The discursive struggle between the national and local storylines and tropes have been analysed over the period from the start of the CIL process in Durham in March 2012 up to the Inspectors Interim report stopping the process in February 2015. This
178
site of argumentation dealt with the production of the IDP setting out the
infrastructure needed to support the delivery of the new development sites included in the new Local Plan.
In this site of argumentation the local authority employed a combination of both local and national storylines and tropes to justify the introduction of CIL as a policy,
bearing in mind it was not mandatory for a local authority to introduce CIL. As mentioned earlier the Council proposed an ambitious growth oriented Local Plan reflecting the nationally dominant “supporting growth” discourse.
In County Durham the Durham Local Plan outlined an ambitious growth agenda as set out earlier. This in turn generated a requirement for strategic infrastructure in particular the two relief roads around Durham City. The County Council employed a combination of local storyline “why the CIL is needed” together with the national policy trope “plan-led approach” as it sought to establish credibility, acceptability and trust for the this policy of promoting growth as a new approach to regenerating the county as a whole. The “why the CIL is needed” is reflected in
“Funding received from the CIL contributes to the key infrastructure which is required to deliver the Plan. The overarching priority of the Plan is to improve the economic performance of County Durham. The Plan seeks to create conditions to provide development and the right infrastructure so a greater proportion of the working age population can be in employment and so improve the resident’s health, wellbeing and economic potential.” (Para 1.21 Durham County Council, 2012a)
“also national government were pushing us at the time we started looking at this we were really worried about where s106 was going until got guidance etc., felt compelled to investigate it (CIL), on small community and political side again, national government big signs, neighbourhood planning you will get your percentage, this rationale for neighbourhoods to get together and provide the basis for new housing sites coming forward” (LA:D4 Interview) The promotion of a growth based strategy requiring infrastructure to support it as set out in the IDP reflected the national policy trope of a “plan-led approach” and
supported the national storyline to “facilitating local authorities”.
179
There was some resistance and opposition to the proposals, by a local storyline about the “CIL policy not being applicable to the north east” due to low land values and a poor property market. The second, challenge was more specifically about the need for some of the infrastructure and the need for CIL to fund it, in the local
storyline “why is CIL needed”.
The principle of the applicability of the policy to the north east was raised in a very limited way, but as the Councils ambitious growth proposals were generally well supported, this storyline as a general comment on national policy was not particularly influential. More opposition came more from the “why is CIL needed” storyline, which argued why the need for the infrastructure proposed and whether the CIL or s106 should be used to fund the infrastructure provision.
The justification for the CIL was linked to the green belt release around Durham City and in particular the Northern Relief Road. The house builders were generally supportive of the new housing proposals and of the growth proposals.
“we have been involved in the formulation of policy particularly in Durham which is our home county, is more than we just want our sites to work we want the Plan to work for Durham” (DV:D/NG4 Interview)
There was also a concern in the early stages from the development industry about potential “double counting of developer contributions”, but the national policy trope tightened up this area, with the provision of the 123 list resolving many of those concerns.
An argument can be made that discursive closure was established by the local authority that CIL was needed to fund the infrastructure to support growth, this was however undermined later by the problems raised by the draft Planning Inspectors Report following the Local Plan Examination in Public and which has caused both the Local Plan and CIL processes to be stopped (Harold Stephens – Development Plan Inspector, 2015). The Inspector questioned the need for the ambitious growth proposals, accordingly much of the credibility, authority and trust built and
established from this storyline over the period from March 2102 until February 2015 has been severely weakened and the initial achievement of Discursive Closure has been undone.
180
As a result of this discursive struggle the local authority has been positioned as the facilitator of the infrastructure even if only partly funded from the CIL income. The clustering of knowledge claims from this discursive struggle were around the Local Plan process, establishing the case for growth, and in turn the infrastructure needed and therefore the need for CIL, whilst that appeared to have been established during the Local Plan process this was later completely undermined after the Local Plan Examination in public and Inspectors Report.