'Not viable' to make town centre developers pay towards infrastructure

Introducing levies to support new development in Maidenhead town centre may not be a viable option, RBWM officers have said – despite a strong push for this by multiple councillors.

Frustrated criticisms were levelled at RBWM’s own officers at a Monday council meeting over the progress the Borough has made on revisiting the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

CIL is an agreement in which developers must pay a levy to the council for new developments. It has been a big issue for the Liberal Democrats since before they were elected.

Council leader Simon Werner has spoken strongly against the fact that no CIL is charged for developments in Maidenhead town centre.

Speaking about this policy on Monday, Chris Joyce – RBWM’s assistant director of placemaking, partnerships and sustainability – said that this was a viability issue.

Past evidence showed it ‘wouldn’t be possible to bring forward a defensible charge’ in the town centre, he said.

Had RBWM proposed one when making its Borough Local Plan, it is ‘very likely’ this would have been ‘chalked off’ by the independent inspector who evaluated the BLP.

Given the contentiousness of the issue, members of the Place Overview & Scrutiny Panel on Monday expressed frustration that they felt unprepared for a report on CIL.

Cllr Alison Carpenter (tBfI, Clewer and Dedworth East) hit out at council officers for providing a lack of information to councillors ahead of the meeting.

She said it was ‘inappropriate’ that councillors did not receive the presentation slides or written information in advance of the meeting, to better inform its discussion.

She also raised concerns that other parties – which can include developers and parish councils – were not invited, and this affected the panel’s ability to ‘properly scrutinise.’

Cllr Gurch Singh (Lib Dem, St Mary’s) also criticised the process, given CIL is a ‘significant issue’. He said that, mindful of the Borough’s financial situation, this was ‘not an appropriate review of CIL.’

“We need a proper report – I think it’s offensive bringing this verbal report on such an important item to the meeting today,” he said.

“There’s lots of words, it lacks detail, there’s no data, no analysis we can deep dive into – there’s nothing there for us.

“I’ve got loads of questions.”

He added that the CIL review was supposed to be done in conjunction with panel members – but he had not been contacted by officers.

“There was not even an acknowledgement that a report was going to be provided this evening,” he said.

The panel’s chair, Cllr Gary Reeves (Lib Dem, Cox Green), also agreed that the panel needed more time to look at documents in more detail.

As such, the panel resolved to have a more in-depth discussion at a future meeting, which would examine the viability issue and its evidence base.

But Cllr Singh expressed dissatisfaction about how much further down the line this might be.

He said councillors had ‘been in the dark’ too long about the evidence behind CIL decisions and that ‘tough decisions have to be made.’

“If we made mistakes in the past, we need to correct them,” he said.

CIL can be reviewed any time – but Mr Joyce urged caution in doing so. He stressed that this was no ‘overnight’ process and highlighted the time this would take, and the costs involved.

More about CIL in RBWM

CIL is intended to support new housing with necessary local infrastructure (like GP surgeries) – but also to fund larger, Borough-wide projects.

Between 15-25 per cent of CIL must be spent in the parish where the development is planned while 70-80 per cent is held for borough-wide priorities.

In the past, parish councils have not always felt as though they had as much of a voice as they would like in decisions surrounding CIL.

CIL can be used for maintenance, transport, flood defences, schools, parks, sport, cultural, education and healthcare facilities, district hearing schemes, police stations and other community safety facilities.

It is generally placed on any residential development over 100sqm. None is placed on office space, or most retail spaces in RBWM.

A development is more viable for CIL if it can be sold for more money. This makes out-of-Maidenhead developments much more viable than town centre ones, hence the difference in CIL rates.

There is no CIL of any kind in Maidenhead town centre. About £141 of CIL is charged per square metre for the wider Maidenhead urban area, and £338 for the rest of the borough.

CIL of less than £50,000 has to be paid in full within 60 days, while larger payments can be phased – more than £1million of CIL can be split into four payments, with the final one due within 720 days.

Making major changes to CIL, such as altering the rates, zones, or significant adjustments to how the CIL is applied, can require a public consultation or examination.