Community Infrastructure levy for Purpose Built Student Accommodation
Council welcomes the review of its current Student Accommodation policy for the city.
Council notes the purpose of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)‘ isexpected to “Have a positive economic effect on development across a localplan area.” The current CIL charging statement was adopted for Exeter on 15thOctober 2013.
The rapid construction since this date of Purpose Built Student Blocks (PBSB’s),
particularly in the city centre wards has already brought forward a 8,017 bed
spaces and 2,802 are currently in construction.
That while developers have enjoyed a discount on the CIL levy compared to housebuilders, a significant number of the PBSB’s have been priced and marketed as ‘luxury’ accommodation. These are not affordable to many students nor do they help achieve the Council’s goal of encouraging students to take advantage of this accommodation rather than in Houses of Multiple Occupation.
Council therefore resolves:
1. The CIL charging schedule rate for Purpose Built Student Housing no longer serves a useful purpose and has a disproportionate affect on the city centre wards of the local plan area
2. To bring forward a new charging schedule as soon as possible to replace the current schedule.
3. A new charging schedule will no longer apply a lower charging rate of CIL to purpose built student housing compared to residential charging. However, a relief may be applied where affordable student accommodation is to be provided (to be defined in the new schedule).
4. That until such time a new Charging Schedule is adopted by the Authority Section 106 Agreements are put in place on PBSB’s to make such developments acceptable in planning terms. These agreements must include specific benefits for the local community, and may be up to the equivalent to the CIL levy contribution for an equivalent sized residential development.
Minutes:
Councillor D Moore, seconded by Councillor K Mitchell, moved a Motion in the following terms:-
Exeter City Council notes the purpose of the community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is
expected to “Have a positive economic effect on development across a local
plan area.” The current CIL charging statement was adopted for Exeter on 15th
October 2013. The rapid construction since this date of purpose built student blocks (PSPBs), particularly in the city centre wards has already bought forward a 8,017 bed spaces and 2,802 are currently in construction. That while developers have enjoyed a discount on the CIL levy compared to housebuilders, a significant number of the PBSBs been priced and marketed as ‘luxury’ accommodation. These are not affordable to many students nor do they help achieve the Council’s goal of encouraging students to take advantage of this accommodation rather than in Houses of Multiple Occupation.
Councils therefore resolves:
1. The CIL charging schedule rate for Purpose Built Student Housing no longer serves a useful purpose and has a disproportionate effect on the city centre wards of the local plan area.
2. To bring forward a new charging schedule as soon as possible to replace the current schedule.
3. A new charging schedule will no longer apply a lower charging rate of CIL to purpose built student housing compared to residential charging. However, a relief may be applied where affordable student accommodation is to be provided (to be defined in the new schedule).
4. That until such time a new Charging Schedule is adopted by the Authority Section 106 agreements are put in place on PBSBs to make such developments acceptable in planning terms. These agreements must include specific benefits for the local community, and may be up to the equivalent to the CIL levy contribution for an equivalent sized residential development.
In presenting the Notice of Motion, Councillor D Moore stated that it was a matter of importance to all. She agreed with the cross party consensus that students made a significant contribution to life in Exeter, however she had received complaints from students that the purpose built student blocks were expensive to live in and for many students unaffordable. She appreciated that it would take time for any change, but she hoped that plans to mitigate the student built blocks would be made. She considered that the CIL charging schedules were no longer serving a useful purpose and had a disproportionate effect on the availability of accommodation in the city centre. She suggested that a new charging schedule be introduced as soon as possible to encourage zero carbon building regulation standards. This would also ensure that when affordable student accommodation was provided that there would be affordable homes for young people. She requested that more of Section 106 money should be set aside to make the developments acceptable. She appreciated that there were significant developments coming forward but urgent action was needed. She commented on the Council’s supplementary planning document and the Section 106 payments made in 2014. She provided examples in her ward which had not benefited from Section 106 monies, despite the ward ranking in the top 20% of multiple deprivation. She commented on the benefits to the area which could have enhanced the public realm such as public art, play parks and environmental enhancements. The Section 106 policy could offer benefits to create further skills and employment opportunities.
She felt that the Motion should receive cross party support to send a message to developers.
Members debated the proposed Motion.
Councillor Leadbetter considered that the Motion was premature and had already been discussed by Members.
Councillor Morse, Portfolio Holder Supporting People, commented on the detail provided on the St David’s ward and she felt that all Members would have examples of issues within their ward. The Council had adopted a CIL process which had resulted in a number of good community schemes.
Councillor Atkinson considered that there was no evidence to support the statements made and she referred to the discussion at Executive. The Local Plan had been consulted on and the Council should follow due process. She felt that the best place for student accommodation was in the town centre.
Councillor Sills shared the concerns highlighted by Councillor D. Moore in respect of the student accommodation within the St David’s ward but considered the Motion to be misinformed on key facts. He referred to the protocol for opposing any student accommodation which was to make any concerns known at the Planning Committee which he had done successfully on two recent purpose built student accommodation applications.
Councillor Owen had sympathy for the first three parts of the Motion, but felt the fourth point to be illegal and although, he had some sympathy, he would abstain from voting for the Motion.
Councillor K Mitchell, in supporting the Motion, thanked Councillor D Moore for presenting the Motion and felt this to be a major issue for the community. He had proposed a recommendation to the Executive in July on this matter, but that had not been successfully seconded. He appreciated that the purpose of the CIL was to offer some benefits to the community but he would leave it to residents to offer a view if any benefits had resulted. The Motion highlighted a particular issue with the CIL levy and he accepted that this was being considered with more awareness of student accommodation issues. He sought some clarity on why Part 4 of the Motion was considered illegal. At the request of the Leader, the Litigation Solicitor provided legal advice on Section 106 agreements and the provisions of Regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations 2019. The use of planning obligations through Section 106 agreements was considered on a case by case basis in relation to each development. He confirmed that in order to be lawful, Regulation 122 stated that Section 106 planning obligations must be necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms, directly related to the development and fairly and reasonably related in scale and in kind to the development.
Councillor D Moore, in proposing the Motion, summarised that she was disappointed that she had been personally attacked by other Members for her comments. The Council had adopted the Section 106 policy in 2014 and that nothing she had said contradicted the guidance provided by the Litigation Solicitor relating to Section 122. She had asked the Council and the Planning Department to look at the existing Policy to create a better deal for residents and students when any purpose Student accommodation applications came forward. She suggested that, if the policy was not fit for purpose, it should be looked at again.
The Notice of Motion was put to the vote and lost.