Agenda item

5.1

It was moved by Councillor Ian Auckland, and seconded by Councillor Gail Smith, that this Council:-

(a)       notes the publication of the draft document outlining how the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) will be allocated across the city, however condemns the current Administration for the unacceptable delays in bringing forward these proposals;

(b)       notes the consultation on CIL is currently live and ends on the 14th September, and is disappointed that the Administration chose to launch this important consultation during the peak school holiday period;

(c)        notes the following national guiding principles of how to spend the CIL:

(i)         be allocated in line with Councillors’ annual ward priorities, which have been informed by local community engagement, data and feedback from service providers / partner agencies; and

(ii)        be allocated to electoral wards and provide local Councillors the opportunity to work closely with the community to decide how best to allocate the fund;

(d)       notes that the purposed allocation of the neighbourhood portion does not fully adhere to these guiding principles and is dismayed that this Administration in their initial draft has ignored these guiding principles;

(e)       believes that, in ignoring the guiding principles, the Administration is favouring selected parts of the city, and disadvantaging others;

(f)        notes that the Administration intends to use 85% of CIL for city-wide projects;

(g)       notes that in the draft document, in the neighbourhood portion, only 1.5% of CIL is guaranteed to be retained in communities where the development takes place and the rest is distributed based on Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD);

(h)       believes distributing the neighbourhood portion of CIL using IMD does not fairly compensate local communities for developments that take place directly in their areas unless in a Labour favoured area;

(i)         believes this goes directly against the guiding principles on how CIL is spent in local communities and this Administration is letting down the communities it should be serving; and

(j)         resolves to:

(i)         encourage local residents to take part in the consultation process and share their views with the Administration; and

(ii)        encourage local residents to set up their own parish council or develop their own Neighbourhood Plans to allow them to allow their communities to receive a larger portion of CIL.

5.2

Whereupon, it was moved by Councillor Jack Scott, seconded by Councillor Lisa Banes, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the deletion of all the words after the words “That this Council” and the addition of the following words:-

(a)       notes that the consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is currently live and after it concludes the Administration will consider responses before making any decisions about this issue, which considers a full range of issues around the Community Infrastructure Levy;

(b)       notes that, despite setting out objections, the main opposition group have not brought forward any alternative proposals, and therefore looks forward to their response to the consultation;

(c)        regrets that in their motion the main opposition group fail to recognise that some areas are not compensated for development through CIL at all, because development has led to a zero CIL requirement on the developer, due to lower levels of development value in some areas;

(d)       believes it is wrong and unfair to penalise communities because land is of a lower financial value through allocating the funding on the basis of the value of development, meaning that CIL funding would be disproportionately allocated to the areas with the highest level of land values;

(e)       (i) confirms that the Indices of Multiple Deprivation is a robust, nationally recognised and independently formulated means of calculating deprivation and notes the document ‘The English Indices of Deprivation 2015 – Frequently Asked Questions’ published by the Department for Communities and Local Government which states “The Index of Multiple Deprivation combines information from the seven domains to produce an overall relative measure of deprivation. The domains are combined using the following weights:

•      Income Deprivation (22.5%)

•      Employment Deprivation (22.25%)

•      Education, Skills and Training Deprivation (13.5%)

•      Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%)

•      Crime (9.3%)

•      Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%)

•      Living Environment Deprivation (9.3%)”

            and (ii) therefore believes that categorising this nationally recognised basis for calculating need “A Labour favoured area” is completely ridiculous and deeply troubling;

(f)        supports the use of the Index of Multiple Deprivation as a fair, balanced and more objective way of allocating funding, demonstrated by the fact that many local, national and international bodies use this set of indicators;

(g)       notes that poverty and inequality are amongst the largest challenges facing the city and believes that concerted, long-term policies like those of the Administration are needed to tackle them, especially so given government austerity measures enacted on Sheffield since 2010 which have disproportionality affected the poorest;

(h)       condemns the “Labour Favoured Areas” attacks on the Administration as being misrepresentative, out of step with public opinion and cheap political shots;

(i)         believes that the main opposition group are going back to their bad old ways of supporting failed right wing policies, through small-minded, mean-spirited and parochial approaches to public policy and the allocation of resources, whilst remembering that they supported the policy of the previous coalition government to impose the greatest level of cuts to councils with the greatest level of need, with the areas with the highest levels of deprivation getting the most cuts and the wealthiest parts of the country, comparatively, receiving the least; and

(j)         encourages local people to come forward and have their say on this important consultation and looks forward to welcoming the development of a fair, inclusive, balanced and just CIL policy in the near future.

5.3

It was then moved by Councillor Douglas Johnson, seconded by Councillor Alison Teal, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by:- 

1.         the addition of new paragraphs (f) to (i) as follows, and the re-lettering of original paragraphs (f) to (j) as new paragraphs (j) to (n):-

(f)        believes the consultation questionnaire contains 12 leading questions that can only be answered one way – in other words, asking questions to secure a certain answer;

(g)       notes that a single question conflates both the proposal to take funding away from communities in areas where development is taking place and the concept of fairness, thus leading a respondent to answer in a certain way;

(h)       recalls that this Council resolved in December 2017 that “in any consultation, it is vital to be open and clear about the most significant practical changes being proposed.”;

(i)         believes this consultation fails to meet the test set by the Council and is therefore fundamentally flawed;

2.         the deletion in the original paragraph (h) [new paragraph (l)] of the words “unless in a Labour favoured area” and the addition of the words “and believes this Council should recognise the impact of large-scale property development on residents’ quality of life, health and well-being, in particular with regards to the need for open and green space, better air quality, better protection from traffic congestion and improved community strength.”; and

3.         the deletion of all the words in the original sub-paragraph (j)(i) [new sub-paragraph (n)(i)] and the addition of the words “request the Administration to abandon this consultation and instead require ward councillors to decide the spending of CIL arising from developments in the wards for which they are elected, on the basis of agreed ward priorities”.

5.4

It was then moved by Councillor John Booker, seconded by Councillor Keith Davis, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the addition of a new paragraph (k) as follows:-

(k)        believes that CIL is an unfair levy and is predominantly a consequence of value and viability and is concerned that this gives the impression of perverse incentives in place for councils to consider developments based more on value than suitability.

5.5

It was then moved by Councillor Richard Shaw, seconded by Councillor Steve Ayris, as an amendment, that the Motion now submitted be amended by the addition of new paragraphs (k) to (n) as follows:- 

(k)        believes there is a loss of public confidence and a lack of trust, truth and transparency in the way the current Administration operates, most recently in how the Administration has dealt with providing information related to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL);

(l)         notes that officers have confirmed that illustrative calculations were provided to the current Administration showing the amount of neighbourhood CIL money that would be spent in each ward if the current proposals were accepted;

(m)      notes that, despite requests for this information to be made available more widely, the Administration has failed to do so; and

(n)       believes that this information should have been included in the consultation document.

5.6

After contributions from two other Members, and following a right of reply from Councillor Ian Auckland, the amendment moved by Councillor Jack Scott was put to the vote and was carried.

5.7

The amendment moved by Councillor Douglas Johnson was then put to the vote and was negatived.

5.7.1

(NOTE: Councillors Simon Clement-Jones, Bob Pullin, Richard Shaw, Mohammed Mahroof, Joe Otten, Colin Ross, Martin Smith, Roger Davison, Shaffaq Mohammed, Sue Alston, Andrew Sangar, Cliff Woodcraft, Ian Auckland, Sue Auckland, Steve Ayris, Gail Smith, David Baker, Penny Baker, Vickie Priestley and Mike Levery  voted for part 1 of the amendment and voted against parts 2 and 3 of the amendment, and asked for this to be recorded.)

5.8

The amendment moved by Councillor John Booker was then put to the vote and was also negatived.

5.9

The amendment moved by Councillor Richard Shaw was then put to the vote and was also negatived.

5.9.1

The votes on the amendment were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

5.10

The original Motion, as amended, was then put as a Substantive Motion in the following form and carried:-

RESOLVED: That this Council:-

(a)       notes that the consultation on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is currently live and after it concludes the Administration will consider responses before making any decisions about this issue, which considers a full range of issues around the Community Infrastructure Levy;

(b)       notes that, despite setting out objections, the main opposition group have not brought forward any alternative proposals, and therefore looks forward to their response to the consultation;

(c)        regrets that in their motion the main opposition group fail to recognise that some areas are not compensated for development through CIL at all, because development has led to a zero CIL requirement on the developer, due to lower levels of development value in some areas;

(d)       believes it is wrong and unfair to penalise communities because land is of a lower financial value through allocating the funding on the basis of the value of development, meaning that CIL funding would be disproportionately allocated to the areas with the highest level of land values;

(e)       (i) confirms that the Indices of Multiple Deprivation is a robust, nationally recognised and independently formulated means of calculating deprivation and notes the document ‘The English Indices of Deprivation 2015 – Frequently Asked Questions’ published by the Department for Communities and Local Government which states “The Index of Multiple Deprivation combines information from the seven domains to produce an overall relative measure of deprivation. The domains are combined using the following weights:

·           Income Deprivation (22.5%)

·           Employment Deprivation (22.25%)

·           Education, Skills and Training Deprivation (13.5%)

·           Health Deprivation and Disability (13.5%)

·           Crime (9.3%)

·           Barriers to Housing and Services (9.3%)

·           Living Environment Deprivation (9.3%)”

            and (ii) therefore believes that categorising this nationally recognised basis for calculating need “A Labour favoured area” is completely ridiculous and deeply troubling;

(f)        supports the use of the Index of Multiple Deprivation as a fair, balanced and more objective way of allocating funding, demonstrated by the fact that many local, national and international bodies use this set of indicators;

(g)       notes that poverty and inequality are amongst the largest challenges facing the city and believes that concerted, long-term policies like those of the Administration are needed to tackle them, especially so given government austerity measures enacted on Sheffield since 2010 which have disproportionality affected the poorest;

(h)       condemns the “Labour Favoured Areas” attacks on the Administration as being misrepresentative, out of step with public opinion and cheap political shots;

(i)         believes that the main opposition group are going back to their bad old ways of supporting failed right wing policies, through small-minded, mean-spirited and parochial approaches to public policy and the allocation of resources, whilst remembering that they supported the policy of the previous coalition government to impose the greatest level of cuts to councils with the greatest level of need, with the areas with the highest levels of deprivation getting the most cuts and the wealthiest parts of the country, comparatively, receiving the least; and

(j)         encourages local people to come forward and have their say on this important consultation and looks forward to welcoming the development of a fair, inclusive, balanced and just CIL policy in the near future.

5.10.1

The votes on the Substantive Motion were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-