Minutes:
8.1 Councillor Clive Arthey, Cabinet Member for Planning and Member of the CIL Member Working Group, introduced the report and outlined the main points of the report. He then welcomed the witnesses to the Committee. The witnesses were:
· Robin Morley – Parish Councillor for Cockfield Parish Council
· James Cutting – Head of Planning at Suffolk Country Council
· Daniel Turner – Representative for the Clinical Commissioning Group – Health
· Chris Crisell – Representative for Clinical Commissioning Group
· Steve Holman – Representative for Network Rail
· Clive Arthey – Member of the CIL Member Working Group
8.2 Robin Morley, Parish Councillor for Cockfield Parish Council outlined the amount of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funding applied for and received for Cockfield Parish Council. He said the village had already spent all the Section 106 received. He detailed the various projects which had been funded by CIL and how they had benefitted the community. The total amount of funding applied for during the last few years were approximately £58,000. It had been possible to apply for this funding as the village had grown by nearly 20% due to new developments.
8.3 In response to Councillor Mellen’s question, Mr Morley clarified the different funding streams which made the collective sum of £58,000 being a combination of Section 106, CIL, funding from Babergh District Council and the Cockfield Parish Council.
8.4 Councillor Arthey recommended that any community applying for funding should contact the CIL team at the District Council as they had been supportive and provided useful advice. He stated that in his role as a Cabinet Member, he would like to congratulate Christine Thurlow and her team for the work they had undertaken for the CIL funding scheme and the current review.
8.5 James Cutting – Head of Planning for Suffolk County Council detailed the work he undertook. He explained the programme projects and the department’s work with business developers and other stakeholders. He explained how funding was allocated and that the department advised stakeholders on how to spend the funding provided. He was mindful that the application process for schools did not become too cumbersome. CIL and Section 106 funding were part of a variety of funding available to schools.
8.6 Councillor Grandon enquire whether CIL could be spent on additional items on top of Government funding or if the funding could only be used on essential projects. Mr Cutting responded that fundamental expenditure was part of the education funding. However, additional resources were often required to maintain schools and CIL could form a part of such projects.
8.7 In response to Councillor Field’s concern for Section 106 funding and CIL, Tom Barker, Assistant Director for Planning and Communities, provided a brief clarification of CIL and Section 106 funding, the application process and the funding options.
8.8 Councillor Mansel enquired how academies applied for CIL funding, since they were no longer under SCC. In response Mr Cutting responded that SCC still maintained a strategic function in the area, which made it possible to identify specific requirements. The SCC CIL funding team worked with academies and assisted them in applying for grant funding.
8.9 Councillor McCraw asked for clarification for relationship between the construction of new bus stops and the changes in bus services in the District.
8.10 He also enquired if there was a maximum amount for a single application for CIL.
8.11 Mr Cutting explained that the amount of funding depended on the projects. However, the current total funding for some of the upcoming projects amounted to millions of pounds. The SCC worked with the District Councils to assess the needs to avoid delays in the funding provision.
8.12 Further questions regarding bus stops ensued and Mr Cutting explained that infrastructure for bus stops was being developed and therefore some bus stops were being constructed for possible future bus services.
8.13 The Assistant Director for Planning and Communities reiterated that CIL was a mechanism for securing infrastructure funding.
8.14 The Professional Lead - Key Sites and Infrastructure outlined the work conducted for current funding applications. She then informed Members that a review was being undertaken in the CIL Member Working Group, which included the application process.
8.15 Daniel Turner – Representative for the Clinical Commissioning Group – Health outlined CIL funding for the provision of health across Suffolk and the development of health centres and GP Surgeries. He explained that CIL Funding was an important part of this process as NHS funding was restricted.
8.16 Chris Crisell – Representative for the Clinical Commissioning Group, explained that his department develop strategies for CIL funding and approached GP surgeries to provide advise on how to apply for funding.
8.17 In response to Councillors questions Mr Crisell clarified that funding for GP Surgeries were primarily to provide services but community elements were considered an important part of CIL funding application.
8.18 The Assistant Director for Planning and Communities explained in response to Councillor Hadingham’s question that the review of the CIL framework would identify areas in which to spend CIL funding. This would be a collaboration between the Parish Councils and Districts CIL funding pot.
8.19 Steve Holman - Representative for Network Rail outlined how CIL funding was applied not just to local projects but also on a cross authority basis and that an anticipate target for next year’s CIL funding was £450M.
8.20 Members debated CIL funding and Councillor Welham asked if the CIL team could report back on how much CIL funding had been allocated, and if allocated funding was being spent.
8.21 The Professional Lead - Key Sites and Infrastructure responded that appendix B detailed all current projects. The infrastructure development plan had been published in June 2019, however the CIL Member Working Group had undertaken further work on this plan.
8.22 Councillor Welham referred to paragraph 4.9 (page 24) and emphasised the importance for all three infrastructure providers to work cohesively for the benefit of communities.
8.23 He also asked if Ward Members could be informed when applications for CIL funding were submitted within their wards.
8.24 Councillor Grandon enquired if considerations for communities were taken into account when CIL bids were made from Network Rail.
8.25 Mr Holman explained that consideration of all railway users was part of the planning of any long-term projects, including cost and impact on the communities, which would be affected of the proposed projects.
8.26 The Assistant Director for Planning and Communities advised Members that any decisions for bids for rail would be for the consideration for the Cabinet.
8.27 Councillor Filed enquired if there were any indications of rail infrastructure improvements and Mr Holman responded that a Governance for Railway Investment Project (GRIP) was being undertaken, which was a gateway decision making process. This process would identify and mitigate all types of risk embedding in all Network Rail workings.
8.28 Councillor McCraw asked if the CIL Bid process was part of this review and the Professional Lead for Key Sites and Infrastructures advised that work was being undertaken on procedures.
8.29 Members debated the resolution and the work of the CIL team. They agreed that the work should be endorsed and that there was a fit and proper process in place for the bidding and allocation of CIL Funds.
By a unanimous vote.
It was RESOLVED: -
That the Joint Overview and Scrutiny Committee endorses the work of the CIL team (and the CIL Member Working Group) and notes that a fit and proper process is in place in respect of the bidding and allocation of CIL funds.
Supporting documents: