Cabinet Member for Planning
Additional documents:
Minutes:
Councillor Burn introduced the report and informed Council that this was the third review of CIL carried out by the Joint Member Panel.
The main changes being recommended to the process was the introduction of new additional criteria for dealing with cross county bids which were listed fully in paragraph 4.5 of the report.
All such CIL expenditure that fall beyond each district’s administrative / geographical areas shall be Cabinet decisions.
Councillor Burn also highlighted the key recommended changes to the Communication Strategy that were detailed in Appendix B of the report.
Councillor Burn then paid tribute to the hard work and dedication of the CIL Team before MOVING the recommendations in the report which Councillor
Brewster SECONDED.
Councillor Pratt queried whether any considerations had been given to include funding for sustainable travel infrastructure as there did not appear to be any obvious reference to this in the report.
In response, the Assistant Director for Planning for Growth informed Councillor Pratt that he would respond to him in the next couple of days to have a detailed discussion on the CIL framework and the role sustainable travel had within it.
Councillor Otton made reference to page 167 of the report relating to the Thurston Railway Crossing and asked what influence the Council had over organisations such as Network Rail where they had been offered £100k of funding and had failed to come up with the project?
In response, the Assistant Director for Planning for Growth informed Councillor Otton that the Council could influence but could not control. He would ascertain whether the feasibility study had been commenced and report back to her.
Councillor Otton also asked why public art had been excluded from CIL bids.
In response, Councillor Burn stated that he would ensure that the subject be included for discussion at the next review.
Councillor Passmore queried whether the provision of mental health facilities on a Suffolk wide basis would be classed as infrastructure?
In response, the Assistant Director for Planning and Growth confirmed that health facilities were an inherent part of the CIL infrastructure and could contribute on a proportionate basis to a county wide provision.
Councillor Field raised concerns that the audience for the document could find it too complicated and asked that the complexity of the document was examined at the next review.
In response, the Assistant Director for Planning for Growth said that he felt that it was really important to maintain the detail of the framework but agreed that some sort of executive summary could be explored alongside maintaining the detail of the framework.
Councillor Eburne commented that there was an awful lot of coordinated work from the parishes and groups to submit a bid and wanted to be sure the funding was getting out to the communities and that the government was not going to change the rules.
Councillor Mansel stated that it was extremely pleasing that there was flexibility within the scheme for community projects to get the funding they need.
Councillor ... view the full minutes text for item 74
Cabinet Member for Planning
Additional documents:
Minutes:
72.1 Councillor Arthey introduced the report and informed Council that this was the third review of CIL carried out by the Joint Member Panel. The main changes being recommended were cross boundary bids with new additional criteria for dealing with such bids fully listed at 4.5 in the report.
72.2 All such CIL expenditure beyond each District’s administrative/geographical boundaries shall be Cabinet decisions with no delegated decisions being taken.
72.3 Councillor Arthey also highlighted the key recommended changes to the communication strategy (Appendix B in the report).
72.4 Councillor Arthey then MOVED the recommendations in the report which Councillor Ward SECONDED.
72.5 Councillor Maybury queried whether there was a percentage of contribution required from each authority for cross border bids?
72.6 In response Councillor Arthey stated that it would depend on each individual bid. Currently there were no proposals being considered but in Mid Suffolk there had been, so these proposals were to prepare for any future bids where there were fairly large developments on the edge of the district and it was possible that those residents would be using infrastructure from another district, but this could cut both ways. Some of those authorities may not be CIL levying collecting authorities so their contributions would be through s106 agreements. But if we were asked to contribute it would be via CIL.
72.7 Councillor Maybury asked if it would not be considered prudent to put some type of percentage on for cross border bids?
72.8 In response Councillor Arthey advised that the Panel had stated that any bid must be evidence based so that if there is infrastructure being used over the border and there was evidence that 75% of Babergh residents were using that infrastructure, then there would be a 75% contribution. However, it is highly likely that there would be much lower usage which could be just 10% 20% or 30%. So far Ipswich who are looking for transport improvements in the town have quoted a traffic survey. The Panel have said that full evidence research needs to be provided that actually shows the level of infrastructure use that takes place to inform any CIL bid proposal.
72.9 Councillor Hinton queried whether if the surrounding authorities did not have a CIL regime but used instead S106 agreements that these would be agreed at the time of the granting of planning permission therefore negating the need for a contribution from CIL?
72.10 In response, Councillor Arthey stated that this would only apply if the S106 agreement was attached to a development. If it was a cross boundary development, there would be an element of S106 contribution and an element of CIL. However, there were other situations of which Sproughton was an example. There were no S106 contributions from the land adjacent to Sproughton that might have been received because there was no development there. Ipswich would therefore be asking for a contribution from CIL for strategic infrastructure for an Ipswich wide project from CIL.
72.11 Councillor Busby asked what ... view the full minutes text for item 72