Agenda item

Call-In of Cabinet Member Decision: Community Infrastructure Levy Neighbourhood Portion

Report of the Policy and Inclusion Officer.

Minutes:

8.1

The Committee considered the following decision of the Cabinet, made on 17th October, 2018:-

 

 

 

RESOLVED: That Cabinet:-

 

 

 

(a)       agrees that where there is no Parish Council or neighbourhood plan in place in the Ward where a chargeable development has taken place, the Neighbourhood Portion is collected into a single Local CIL pot and redistributed using the process set out in the report;

 

 

 

(b)       delegates authority to the Head of Libraries, Community Services and Learning & Skills, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety, to determine: (i) how the CIL Neighbourhood Portion allocated to each Ward is spent, following engagement with local communities and Ward Councillors, subject to the proviso that monies are spent in accordance with agreed Ward Priorities and (ii) to determine the terms on which such expenditure is incurred including authorising the completion of any related funding agreement or other legal documentation; and

 

 

 

(c)        delegates authority to the Head of Libraries, Community Services and Learning and Skills, to produce a Guidance Note for Councillors and Officers, setting out how decisions on spending the CIL Neighbourhood Portion will be made, based on the details set out in the report.

 

 

8.2

Signatories

 

 

 

The lead signatory to the call-in was Councillor Ian Auckland, and the other signatories were Councillors Sue Auckland, Penny Baker, Shaffaq Mohammed and Colin Ross.

 

 

8.3

Reasons for the Call-in

 

 

 

The signatories have confirmed that they wish to further question the processes used in the formulation of the report and examine the objectives outlined in the report.

 

 

8.4

Attendees

 

 

 

·                     Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Transport and Development)

 

·                     Councillor Jim Steinke (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety)

 

·                     Rob Murfin (Head of Planning)

 

·                     Dawn Shaw (Head of Libraries, Community Services and Learning and Skills).

 

·                     Councillor Ian Auckland

 

·                     Councillor Colin Ross

 

 

8.5

Councillor Ian Auckland, addressing the Committee as Lead Signatory, explained that the purpose of the call-in was to ensure that all parties had access to all available background information when Cabinet took the decision and questioned whether legal advice had been sought on whether the proposals accord with the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Regulations.  He stated that he had repeatedly asked for access to information regarding this matter and had not received it and therefore asked that the matter be deferred in order for the Scrutiny Committee to investigate further.

 

 

8.6

Councillor Colin Ross, as a signatory to the call-in, stated that the request was a fundamental matter of principle and that all Members were entitled to see the basis of the decision taken by Cabinet regarding the redistribution of CIL monies.  He felt that 85% of CIL receipts left plenty of scope to be redistributed fairly.

 

 

8.7

In response, Councillor Jack Scott stated that the CIL Regulations had now been around for a number of years and that the Council had a framework to work to and it would be unfortunate to delay the decision that had been taken by Cabinet.  With regard to “fairness” he said that it comes down to choices and options and that this was the right way forward for the city as a whole.  He said that legal advice had been sought and received as with all Council reports. He added that the decision that had been taken defining the whole of Sheffield as “local” was legal.

 

 

8.8

Councillor Jim Steinke said that the implementation of this was long overdue and if there was to be a further delay, communities would lose out.

 

 

8.9

Questions from Members of the Committee

 

 

Members made various comments and asked a number of questions, to which responses were provided as follows:-

 

 

 

·                     The consultation on how the neighbourhood portion of CIL is to be allocated was carried out in a meaningful and robust way to ensure that areas of higher deprivation receive a fairer share of the money to support new developments in those areas.

 

 

 

·                     The consultation which was promoted via web blogs and social media sought comment on the principles and proposals on this matter, and those responses received were from across the city and reflected the views of the public, even in areas that could lose out on the neighbourhood portion of CIL.

 

 

 

·                     With regard to mixed Wards, for example where the new St. James development has been built, part of that development is within Jordanthorpe and part within Beauchief, totally differing areas.  It was hoped that decisions would be taken by using a fair and common sense approach when making decisions and entrusting local Ward Members to make the best and fair judgment for their area.

 

 

 

·                     It is not known how much CIL has been generated through the Heart of the City 2 Project, although it is widely known that the City Ward generates the greatest amount of CIL, this would argue for the funding being used to offset disruption caused to areas in and immediately around the city centre.

 

 

8.10

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

 

 

 

(a)       agrees to take no action in relation to the called-in decision;

 

 

 

(b)       requests that Members of the Committee be given an opportunity to scrutinise the Guidance Note that the Head of Libraries, Community Services and Learning and Skills has been authorised to produce, before it takes effect; and

 

 

 

(c)        also requests that information on the monies gathered through Community Infrastructure Levy be shared with the Committee at an appropriate point in the year, along with the calculation of distribution across the city.

 

 

 

For the motion (8)

-

Councillors Ben Curran Michelle Cook, Dawn Dale, Terry Fox, Mark Jones, George Lindars-Hammond, Karen McGowan and Anne Murphy).

 

 

 

 

 

Against the motion (5)

-

Councillors Penny Baker, Sue Auckland, Roger Davison, Richard Shaw and Alison Teale.

 

 

 

 

 

(NOTE:  Prior to the passing of the above resolution, an alternative motion, moved by Councillor Penny Baker and seconded by Councillor Sue Auckland, asking that the decision of the Cabinet be deferred until the Scrutiny Committee has considered the relevant issues and made its recommendations, was put to the vote and negatived. The votes on the motion were ordered to be recorded and were as follows:-

 

 

 

For the motion (5)

 

Councillors Penny Baker, Sue Auckland, Roger Davison, Richard Shaw and Alison Teale.

 

 

 

 

 

Against the motion (8)

-

Councillors Ben Curran Michelle Cook, Dawn Dale, Terry Fox, Mark Jones, George Lindars-Hammond, Karen McGowan and Anne Murphy).

 

Supporting documents: