Agenda item

7.1

The Committee received a report setting out the Councillors' Guide on Spending the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Neighbourhood Portion (or Local CIL).

7.2

In attendance for this item were Councillor Jim Steinke (Cabinet Member for Neighbourhoods and Community Safety), Dawn Shaw (Head of Libraries, Communities Services and Learning and Skills) and Richard Holmes (Principal Planning Officer).

7.3

The report had been requested by the Committee, at its last meeting held on 8^th November 2018, as part of the resolution following its consideration of the call-in of the Cabinet Member Decision on this issue, to allow the Committee to scrutinise the Councillors’ Guide.  The Guide contained information on the background to the Community Infrastructure Levy and the ‘Neighbourhood Portion’ (Local CIL); how Councillors would be kept informed; how the Council would engage with local communities; and the decision-making process, and attached, as an appendix, the Local CIL allocation by Ward as at 30^th September 2018. Additional information regarding how the calculations in terms of the allocation by Ward had been worked out was circulated at the meeting.

7.4

Councillor Jim Steinke introduced the report, indicating that the process would be informed by the importance of local Councillors identifying where the CIL priorities should be in their respective Wards. He stressed that it was important that, where there was cross-party representation in a Ward, the Councillors would have to work together to arrive at the best possible outcome for the local community.  Dawn Shaw then took the Committee through the Guide. The National Planning Practice Guidance (NPPG) indicated that charging authorities should use existing community consultation and engagement processes. 

7.5

Members of the Committee raised questions, and the following responses were provided:-

·             The NPPG states that the CIL was the communities’ money, therefore Ward Councillors would have to work with local communities to find out what the priorities in the area were that met the criteria for Neighbourhood CIL allocation.  There may be a difference of opinion between local groups in terms of the projects that met the criteria and their priority.  It would be up to the Ward Councillors, in liaison with the Locality Manager, to decide which projects/schemes should be recommended for funding.  Details of the decision-making process, as set out in the Guide, were very general, with the final decision for recommendation on allocation being made by Ward Councillors.

·             It would be useful if Ward Councillors could start liaising with local community groups and organisations to identify possible projects/schemes to which the funding could be allocated, prior to the funding being available.

·             The CIL Regulations required local authorities to produce an annual report by the end of each calendar year, although this would not include a breakdown of the CIL collected by each Ward, as this was not required in the guidelines.  This information, however, would be included in the quarterly reports, which would cover the previous three months up to the end of March, June, September and December. 

·             The figures regarding the amount of CIL collected in each Ward was available at any given time, but it had been determined that such information should be included in the quarterly reports.

·             Information was available in terms of what CIL had been collected, as well as what was guaranteed in terms of agreed developments, therefore it would be possible for Councillors to depend on future allocations, and add these amounts to existing CIL levels, if they chose to fund a larger project/scheme. 

·             In terms of the approval process with regard to the expenditure of the CIL, the emphasis was placed on ensuring that projects/schemes met the criteria set out in the guidance, and that it was what the local community wanted. 

·             A review of Local Area Partnerships had just commenced, and as part of the review, consideration would be given to the role of the Partnerships in terms of the CIL.

·             With regard to larger amounts of the CIL, Councillors may wish to consider looking at ‘Ward clusters’ where amounts could be pooled in order to fund larger projects/schemes, particularly where they would cross-over, or have an impact on other, Council Wards.

·             Further work was required in terms of looking at whether the CIL could be raised in the Peak District, the boundary of which was situated in a number of Council Wards.  This had been identified as an anomaly, in that the Peak Park Planning Board was currently not charging a CIL in respect of developments in its area.  It was suggested that the issue be raised with Councillor Mike Chaplin, the Council’s representative on the Peak District national Park Planning Committee.

·             Advice had been sought from the Council’s Director of Legal and Governance, who had confirmed that the methodology being used in respect of the process was within the law. 

·             The Locality Teams would be expected to manage the consultation process and outcomes, and would receive relevant support to enable the process to run efficiently.

·             It was hoped that the Cabinet would publish the Local Plan in the near future to enable Councillors and the Locality Teams to start making decisions in terms of prioritising the CIL allocations.

·             Whilst it was accepted that Ecclesall Ward would receive the lowest allocation, the allocations were based on Indices of Multiple Deprivation (IMD), which is how they should be distributed in accordance with the guidelines.  There had been considerable investment in Ecclesall in recent years, including the new Mercia School, as well as a number of road traffic schemes in the area surrounding the school.

·             It was acknowledged that levels of consultation with local community groups and organisations, in connection with decisions regarding the allocation of the CIL, would vary between Wards.  Although there may be some disagreements, particularly in those Wards with cross-party representation, there were plenty of areas where there was likely to be agreement, such as expenditure in parks. 

·             The Annual CIL Report for 2017/18 was in the process of being drafted, and would be published on the Council’s website by the end of December 2018. A more detailed quarterly report for September 2018 was awaiting approval by Councillor Jack Scott (Cabinet Member for Transport and Development) and when approved, would be circulated to all Councillors.

7.6

RESOLVED: That the Committee:-

(a)      notes the contents of the report now submitted, together with the Councillors' Guide on Spending the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Neighbourhood Portion (or Local CIL), as well as the responses to the questions now raised;

(b)      thanks Councillor Jim Steinke, Dawn Shaw and Richard Holmes for attending the meeting, and responding to the questions raised; and

(c)      requests:-

(i)          the Cabinet to approve and publish the Local Plan at the earliest possible opportunity to allow for Councillors, in consultation with the local community, to make informed decisions with regard to the allocation of the Community Infrastructure Funding; and

(ii)         details of the monies gathered through Community Infrastructure Levy, by Ward, be included on the appendix attached to the Quarterly/Annual Community Infrastructure Levy Reports.