Agenda item

To consider the Community Infrastructure Levy Spending Update.

Councillor T. Schofield, Executive Member for Finance, introduced the report and explained that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), a payment from developers, was used to contribute towards funding of infrastructure and to support the development of an area.

It was noted that the Council had been operating CIL for over two years and had collected over £1.15 million from developments across the borough. It was explained that this would increase over time with a greater proportion of developments being liable to pay CIL.

The Executive Member for Finance explained that CIL regulations required at least 15% of CIL collected in the borough to be spent in the area where development had taken place. It was highlighted that this portion of the CIL was referred to as the “CIL Local Fund”. It was noted 5% of CIL funds were retained to cover administration costs, with the remainder (80%) of the CIL funds, the “CIL Strategic Fund” being allocated by the Council, through its 5-year Strategic Infrastructure Programme (SIP).      

The Executive was informed that spending of the Local Fund, for areas with a local Town and Parish Council, was determined by Horley Town Council and Salfords and Sidlow Parish Council in accordance with CIL Regulations. It was noted that, outside of these local council areas, the identification of projects to be supported by the Local CIL Fund had to date been undertaken on a ward basis by ward councillors in consultation with the local community. 

As set out in the report, Councillor Schofield explained why the governance arrangements for the Local CIL would benefit from streamlining to better reflect the impacts that developments had across wards. It was also highlighted that infrastructure could benefit residents in more than one ward.

Councillor Schofield went on to explain, following much consideration, that the proposals set out in the report recommended changing the governance for Local Fund spending from ward-based arrangements to a system of four Local Fund Area Advisory Panels. It was highlighted that this would allow more significant projects to be delivered, whilst retaining visibility of CIL spending within communities. It was also recognised that developments located close to a ward boundary could impact as much on a neighbouring ward as on the ward where the development was located, particularly for larger developments. In these instances, using administrative boundaries was not within the spirit of the regulations.     

In response to questions, it was explained each Panel would be open to all ward councillors within the area and would be chaired by the Executive Member for Finance. It was noted that each of the four Advisory Panels would meet quarterly to confirm their priorities for the spending of Local CIL receipts from developments in that area. Councillor Schofield highlighted that Councillors would be kept informed, by a transparent standardised officer assessment, of projects suggested by councillors and communities. It was noted that the Area Advisory Panels would make recommendations on projects to support the Local Fund Project, with final authorisation to release funds resting with the Head of Places and Planning in accordance with the officer scheme of delegation.

During the discussion a range of issues were considered, including:

-       Requirements set out in national regulations and guidance about how CIL should be applied, including spending of the Local Fund.  

-       The relationship between CIL and planning obligations.  

-       An update on projects supported to date, including the refurbishment of the kitchen at Lower Kingswood Church Hall.

-       Lessons learnt from discussions about the proposed Eastgate scheme in Nork.

-       The importance of having robust criteria to assess the relative merits of different projects and to decide which projects should be supported.

-       The need for activities supported by Local CIL to demonstrate how they would support/benefit local communities and support development.

-       The fact that all CIL spending, both Strategic and Local needed to be reported publically through the Council’s Annual Monitoring Report.  

In response to questions about delays in supporting local projects, it was explained that following initial work to collate project suggestions, a review had been undertaken. This was to ensure the process for assessing project and prioritising local CIL spending was robust and transparent. It was also noted, subject to agreement of the proposals set out in the report, that discussions with ward members would recommence as an interim arrangement until the Area Advisory Panels were established.   

The Executive Member for Finance explained that, for logistical reasons, the new arrangements would be implemented in May 2019 to coincide with the introduction of new ward boundaries for the borough. It was noted that final ward groupings would be determined once the Boundary Commission had announced the outcome of its review.   

In conclusion, it was suggested that the Executive Member for Finance should work with all Members to develop the process for how CIL funding would be prioritised and allocated. In response, the Leader of the Council moved an additional recommendation to ensure all Members could contribute to this process, which was agreed and it was therefore;  

RESOLVED that:

1.    The approach to the allocation and spending of the Community Infrastructure Levy Local Fund, set out in paragraphs 13-23 of the report, be endorsed and the Head of Places and Planning be authorised (in consultation with the relevant Portfolio Holder) to implement relevant arrangements and to review and revise these as appropriate.

2.    The Executive Member for Finance be asked to work with all Members to contribute to the process for how Community Infrastructure Levy funding is prioritised and allocated, in accordance with 1. above.  

3.    The Strategic Infrastructure Programme (SIP) update be noted and the SIP amended to clarify that project amounts would be index linked (in accordance with paragraphs 24-32 of the report).

Reasons for decision: To provide a framework to better reflect the impact of CIL-liable developments on local communities and the shared use of infrastructure across wards. To keep the CIL contribution proportionally the same when a project is undertaken as when the bid for CIL funding was made, ensuring the relative value of the CIL contribution is not reduced over time. 

Alternative options: The existing ward-based arrangement could be retained or different area based arrangement could be implemented. The SIP and local fund project bid sums do not have to be index-linked but this would risk insufficient funding for the delivery of the project.