Agenda item

The Executive Member for Planning Policy and Place Delivery.

Executive Member for Planning Policy and Place Delivery, Councillor Biggs, set out the report on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Strategic Infrastructure Programme (SIP) 2023-2027 to Executive. This is a charge collected from developers of new house building. Eighty per cent of the CIL funding is strategic under national legislation and must be spent on infrastructure to support development in the borough. Annex 1 set out the list of project bids received for funding. Annex 2 set out the screening and assessment criteria to ensure consistency and transparency, Annex 3 set out the Project Assessment Summary and Annex 4 set out the Council’s priorities for spending the strategic CIL funding.

Infrastructure providers had been invited to bid for a total of up to £18.2m of strategic CIL funding to run during the five-year-period, 2023 to 2027. Seventy-five project bids were received. All bids had been assessed against statutory requirements and the screening and assessment criteria. Almost half of the successful 51 project bids were in Redhill and Horley – the main location for recent development. It was agreed that the Executive would receive an annual update report on progress in transferring CIL funding and the delivery of the SIP projects. No Members of the Council were involved in prioritisation of the projects which was carried out by officers using the transparent scoring assessment process.

Councillor Biggs thanked all the community organisations that had been involved and had bid for this funding. He also thanked officers, including the Principal Planning Development Officer and Head of Planning, for their hard work to bring these bids and successful projects to Executive for approval. The Leader, Councillor Brunt, also expressed thanks to local groups to apply for CIL funding and Members who had encouraged them to bid. He hoped that those groups not successful this time would continue to engage with the Council for future bids.

Overview and Scrutiny Committee had reviewed the report on the CIL assessment process at their meeting on 16 March 2023 and their observations were published as an Addendum (Draft O&S Minute 73).

Executive Members made the following observations and comments:

·        Assessment of business plans discussed at Overview and Scrutiny Committee – it was confirmed that one of the assessment criteria used in assessing all CIL bids was for organisations to include an acceptable business case.

Visiting Members asked questions and made observations in the following points:

·        Scrutiny of the project bids – Overview and Scrutiny Committee Members had requested wider scrutiny of the bids and their full assessments . Annex 1 is the summary of all bids but the detail of at least the successful bids was requested. Annex 2 the screening and assessment criteria had been reviewed by the Committee but not the full details of Annex 3 – the full project bid scoring. Members asked for the application forms that had been submitted as well as the full assessment scoring (which was summarised in Annex 3) to be shared with them so they could see the breakdown of scoring on the bids for transparency. It was agreed that project bids could be shared to help Members give guidance to organisations for future bids.

·        Qualitative commentary – Members queried the commentary on the qualitative considerations which varied between bids and asked for further information. It was confirmed that there was more commentary on larger bids. Officers could provide further information to Members if required.

·        Earlswood Scout headquarters bid and Battlebridge recreation ground athletics trackbid on p95 of the report was discussed. The latter had received a high score but had not been successful. It was confirmed that these two project applications had not received funding this time, but as both bids had  been “screened in”  they, or a variation of them,  could be considered again through the annual review of the SIP (paragraph 66 of the report). It was agreed that project submission forms could be shared with councillors.

·        Battlebridge recreation ground skate ramp – As discussed at a previous meeting of the Executive, this had burnt down and replacement costs with a concrete ramp were high. SIP Funding is to be allocated  for a new outdoor Multi-Use-Games Area (MUGA) at Battlebridge Club (p97 of the report). There was scope for a skate ramp in the future in an appropriate location but made of alternatives to wood for insurance purposes but this was not part of the current CIL funding. Its replacement is considered too costly for one Local CIL Area Panel to fund, but could be re-provided in Redhill or in Merstham. It was referenced in the RBBC Playing Pitch and Outdoor Sports Facilities Study and a solution for an appropriate location and a design of a new one was being discussed with Greenspaces .

·        Carbon neutral and environmental sustainability projects – it was noted that a number of bids that had been put forward for projects to reduce energy and carbon emissions and to add solar panels to buildings had been accepted, which Members acknowledged and were pleased had been included in the SIP.

·        Redhill Memorial Park upgrade to play area and outdoor gym equipment – this was set to receive a maximum of £113,824 of CIL funding which was seen as important as there were increasing numbers of new flats in Redhill. It is requested that additional play equipment is provided using strategic CIL rather than local CIL.

·        Solar-powered 80 Big Belly bins – Members questioned whether there could be separate recycling Big Belly bins to avoid recycling being compacted with general rubbish and then sent to landfill. It was confirmed that there were options for both recycling and non-recycling bins.

·        Surrey County Council bids – good matching SCC bids and a large project to improve Redhill Library (with £500,000 funding) was noted. There had been some funding for improving the cycling infrastructure but match funding and proposal to implement  further cycle lanes had been disappointing.

·        Three Arch Road and A23 junction – this was subject to a Surrey County Council public consultation and a funding bid. Improvements to walkers and cyclists in this area was discussed.

·        Communication with those bidding for funding – Members asked about the communications plan for letting bidders know who had been successful or not successful this time. It was noted that only 1 bid made in Banstead, which was not successful. There are also several successful bids which include locations in Banstead. It was confirmed that all applicants had been informed about the Executive meeting and could view via the webcast. All those assessed would be emailed to let them know the outcome. Banstead Community Centre and Lady Neville Park had received funding. Even if unsuccessful at this stage, all bids assessed will stay on the list and can be reviewed annually.

·        Timing for funding released to successful applicants – it was confirmed that funding would be released subject to conditions specific to projects’ funding allocations. There is some flexibility between the years’ funding allocations to bring projects forward subject to funding being available.

·        Transparency of scoring projects was welcomed to help councillors explain why some projects are included and others are not.For example, benefits of the bid for drainage improvements to two rugby pitches compared to benefits of the bid for Woodhatch Road junction with A217 improvements. The latter was not successful due to the details of the bid and the current design option, which is at a relatively early stage which has not yet subject to initial public consultation, and which included highways proposal related to the proposed move of Priory School, which is not currently going ahead. Officers could provide the full assessment scoring. The Director of Place confirmed that she had met with SCC partners recently to discuss how to bring about improvements to this junction, which is a priority for both organisations. There remain funding opportunities from this SIP through annual reviews and potentially also from other sources.

·        Surrey and Sussex Healthcare NHS Trust bids – it was noted that feedback would be given by officers to the Trust as the quality and structure of their bids could be improved and there was a need for improved infrastructure projects in this area, for example, at local GP and dentist surgeries. Bids should be linked to health care strategies. The Leader would also raise this with the East Surrey Hospital Chief Executive.

RESOLVED – that the Executive:

(i)               Agrees the Council’s second Community Infrastructure Levy Strategic Infrastructure Programme (CIL SIP) 2023-2027 with the amounts to be allocated in each relevant year including the national RICS CIL index (at Annex 4).

(ii)             Agrees that the release of Community Infrastructure Levy funding to infrastructure providers for projects on the Community Infrastructure Levy Strategic Infrastructure Programme (CIL SIP) 2023-2027 (at Annex 4 or as amended by any subsequent annual review) be delegated to the relevant Head of Service for CIL in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder for CIL and Chief Finance Officer.

(iii)           Agrees to receive an annual review of the Community Infrastructure Levy Strategic Infrastructure Programme (CIL SIP) 2023-2027, noting the reported delivery progress of projects in the SIP and updating the SIP as appropriate.