BDC Cabinet Member for Planning- Councillor Nick Ridley
MSDC Cabinet Member for Planning – Councillor Glen Horn
Members are asked to scrutinise the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Process.
Witnesses are attending to assist in the scrutiny process
Minutes:
42.1 The Chair began by introducing the witnesses.
42.2 Sally Reeves, Parish Councillor for Stowupland and Secretary to the Stowupland Village Hall Management Committee. She led on two CIL bids and assisted on two further CIL bids. She had also assisted Stowupland Parish Council on their applications for CIL and PIP Funding.
42.3 Clive Arthey, District Councillor – North Cosford, and Member of the Joint Member Panel. His Ward had applied for CIL funding for seven application and had been successful on five of these applications.
42.4 James Cutting, Planning Strategy Manager – Growth, Highways and Infrastructure for Suffolk County Council (SCC). He worked on CIL bids for public transport infrastructure and school extensions.
42.5 Councillor Nick Ridley – Babergh Cabinet Member for Planning introduced the report and Councillor Glen Horn – Mid Suffolk Cabinet Member for Planning was present to answer questions.
42.6 Councillor Ridley informed the Committee that the purpose of the scrutiny of the CIL was to review the implementation of the CIL application process and forward any recommendations to the next Joint Member Panel meeting on the 22 November 2018.
42.7 Sally Revees then explained her experience of bidding for CIL Funding and outlined the issues she and her colleagues had encountered during the process including:
· The process felt rushed as the bidding round only lasted one month;
· For her the online application form was relatively comprehendible. However, the terminology was quite technical, and she was concerned if it was possible for everyone to understand the details in the form as part of the from related to council procedures;
· Question 16 requested priority criteria, which was difficult for the applicant to ascertain and it seemed that if would be better for the Council to determine the priority; this question also required more explanations;
· It was not made clear from the start that the CIL bid was a top-up bid;
· The time-line posed a problem for the applicant. Not only from an administrative perspective. Quotes from contractors were likely to change due to inflation and the time it took to get an application approved;
· It would benefit the process if the Parish Council became aware of the requirements and process for CIL applications and how CIL funding was allocated in the community;
· She suggested that Parish Councils should be able to allocate a small percentage of the funding to cover administration costs.
42.8 Members asked several questions including if CIL was only a part- funding scheme, if the support from the Council had been good and if the application form was suitable for the application in question.
42.9 The Professional Lead – Key Sites and Infrastructure clarified that CIL funding could be applied for up to 100% of a project and she listed the areas which she felt should be forwarded to the Joint Member Panel:
· A review of the form;
· Consideration of the cost of inflation in relation to the length of the application;
· More proactive work with the communities to provide information on how to apply for CIL funding;
· To investigate if it was possible to allocate some administration costs;
· Consider if parishes with successful bids could be mentoring neighbouring parishes in the bidding process.
42.10 Members felt that the timeline was key and it was suggested that the bidding round should be extended by one month.
42.11 The form was also considered, and it became clear that the current online application form was not appropriate for small bids and that it was possible that parishes with smaller bids would be discouraged by the form. The Infrastructure Officer explained that the current form was based on a previous form but was under review.
42.12 The Assistant Director – Planning and Communities explained the implication of a multitude of smaller applications in relation to the funding required to meet these. He agreed that the application process had to be accessible for applicants but that CIL was but one form of funding available for communities’ projects. Consideration should be given to streamline the process for the various funding streams available for communities to enable communities to understand the funding available.
42.13 In response to the question of how well the CIL team managed extra or unexpected costs during the bidding process, the response was that it had become clear that more detailed information was required to ensure the bids were fit for CIL funding.
42.14 Councillor Clive Arthey was the next witness and he thanked the CIL team for working with the Joint Member Panel on the framework for this project.
42.15 He informed the Committee that he had been working on successful bids in his ward, and that the success of the applications for Cockfield were good examples of how Members could help the process along by informing the parishes and communities of the CIL bidding process. It was also useful if parishes became familiar with the application form.
42.16 He said that clarification should be made regarding what was new and additional infrastructure and what was for repair and maintenance. He felt the latter was not eligible for CIL funding.
42.17 He explained that Cockfield had used all the Section 106 contributions and applied for 100% for these. The Council had probably collected £130,000 to £140,000 for CIL funding from developers and Cockfield had received approximately £20,000 from this money.
42.18 Babergh and Mid Suffolk had altogether collected £3.5 million for CIL funding but had only paid out £500,000 to parishes so far. This funding was entirely at the disposal for parishes. There were different criteria for the Council and the Parishes for the application for the CIL funding.
42.19 Councillor Arthey then drew Members attention to Appendix A and ask that the Committee considered any further suggestions for the Joint Member Panel for the review.
42.20 Councillor Hadingham enquired how much funding there was left in the Section 106 funding for each parish and if Members could be updated regularly on this. The officers responded that consideration had been taken for each application for the funding available. A software programme was also being launched to enable this kind of information to be available to Members.
42.21 James Cutting, witness from Suffolk County Council (SCC), explained his involvement in the CIL application for SCC and the implications of the funding provided by CIL. He said it was important that the local plan had the right amount of funding spend on it and that support for infrastructure such as highways, education and transport was considered carefully. His team focused on the planning application stage to evaluate what kind of infrastructure was required before the application was progressed to the CIL application team. He detailed the implication for CIL funding for bus stops and educational provision. He pointed out that the application form was not suitable for educational providers.
42.22 He observed with reference to Appendix A:
· That it would be useful to align the CIL process with the infrastructure provided;
· That the request for further information had to be considered carefully;
· That some academies might not be keen with the use of a Community User Agreement.
42.23 Members questioned Mr Cutting how the funding for bus stops and schools were required and the response was that previously this had been paid by Section 106 funding and that some funding for schools had also been sought from central Government.
42.24 A discussion ensued regarding the previous Section 106 funding and how this previously sat with the SCC, who according to one Councillor seemed to have spent the money as they saw fit on for instance bus tops in villages, which had not requested bus stops. In response to this it was clarified that the current CIL funding offered approval from communities as applications were now going out to consultation in the community. It was generally agreed that this process worked better than the previous one.
42.25 Mr Cutting explained that SCC evaluated what kind of infrastructure was required and how this sat with the overall plan before taking the application to the District Councils. There existed a good dialogue between the local communities in relation to the location of bus stops. Also, the SCC now estimated the number of pupils joining schools for CIL applications, but that some flexibility was required for funding for school, if the amount of pupils did not increase. CIL funding was related to growth, but it should also be possible to apply for CIL funding for maintenance to bring class rooms up to standard.
NOTE: Councillor Gasper arrived at 10:55 am.
42.26 The Assistant Director – Communities and Planning outlined the relationship between Section 106 and developments and how this was linked to the Five-year Housing Land supply. He said it was important to reinforce collaboration between SCC and the District Council.
42.27 Members debated the recommendations and it was agreed that apart from Appendix A, the following should be taken into consideration in the CIL review:
1. That Communities were made aware of upcoming CIL bidding rounds and the lengths of the bidding rounds and that consideration be made to extended to the period of the bidding round.
2. That clarification should made if parish clerks could charge a fee for administration costs when administering CIL.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED: -
1.1 That the Communities be made aware of upcoming CIL bidding rounds and that consideration be made to extend the period of the bidding round.
1.2 That clarification be made if parish clerks can charge a fee for administration costs when administering CIL.
Supporting documents: