Babergh and Mid Suffolk District Councils
Democratic Services

Mobile menu icon

Agenda item

Cabinet Member for Planning

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 would happen if the development was originally S106 and not CIL.

 

72.12 In response Councillor Arthey said that it would not make any difference as we were now a CIL charging authority that would provide infrastructure if and when the need arises as long as the bid was fully evidenced they could seek  a contribution from Babergh CIL.

 

72.13 Commenting further Councillor Arthey stated that he did not think that the proposals would be huge. The only one that had been mentioned so far was the transport improvements in Ipswich. This was still very early days and if they were to ask for a contribution from neighbouring authorities evidence would be required to support the proposal.

 

72.14 Councillor Busby asked if it would be possible to question the viability of the scheme itself as their previous track record wasn’t good?

 

72.15 Councillor Arthey confirmed that it would have to be a scheme fully worked up, costed and evidence based with all the permissions in place.

 

72.16 Councillor Maybury asked if it was possible to confirm what time was taken by officers to review and answer CIL enquiries?

 

72.17 In response the Professional Lead for Key Sites and Infrastructure informed Council that she didn’t have precise figures but they did however encourage people to come forward early with their proposals as this prevented a load of CIL bids that would not meet the criteria in the scheme. It also enabled officers to compile a list of infrastructure projects to give an idea of what investment was needed to undertake these projects.

 

72.18 The Chair then invited Councillors to open debate.

 

72.19 Councillors Hinton and Maybury raised concerns about Cabinet taking decisions on CIL which were not in the budget and felt that the decisions should be taken by Council.

 

72.20 The Monitoring Officer confirmed that CIL expenditure was a Cabinet decision under the Local Government Act 2000 and not listed as a hybrid function therefore it was not within the powers of Council to change. The Monitoring Officer also clarified that there was no upward financial limit for Cabinet decisions. 

 

72.21 Councillor McCraw also added that any Cabinet decision would be subject to the Call-In process.

 

72.22 Councillor Hinton sought clarification as to whether Cabinet could refer the matter to Council for debate before Cabinet took the decision. This was confirmed by the Monitoring Officer.

 

It was RESOLVED:-

 

(1) That the amendments to the CIL Expenditure Framework – March 2021 (arising from the third review) (Appendix A) and the CIL Expenditure Communications Strategy – March 2021  (Appendix B ) be approved.

 

(2) That the CIL Expenditure Framework and the CIL Expenditure Framework Communications Strategy be reviewed again whilst Bid round 8 is being considered (October 2021) so that any amended scheme can be in place before Bid round 9 occurs (May 2022).

 

(3) That the Joint Member Panel be retained to inform this (fourth) review.

 

Supporting documents: