises the Applicants desire to maintain the marina basin but believes that relevant and potentially significant information still needs to be provided, as above and in particular in relation to the sampling, to enable the regulators be able to make a properly informed determination. Until this is provided
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 60 and assessed this Council maintains an objection to the Characterisation and Variation to Licence.
Graeme Smith Coastal Officer
Economy and Assets Teignbridge District Council Forde House Newton Abbot TQ12 4XX DX 121075 Newton Abbot 5
Direct: 01626 215748
Email: [email protected]
Web: www.teignbridge.gov.uk
Find us on Facebook
Follow us on Twitter
Executive Committee 3 November 2020 61 This page is intentionally left blank TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
MHCLG Consultation: Planning for the Future White Paper Consultation response from Teignbridge District Council – 20 October 2020
Teignbridge District Council, Forde House, Brunel Road, Newton Abbot, TQ12 4XX [email protected]
3. Our proposals will Whilst we welcome efforts to streamline the plan making process, this should not be at the expense of make it much easier to meaningful engagement with local communities. The importance of local views and keeping public confidence in access plans and plan making should not be underestimated or undervalued. We are concerned that the proposals as currently set contribute your views to out reduce local scrutiny and democracy, taking the power to make changes away from the people who are most planning decisions. How affected by the plans. would you like to find out 63 about plans and planning We fully support the move towards more digital based engagement which has the potential to widen reach and proposals in the future? reduce consultation costs. We have had success in a digital-led consultation which was carried out during social [Social media / Online distancing restrictions with the levels of engagement we monitored showing a significant increase the amount of news / Newspaper / By people seeing Local Plan-related content as a result of social media advertising and through interaction with post / Other – please online videos. Formal consultation responses were three times that of our previous paper-based consultation. specify] However, a greater focus on digital consultation should not ignore individuals or groups who cannot, or choose not to, access planning proposals online.
Agenda Item 11 We need to consider the application process too as whilst much of the consultation will be done at plan stage, for protect and renewal areas we would still receive planning applications where publicity and engagement will be important via a range of methods. 4. What are your top 1. To become a leader in tackling climate change; three priorities for 2. Providing more homes which are truly affordable for local people and can meet the needs of each planning in your local generation; area? [Building homes 3. Encouraging a buoyant local economy that is supported by physical and digital infrastructure
1
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
for young people / building homes for the homeless / Protection of green spaces / The environment, biodiversity and action on climate change / Increasing the affordability of housing / The design of new homes and places / Supporting the high street / Supporting the local economy / More or better local 64 infrastructure / Protection of existing heritage buildings or areas / Other – please specify] 5. Do you agree that Not sure. Local Plans should be We agree that the plan making system has become overly lengthy in process and in many cases is inflexible in simplified in line with our being able to swiftly respond to changing circumstances. However, it does enable significant potential for proposals? [Yes / No / community, business and stakeholder input as well as confidence in ensuring environmental protection through Not sure. Please provide the legal frameworks that are in place. The proposals as currently set out provide little comfort on either supporting statement.] account: the single stage of formal consultation proposed at the submission stage falls significantly short of what we as a Council would expect in ensuring that local interests are able to be fully reflected in Local Plans, and the proposed streamlining of environmental assessments suggests a weakening of the environmental importance attached to the preparation of plans.
2
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
At this stage, the categories seem vague and do not provide sufficient assurance that places and spaces of particular value will be protected within the growth or renewal areas. For example, large areas which may be earmarked for 'growth' will inevitably include sub-areas within them which will need to be protected for purposes such as recreation, ecology, flood risk management, heritage impact etc. How will this be managed as part of the zoning?
There is a need for significantly better understanding of what “outline consent” means before proper opinions can be expressed. If “consent” is granted by the plan but assessments are to be undertaken later then the consent may not be deliverable, conversely, the burden of producing the material necessary to deliver a fully implementable and assessed masterplan (EIA and HRA) is not possible with current resource levels for the vast majority of LPAs.
65 6. Do you agree with our No proposals for This depends on how much discretion will be left to local authorities to set policies or rules for issues which have streamlining the not been covered in the NPPF. For example, there are specific local issues to Teignbridge which are extremely development unlikely to be covered in detail in blanket nationwide policies. This removal of local discretion and democracy will management content of erode trust in in the plan making system and reduce certainty for applicants in what is likely to be permitted. Local Plans, and setting In addition, policies cannot be written from an urban-centric focus and expected to apply to rural settings. out general development management policies We are disappointed and concerned by lack of attention in the White Paper to climate change mitigation and nationally? [Yes / No / adaptation and the inference that such issues will be addressed on a national basis only. We have significantly Not sure. Please provide more ambitious targets in place to address the climate emergency and would not wish to see these watered supporting statement.] down by less ambitious national policy.
7(a). Do you agree with No our proposals to replace The current tests of positively prepared, justified, effective and consistent with national policy ensure that the existing legal and policy plan making process is carried out within a framework that requires and allows for significant evidence and
3
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
tests for Local Plans with community engagement to support proposals. The potential for a consolidated 'sustainable development' test is a consolidated test of that it favours the development industry and not the communities that live in the locality, the assumption being “sustainable that as long as something is 'sustainable' the proposal is acceptable. There can be many options for what might development”, which constitute 'sustainable development' but the current process allows us to identify all of them and then engage would include with the people living and working in the area to find out which proposals are most acceptable. consideration of environmental impact? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 7(b). How could The current Duty to Cooperate requirement is effective in holding individual authorities to account over their strategic, cross-boundary proposals for growth which could have an impact on the communities, infrastructure, environment or economy issues be best planned of an adjoining authority. It ensures that cross boundary issues are given full consideration in the examination for in the absence of a process and encourages stronger partnership working in placemaking, which is essential given that people,
66 formal Duty to places and environments do not stop at political boundaries. Cooperate? As a minimum, any replacement of the DtC must ensure that there is a legal requirement on LPAs to engage in cross boundary issues and deliver strategic infrastructure which is needed across more than one authority area. 8(a). Do you agree that a Not sure. standard method for establishing housing Whilst we are generally in support of a standard method for calculating housing need which significantly reduces requirements (that takes unnecessary plan making time and expenses, we fundamentally disagree with the formula on which the standard into account constraints) method is based. should be introduced? [Yes / No / Not sure. Our objections are based on the following: Please provide supporting statement.] 1. A reliance on housing projections for calculating housing targets will result in disproportionate increases for areas where recent housing delivery has been strongest. This is particularly the case in parts of the South
4
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
West where much (not all) of the housing demand is characterised by lifestyle choices and inward migration rather than economic and social need. You can see this in the resulting figures for Devon, whereby districts with high delivery rates over the last 3 years have seen increases in their housing numbers (e.g. Teignbridge, South Hams, North Devon) whereas districts with low delivery rates have seen decreases in their housing numbers (e.g. Torridge, West Devon).
2. The ONS 2018 population projections feed into the proposed method. They are informed by two-year internal migration data that relies solely on the years 2017 and 2018. The methodology that supports the 2018 population projections notes that, ‘There is a chance that using only two years of data will create unusual averages for local authorities experiencing abnormal migration patterns over this short period’. This is indeed the case in Teignbridge, where in the same period, new property sales, as a proportion of the area’s total housing stock, were 33% higher than those of the South West region in 2017. For 2018, it was 26% more. Such population projections based on short term migration data 67 therefore reflect a pattern of inward migration that has been the house buying driver in recent years, fuelled by a building programme that has created life style opportunities which have attracted people to the area. It does not reflect the much more modest locally arising economic and social need for new homes. As such, we strongly disagree with using such short term migration data which skews the extrapolation of trends going forward.
Under the new proposed housing need methodology, our area would see one of the greatest housing target increases across the country. Whilst the national method that was introduced in 2018 currently requires 760 dwellings per annum (23% more than our 2014 Local Plan target), the latest approach would see that figure double again to 1,532 units. We should not be planning for a twofold increase in our housing target on the strength of very short term internal migration data. Areas like Teignbridge that have already embraced the need to build more homes should not be penalised for their swift and proactive approach to delivery. We recognise the challenges of housing affordability and the need to build more homes but would strongly advocate a method that is derived from stable long term data.
3. We have consistently delivered on our Local Plan housing target for the last 5 years and affordability has continued to get worse, disproving the notion that the more housing you have, the more affordability will
5
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
improve. If the affordability uplift was coupled with investment for affordable housing, or a state-backed not for profit, housebuilding scheme, then this may go some way to address the issue.
Should the standard method in its current form be implemented, then we welcome the proposal to take land constraints into account. However, there are 2 key issues with this:
Firstly, we are deeply concerned by the White Paper's reference only to constraints such as flood risk and environmental designations. In Teignbridge, we have a huge amount of constraints that are not nearly so obvious. This includes a very challenging topography, Mineral Safeguarding Areas, sub-terrain mineral rights, a complex Greater Horseshoe Bat ecological network, Ancient Woodland, strategic overhead power lines, high pressure gas pipe networks, not to mention that a third of the district lies within the Dartmoor National Park. Our detailed site capacity assessments show that we would be unable to even meet the proposed annual target without having to develop sites which have been identified as having moderate to significant constraints. This includes potentially unresolvable infrastructure issues (e.g. primary school capacity in many of our smaller settlements unless significant school building funds are made available) and extensive land constraints (including 68 minerals, internationally protected ecological sites and networks, flood risk, topography and the Dartmoor National Park). See Figures 1 and 2 (attached).
Secondly, the White Paper's approach to taking land constraints into consideration is hugely subjective and will result in protracted discussions and lengthy Local Plan examinations, contrary to the whole objective of applying a standard formula to speed up plan making by removing any potential for the housing number debate.
Instead, our preference is to retain a standard method approach to ensure faster plan making but use a formula which is rooted in local context and understanding 8(b). Do you agree that Not sure. affordability and the extent of existing urban We agree with applying the extent of the urban area as the baseline: areas are appropriate indicators of the quantity
6
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
of development to be See Q8(a) re. objection to using household projections as a baseline for determining housing numbers. On this accommodated? [Yes / basis, it would be more robust to just use existing housing stock counts to inform the housing method baseline. No / Not sure. Please This would not prevent housing affordability factors from being taken into account but would ensure a consistent provide supporting approach across all areas of the country, regardless of recent patterns of housing delivery. statement.] We do not agree with applying the affordability uplift as proposed, unless done in conjunction with using the existing urban areas as the baseline only.
Applying the affordability uplift to the household projections baseline results in an unacceptable and undeliverable housing requirement, significantly impacting on our communities, infrastructure and environment.
In any case, we have several concerns about using the affordability ratio which is based on a comparison between average household earnings and median house prices. 69 Firstly, we do not agree with the component parts of the dataset. The use of workplace earnings rather than household earnings obscures the actual affordability of properties as many residents who live within the district do not work in the district and access higher earnings elsewhere.
In addition, the use of median house prices does two things: o It compares wages to higher value properties than people entering the market would typically aspire to. Given our district is largely rural with very high value housing market areas, the median house price is significantly higher than lower quartile house prices (currently £245k compared to LQ prices of £185k). The latter is still unachievable for many local households but nevertheless more accurately reflects the property banding that first time buyers would typically look to purchase. o The formula enables the development industry to 'work the system' by supplying larger houses to the market which inflate median house prices and in turn create higher affordability adjustments and higher housing numbers. This means that we continue to get houses built which does nothing but compound the affordability issue.
7
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
Secondly, any upwards adjustment in housing numbers as a result of affordability is not going to change the districts economic base or potential; we remain a peripheral district which loses out to the city of Exeter and its immediate surroundings and have seen unemployment rise as a result of major employers making efficiencies or closing altogether. Without accompanying jobs, the high housing numbers would inevitably see an increase in out-commuting to the cities of Exeter and Plymouth, running contrary to the need to be reduce travel and transport-based carbon emissions. Simply providing more houses is not going to bridge the gap between low wages and high house prices. It is local economics which underpin our affordability issue, not a lack of availability.
Collectively, these measures should combine to ensure that the affordability ratio is based on a more accurate reflection of local affordability by comparing average household earnings to lower quartile house prices.
9(a). Do you agree that Not sure there should be
70 automatic outline Subject to sufficient stakeholder engagement being enabled during the plan making stage (see Q. 5) then we permission for areas for agree that once the principle has been agreed through the Local Plan, there should not be a requirement for the substantial development principle to be established again. This will significantly reduce the potential for delays to delivery and risk of legal (Growth areas) with challenge on the principle of development. faster routes for detailed consent? [Yes / No / Not However, there are some fundamental unanswered questions which we seek clarity on: sure. Please provide Through what mechanism, and at which stage, will infrastructure requirements be packaged, legally agreed supporting statement.] and timing for delivery secured? How will places and spaces with protected (or protectable) characteristics within growth areas be safeguarded for purposes such as recreation, ecology, flood risk management, heritage impact etc? Who is responsible for financing the inevitably significant amount of work that will be required at Local Plan stage (or accompanying masterplan LDO) to ensure that a growth area can be delivered? A lot of this work would normally be picked up by the developer at the outline planning application stage but under these proposals the responsibility would shift to the LPA who are under resourced to enable this. This will either
8
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
result in huge delays to plan preparation, poorly conceived and evidenced development proposals, a lack of environmental impact understanding, and legal challenges. 9(b). Do you agree with Yes. our proposals above for As above, subject to there being clarity on the key questions outline, (see Q. 9a) then we agree that once the the consent principle has been agreed through the Local Plan, there should not be a requirement for the principle to be arrangements for established again. This will significantly reduce the potential for delays to delivery and risk of legal challenge on Renewal and Protected the principle of development. areas? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 9(c). Do you think there Not sure is a case for allowing new We acknowledge that very large and complex sites require an integrated approach to delivery and in our 71 settlements to be experience we have benefited significantly from the support of Homes England in bringing some of our largest brought forward under sites forward. However, we would be very concerned about the loss of control around agreeing detailed matters the Nationally Significant such as layout and design and would therefore only support an outline or PiP being agreed by the NCIS regime Infrastructure Projects and not reserved matters applications. regime? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 10. Do you agree with Not sure our proposals to make decision-making faster Whilst we support opportunities for more people to be able to engage in the decision making process through a and more certain? Yes / digital shift, there is a need to ensure that digital availability must be simple to navigate for local communities No / Not sure. Please and members of the public. Otherwise, the system will just be smoother for applicants/developers but not local provide supporting community groups/reps where public participation opportunities will be fewer. statement.]
9
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
11. Do you agree with Yes our proposals for Currently plans are long, technical, take many months to prepare, and are not easily accessible by the majority of accessible, web-based people that need to use them - either to submit an application for development or comment on a plan or Local Plans? [Yes / No / proposal. There will still, however, be a need to consider how those without access to the internet or who are Not sure. Please provide not able to use it, still have access to the planning system and the opportunity to engage. supporting statement.] 12. Do you agree with No. our proposals for a 30 Whilst we welcome the ambition to get plans prepared and approved much more efficiently and with particular month statutory certainty around the length of examination, we are very concerned that a 30 month timeframe will be to the timescale for the detriment of our residents who will find themselves disenfranchised from the plan making process. With such a production of Local short amount of time to get a plan ready for submission (with the extensive amount of work that this involves), Plans? [Yes / No / Not there can be no meaningful engagement undertaken in such a short timeframe. sure. Please provide supporting statement.] We welcome the reintroduction of binding Inspectors Reports which, whilst having the potential to remove some
72 local control, would enable shorter overall timescales to be achieved and less scope for protracted debates on issues which would have been rehearsed at the public examination.
We would also query the practicality of so many plans being submitted to the SoS within 18 months or 30 months (for authorities with plans less than 5 years old) of the legislation being brought into force and the Planning Inspectorate’s ability to process so many examinations at the same time. We would like some reassurance that if we are to meet our requirements of the statutory timetable then the Government should be equally held to account if they do not process them within the prescribed timescales. 13(a). Do you agree that Yes. Neighbourhood Plans However, we would welcome more information about the scope of Neighbourhood Plans, particularly whether should be retained in the they would have the ability to amend zoning adopted in district Local Plans, and whether they will be able to reformed planning continue to write policies which address local land use issues beyond just design and site specific requirements, system? [Yes / No / Not as suggested by the White Paper. If not, then we believe that the incentive for communities to prepare their own plans will be significantly reduced.
10
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
sure. Please provide supporting statement.] We believe there is value in Neighbourhood Plan design guidance and policies in helping to improve design of new build in longer term. Neighbourhood plans provide a strong means for reflecting local settings and enforcing appropriate design values. 13(b). How can the Neighbourhood Planning Groups should have free access to whatever Government systems are going to be neighbourhood planning introduced for Local Plans. It is not realistic to expect individual communities to fine/resource/develop their own process be developed to digital tools for such purposes. meet our objectives, such as in the use of digital tools and reflecting community preferences about
73 design? 14. Do you agree there Yes. should be a stronger The planning system is largely effective at ensuring an ongoing supply of housing but the delivery of housing is emphasis on the build significantly slower, and if 5YLS is going to be removed with HDT being the test, then developers need to be held out of developments? to account rather than the LPA. In Teignbridge, we have a supply of 4834 dwellings with only 558 units started on And if so, what further site. Whatever tools are implemented to address this must focus on the developer supply chain rather than the measures would you planning system. support? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide There could be a requirement to market half of the remaining plots to SME/self-build if development rates fall supporting statement.] short of a regionally adjusted national average. 15. What do you think Other about the design of new The layouts of development are largely successful. However facades and materials need more attention and development that has require local design guides and codes, as well as weight in national policy, to enforce better design standards. happened recently in your area? Not sure or indifferent / Beautiful
11
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
and/or well-designed / We feel it is important to note that although vernacular architecture and materials are important to observe, we Ugly and/or poorly- must also embrace good modern design which makes the most of new technologies and climate friendly designed / There hasn’t elements. been any / Other – please specify] 16. Sustainability is at the We are recognising a Climate and Ecological Emergency, so the whole package of sustainability features is heart of our proposals. considered as a priority for our district. In particular, we are focusing on projects which enable: What is your priority for Good quality, well connected green space networks that can provide for wildlife and communities without sustainability in your notable conflict; area? [Less reliance on Reduced CO2 emissions via a range of means, including net zero carbon development and reduced cars / More green and transport emissions. open spaces / Energy efficiency of new buildings / More trees /
74 Other – please specify] 17. Do you agree with Yes our proposals for However, locally distinctive design codes take time to prepare, may require specialist input and are resource improving the intensive. In addition, if these are to be prepared as Supplementary Planning Documents then the legislation production and use of needs to be amended to ensure that LPAs are lawful in their use of SPDs. TDC has been threatened with legal design guides and codes? challenge from the development industry in relation to two separate SPDs we have tried to prepare, including [Yes / No / Not sure. our draft Design Guide. We have not been able to implement our guidance as a result of this risk. Please provide supporting statement.] 18. Do you agree that we Not sure. should establish a new A specialist body would be helpful in assisting with relevant issues, particularly if they were able to provide best body to support design practice guidance and local support down to neighbourhood level where the planned level of growth or level of coding and building regeneration generated this need. This is particularly because, as stated in Q.17, the preparation of design guides better places, and that and codes is time consuming and requires specialist skills which not all authorities have.
12
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
each authority should We do not agree that it is necessary to have a specific chief officer for design and place-making but should be have a chief officer for able to use existing resources to identify a 'design and placemaking' champion. design and place- making? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 19. Do you agree with Yes our proposal to consider Successful development growth will often need to be supported by upgrades to quality of life in a way that how design might be benefits a whole community (e.g. a new leisure centre or countryside park). It will be important that future given greater emphasis Homes England programmes recognise the levers for securing community buy-in to development growth in the strategic through an area-wide approach to design and facilities, rather than just the site-specific investments that will objectives for Homes unlock a development site.
75 England? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide We need to be confident that once we have secured good design through planning permission, there would be supporting statement.] no further ‘hoops’ to jump through in receiving Homes England infrastructure support for relevant proposals.
20. Do you agree with Yes. our proposals for Subject to this being introduced once local design guides and codes are adopted so that the notion of 'beauty' is implementing a fast- established through local consultation and approval. track for beauty? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 21. When new More affordable housing (specifically socially rented affordable housing to meet our local needs) development happens in Carbon reduction your area, what is your Physical and digital infrastructure priority for what comes with it? [More affordable
13
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
housing / More or better infrastructure (such as transport, schools, health provision) / Design of new buildings / More shops and/or employment space / Green space / Don’t know / Other – please specify] 22(a). Should the Not sure Government replace the A standardised approach to deriving the value of an infrastructure levy would be more equitable and reduce Community costs and delays associated with setting the levy locally. However, a more ambitious approach to determining Infrastructure Levy and the value that is available from development is required. BCIS data is inadequate and based on a very small
76 Section 106 planning sample size. Its use is one of the reasons that housebuilders achieve 27 – 30% profit margins even when their obligations with a new viability appraisals show 20%. All of this is at the expense of affordable housing and community infrastructure. consolidated Infrastructure Levy, It is also important to recognise that S106 obligations are required for more than just funding infrastructure and which is charged as a this needs to be understood in the context of proposing that it is replaced. S106 is important for outlining fixed proportion of delivery, management, biodiversity aspects, perpetuity of delivery happening on site, and not just off-site development value infrastructure. Some could perhaps be managed through planning conditions but the persistence of Obligations above a set threshold? as an option is important. [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
22(b). Should the Locally Infrastructure Levy rates Our preference is for Infrastructure Levy rates to be set locally.
14
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
be set nationally at a single rate, set nationally We are deeply concerned that nationally set rates would not take account of the huge disparities in values, at an area-specific rate, affordability, infrastructure needs and demographics not only across the country, but within individual districts or set locally? [Nationally as well. We currently have a differential rate within the district to reflect different values. at a single rate / Nationally at an area- We would like to see nationally set guidelines to reduce potential for protracted viability debates when setting specific rate / Locally] Infrastructure Levy rates but maintain that a national rate, or formula, would not enable us to seek proportional gain from the Infrastructure Levy and therefore realise the best outcomes for our developments and communities. 22(c). Should the Same amount overall/more value Infrastructure Levy aim We should be aiming to get at least as much value as the combined S016 and CIl are achieving now as that is to capture the same what has been tested to be viable.
77 amount of value overall, or more value, to The only guarantee in the whole process is that developers will make an acceptable profit. Land prices are support greater squeezed, local services are squeezed, while developers decide whether or not to proceed based on their investment in expected return. The Infrastructure Levy should be enough to mitigate all local impacts of development – as S106 infrastructure, affordable and CIL in combination endeavour to do now, but do not always achieve. housing and local communities? [Same amount overall / More value / Less value / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 22(d). Should we allow Yes. local authorities to We can borrow against S106. If we can’t borrow against Infrastructure Levy, no infrastructure will ever be borrow against the delivered up front and this is so important to the acceptability of development to existing and new communities. Infrastructure Levy, to support infrastructure
15
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
delivery in their area? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 23. Do you agree that the Yes. scope of the reformed This kind of development has an impact on infrastructure needs as well. We don’t have many of these larger Infrastructure Levy schemes that would be caught but incremental contributions add up and in rural areas Part Q (or other) such should capture changes schemes should deliver a contribution. of use through permitted development rights? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 24(a). Do you agree that Not sure. 78 we should aim to secure The provision of affordable housing is one of the most important objectives of the Council. On site delivery of at least the same amount affordable housing is critical to creating balanced places and communities and ensuring / maximising the delivery of affordable housing of affordable housing. under the Infrastructure Levy, and as much on- However, this is not solely based on numbers of housing, but tenure as well, and we have recognised the need to site affordable provision, sometimes lower overall levels of affordable housing in order to provide a greater proportion of social rented as at present? [Yes / No / housing which is most affordable to the majority of households on our register. Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] Local authorities should therefore be given the flexibility to determine the amount and tenure of affordable housing delivered through the Levy, as well as the relative priority of funding other infrastructure. Local discretion is required and whilst a national approach to deriving the value of the Levy would be useful, local areas should be empowered to make choices about how best to use the levy without the imposition of artificial floors and ceilings.
16
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
24(b). Should affordable Not sure. housing be secured as in- As long as the net effect is the same (and obviously we don’t necessarily want the stock so the right to purchase kind payment towards needs to be broader), this would be ok. the Infrastructure Levy, or as a ‘right to purchase’ at discounted rates for local authorities? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 24(c). If an in-kind Yes delivery approach is
79 taken, should we mitigate against local authority overpayment risk? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.] 24(d). If an in-kind Yes. delivery approach is Allowing RPs to have/instigate their own minimum standards taken, are there And/or HE defined standards as per previous HCA guidance additional steps that would need to be taken to support affordable housing quality? [Yes / No / Not sure. Please provide supporting statement.]
17
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
25. Should local Yes authorities have fewer If Infrastructure Levy is absorbing S106 contributions then the ability to spend as required should be embedded restrictions over how within it. they spend the Infrastructure Levy? [Yes If parish councils remain eligible for a 15 or 25% portion of the Infrastructure Levy rate then there will need to be / No / Not sure. Please a mechanism for joint agreements between parishes and districts about how the Levy is used to fund strategic provide supporting infrastructure and affordable housing. Otherwise critical infrastructure may not be able to be secured, given the statement.] large percentage share they will receive. In addition, the parish proportion should not take into account the value of Levy that is dedicated to affordable housing, unless parishes will be delivering affordable housing with those funds themselves.
It is important that any restrictions reflect the need for “softer” infrastructure, such as Suitable Areas of Natural Greenspace, play areas etc. and not just “hard” infrastructure such as roads.
25(a). If yes, should an Not sure 80 affordable housing ‘ring- Affordable housing is critically important in most parts of the UK, including Teignbridge. There may, however, be fence’ be developed? some parts of the UK where development viability and existing levels of affordable housing are such that there is [Yes / No / Not sure. no particular need so some tailoring to specific circumstances will be needed. Please provide supporting statement.] There are also some sites where it would be preferable to spend Infrastructure Levy on (for example) transport infrastructure rather than affordable housing delivery so whilst a ring fence is a good idea, in order to ensure and underpin delivery of affordable house in all circumstances and remove the possibility of developers pushing for affordable housing free sites, perhaps the ring fence should be on a floor level which can then be adjusted locally to reflect circumstances. For example, in Teignbridge, a floor level of say 10%, with expected level in growth areas 30% for outline consent to be granted.
We should have the discretion and authority to make these choices locally, based on the circumstances before us.
18
TDC Response to MHCLG Consultation on Planning for the Future White Paper – Oct 2020
26. Do you have any The shift to digitalised plan making services must ensure that all ages and abilities are able to access consultation views on the potential material and not discriminate against those who are not able to. impact of the proposals raised in this consultation on people with protected characteristics as defined in section 149 of the Equality Act 2010?
81
19
This page is intentionally left blank