Cabinet Member for Planning
Decision:
It wasRESOLVED:
1.1 That the CIL Expenditure Business Plan (March 2019) and accompanying technical assessments of the CIL Bids forming Appendices A and B and which include decisions on valid Bids for Cabinet to make and those for Cabinet to note be approved as follows:
Decisions for Cabinet to take: Strategic Infrastructure Fund
CIL Bid, Location and Infrastructure Proposed |
Amount of CIL Bid |
Recommendation |
B19-18 SUDBURY Kingfisher Leisure Centre |
£100,000 Total Cost £2,456,000 |
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid for £100,000 |
Decisions for Cabinet to take: Local Infrastructure Fund
CIL Bid, Location and Infrastructure Proposed |
Amount of CIL Bid and total cost of the Infrastructure |
Delegated Decision |
B06-18 EAST BERGHOLT East Bergholt High School Tiered Seating for Community and Education Use |
£45,000 Total cost £539,222 (of bigger project including tiered seating) |
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid for £45,000 |
B07-18 PRESTON ST MARY Preston St Mary Village Hall Provision of extension to provide kitchen and cooking facilities and inside toilets |
£130.091 Total cost £130,091 (excluding VAT) |
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid of £130,091 |
B12-18 LAVENHAM 2 Lady Street provision of Community facilities |
£30,000 Total cost £45,000 |
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid for £30,000 |
B13-18 LAVENHAM Car Park to the rear of the Cock Inn
|
£33,455.99 Total Cost £33,455.99
|
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid for £33,455.99 |
Decisions for Cabinet to note and endorse: Local Infrastructure Fund
CIL Bid, Location and Infrastructure Proposed |
Amount of CIL Bid and total cost of the Infrastructure |
Delegated Decision |
B14-18 COCKFIELD Restoration of twin brick culvert |
£5,155.00 originally; subsequently revised to £3,440.00 Total Cost Originally £12,366.00 (including VAT); subsequently revised to £6,880.00 (excluding VAT) |
Delegated decision. for Cabinet to note f £3,440.00 |
1.2 That Cabinet noted and endorsed that except for CIL Bids B18-18 which was not CIL 123 compliant respectively (such that the Bid could be progressed), all other non-determined valid or invalid Bids continue to be worked upon and all will be carried forward to the next CIL bid round 3 for consideration.
1.3 That Cabinet noted and endorsed this CIL Business Plan (which includes all those valid CIL Bids where offers of other sources of funding have been made for projects as part of the CIL process such that the value of that original CIL Bid is reduced).
Reason for Decision: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies have been collected since the implementation of CIL on the 11th April 2016. The CIL Expenditure Framework adopted in April 2018 requires the production of a CIL Business Plan for each District which contains decisions for Cabinet to make or note and endorse on CIL Bids for CIL expenditure. These decisions relating to the expenditure of CIL monies form the one of the ways which necessary infrastructure supporting growth is delivered.
Alternative Options Considered and Rejected: There is a diverse spectrum of approaches to CIL expenditure across the country from Unitary Authorities who have absorbed CIL into their individual Capital Programmes to others who ringfence all funds to be spent locally. A range of different approaches was identified in Appendix A of the Framework for CIL Expenditure report provided to Cabinet’s on the 5th and 8th of February 2018 and discussed in full during the workshops with the Joint Member advisory panel. Members however adopted the documents set out in paragraph 1.1 above by Council decision in April 2018.
Any Declarations of Interest Declared: None
Any Dispensation Granted: None
Minutes:
134.1 Councillor Ridley, Cabinet Member for Planning, introduced the report and stated that the report included a business plan which included an update on progress on decisions in CIL Bid Round One (Appendix A) and the assessments for the individual CIL bids (Appendix B). Councillor Ridley suggested it would be better to go through each recommendation one by one.
134.2 Councillor Ward agreed that each bid should be approved individually.
134.3 Councillor Ridley introduced CIL Bid B19-18 which was for £100,000 from the strategic infrastructure fund to support the £2.5 million project refurbishment of Kingfisher Leisure in Sudbury which was an important capital project for the Council and included refurbishment of the gym. The proposal was a worthy strategic infrastructure proposal which should be supported and was recommended for approval.
134.4 B19-18 was approved unanimously.
134.5 Councillor Ridley introduced bid B06-18 for tiered seating at East Bergholt High School, this was for £45,000 which was part of a larger education improvement project of £539,222. The proposal accommodates proposed community use of the seating and a community use contract would be used to secure this. It was considered this CIL bid should be supported and recommendation was also for approval. Councillor Ridley asked Cabinet if there were any questions and if they were happy to approve.
134.6 Councillor Davis stated it was important that schools were supported and it was also important that it was for the wider community use and that schools needed to recognise that they may need to change their approach and become more encompassing.
134.7 Councillor Osborne asked that as East Bergholt High School was an academy was there confidence that they would make this available for community use.
134.8 The Professional Lead for Key Sites and Infrastructure, stated that community use had been negotiated with a legal contract created and the offer of any CIL bid funding, should Cabinet approve the bid today, would be subject to that legal contract being completed.
134.9 Councillor Lawrenson stated as Chairman of a local school considering becoming an academy it was his belief that it was a requirement that the school facilities be available for the use of the community and that he was glad that this was being enforced.
134.10 Councillor Davis asked if it mattered if the education facility was an academy or just within the LEA when being considered for a CIL bid.
134.11 In response the Professional Lead for Key Sites and Infrastructure stated that currently the framework did not specify a difference in approach between the two but could be included in the next review of the CIL expenditure framework as more extensions to schools were being put forward which may become more of an issue.
134.13 Councillor Ridley stated that it was likely there would be an increasing number of schools making applications for CIL and not for small sums and suggested that there needed to be a discussion between Babergh officers and County officers responsible regarding giving proper advice.
134.16 Councillor Lawrenson stated that academy schools were still state schools which are funded directly from government and not from Suffolk County Council.
134.17 Councillor Ridley asked for approval of CIL Bid B06-18 which was given.
134.18 Councillor Ridley introduced CIL Bid B07-18 for Preston St Mary and stated that a question had been raised in Council briefing regarding how much the Parish Council or any other fund within the village might be contributing towards the village hall project. Councillor Ridley informed Cabinet that the Village Hall Committee had £9,611. and their income was very close to their expenditure but they were spending £2,000 on the extension. The Parish Council had only £4,500 with very little surplus and that the recommendation was for approval.
134.19 Councillor Lawrenson stated it was a very significate amount of money being requested and questioned whether the Council should be funding the whole project.
134.20 Councillor Ridley replied that the Council would not be funding the project as the whole bid was for £195,000 reduced to £160,000.
134.21 Councillor Ward stated that the overall cost estimates had been reduced and that in this case approval should be granted but agreed that a review in the future would be a good idea.
134.22 Councillor Grandon suggested that in the future for grants over a certain amount the Council should look to provide a percentage of the costs rather than such a large amount and look at whether they should be match funded and whether this should be included in our policies.
134.24 Councillor Ridley stated that this was a small village which had not had a great deal of development and this was what the CIL fund was for.
134.25 CIL Bid B07-18 was approved.
134.26 Councillor Ridley introduced CIL Bid B12-18 for Lavenham and stated that the total cost of the project was £45,000 with £12,500 being invested by the parish council, £2,500 from locality funding and the CIL bid was for £30,000.
134.27 Councillor Ward stated that this was part of the long-term plan to support Lavenham to create a community hub and take over the tourism service there and should be supported.
134.28 CIL Bid B12-18 was approved.
134.30 Councillor Ridley introduced CIL Bid B13-18 Lavenham electric charging point and stated that the most common EV charge point being offered was a rapid charger which was capable of recharging a vehicle to approximately 80% capacity in about 30 minutes however, visitors to Lavenham would be more likely to park their car medium to long term and in this scenario rapid charge was not required so the chargers could be slower and cheaper.
134.31 Councillor Barrett enquired if Lavenham had considered that there were commercial options available that would provide electric charge points without having to pay for it.
134.32 The Senior Environmental Management Officer stated that he had not spoken to the company that Councillor Barrett was familiar with but had spoken to another installer and that his understanding was that the commercial organisations preferred locations with 30 minute turn arounds for example petrol stations and service centres on trunk roads and visitors to Lavenham tended to visit for longer periods of time so that model was not what they were looking for and therefore the cost of the rapid charger at around £20,000 was not appropriate. There had been a deliberate decision made to not speak to commercial organisations about Lavenham because it was believed that there was potential for an income to be retained within the Council.
134.33 Councillor Barrett enquired if the charging point was one where you used a card or if you needed to be registered to use it.
134.34 The Senior Environmental Management Officer replied that it would be the same as the Kingfisher Leisure charging point which would require a sign up to a particular provider, however that provider was expanding their network of chargers. He also pointed out that this bid was on behalf of Babergh District Council and not Lavenham Parish Council so the charge point would be owned by the Council.
134.35 Councillor Ward asked for approval for CIL Bid B13-18 which was granted.
134.36 Councillor Ridley introduced CIL Bid B14-18 which was a delegated decision for £3,440 and asked for it to be noted and also asked for paragraph 3.2 and 3.3 of the recommendations in the report to be agreed.
134.37 Councillor Ridley stated that the CIL bid spend in this round was £241,986.99, £100,000 to the strategic infrastructure fund, the remainder to the local infrastructure fund. The amount carried forward to the next bid round in May 2019 for the local infrastructure fund was £279,728.96. Councillor Ridley reminded members that 3.1 in the recommendations was to approve all of the bids, 3.2 to note and indorse all of the outstanding valid and invalid bids that continue to be worked upon and in paragraph 3.3 Cabinet are asked to note and indorse the CIL business plan and the reasons are as given on the paper.
134.42 Councillor Ridley MOVED the recommendations which Councillor Barrett SECONDED.
By a unanimous vote
It was RESOLVED:
1.1 That the CIL Expenditure Business Plan (March 2019) and accompanying technical assessments of the CIL Bids forming Appendices A and B of the report and which included decisions on valid Bids for Cabinet to make and those for Cabinet to note be approved as follows:
Decisions for Cabinet to take: Strategic Infrastructure Fund
CIL Bid, Location and Infrastructure Proposed |
Amount of CIL Bid |
Recommendation |
B19-18 SUDBURY Kingfisher Leisure Centre |
£100,000 Total Cost £2,456,000 |
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid for £100,000 |
Decisions for Cabinet to take: Local Infrastructure Fund
CIL Bid, Location and Infrastructure Proposed |
Amount of CIL Bid and total cost of the Infrastructure |
Delegated Decision |
B06-18 EAST BERGHOLT East Bergholt High School Tiered Seating for Community and Education Use |
£45,000 Total cost £539,222 (of bigger project including tiered seating) |
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid for £45,000 |
B07-18 PRESTON ST MARY Preston St Mary Village Hall Provision of extension to provide kitchen and cooking facilities and inside toilets |
£130.091 Total cost £130,091 (excluding VAT) |
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid of £130,091 |
B12-18 LAVENHAM 2 Lady Street provision of Community facilities |
£30,000 Total cost £45,000 |
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid for £30,000 |
B13-18 LAVENHAM Car Park to the rear of the Cock Inn
|
£33,455.99 Total Cost £33,455.99
|
Recommendation to Cabinet to approve CIL Bid for £33,455.99 |
Decisions for Cabinet to note and endorse: Local Infrastructure Fund
CIL Bid, Location and Infrastructure Proposed |
Amount of CIL Bid and total cost of the Infrastructure |
Delegated Decision |
B14-18 COCKFIELD Restoration of twin brick culvert |
£5,155.00 originally; subsequently revised to £3,440.00 Total Cost Originally £12,366.00 (including VAT); subsequently revised to £6,880.00 (excluding VAT) |
Delegated decision. for Cabinet to note £3,440.00 |
1.2 That Cabinet noted and endorsed that except for CIL Bids B18-18 which was not CIL 123 compliant respectively (such that the Bid could be progressed), all other non-determined valid or invalid Bids continue to be worked upon and all will be carried forward to the next CIL bid round 3 for consideration.
1.3 That Cabinet noted and endorsed the CIL Business Plan (which included all those valid CIL Bids where offers of other sources of funding have been made for projects as part of the CIL process such that the value of that original CIL Bid is reduced).
Reason for Decision: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies have been collected since the implementation of CIL on the 11th April 2016. The CIL Expenditure Framework adopted in April 2018 requires the production of a CIL Business Plan for each District which contains decisions for Cabinet to make or note and endorse on CIL Bids for CIL expenditure. These decisions relating to the expenditure of CIL monies form one of the ways which necessary infrastructure supporting growth is delivered.
Supporting documents: