Cabinet Member for Planning
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 Matthissen felt that a simplified approach for parishes and smaller groups should be investigated.
Councillor Burn thanked everyone for their comments and informed Council that these comments would be taken forward to the next review.
It was RESOLVED:-
1.1 That the amendments to the CIL Expenditure Framework – March 2021 (arising from the third review) - (Appendix A) and the CIL Expenditure Framework Communications Strategy – March 2021(Appendix B) be approved.
1.2 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).
1.3 That the Joint Member Panel be retained to inform this (fourth) review.
Supporting documents: