Agenda item

This report seeks Member approval of a CIL Governance process. This report proposes a governance structure which will be the principal means by which CIL monies will be spent on the infrastructure necessary to support new development.

The protocols proposed will ensure that CIL is managed in an open and transparent way and in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Regulations (2010) (Regulations).

This report seeks Member approval of a CIL Governance process. This report proposes a governance structure which will be the principal means by which CIL monies will be spent on the infrastructure necessary to support new development.

The protocols proposed will ensure that CIL is managed in an open and transparent way and in accordance with the Community Infrastructure Regulations (2010) (Regulations).

The Head of Regulatory Services introduced the report and advised that the Council had been receiving CIL money since 2015 and currently had around £7m in total although some of that money did go to the Parishes but amounts depended on whether the Parish had a Neighbourhood Plan adopted.  Members may recall that there had been proposals put forward to use some of the money for a new school in Croxley Green, which was a Herts County Council request, and for play areas and there was a further request tonight for another play area.  The report set out how we would advertise the funding on our website and then infrastructure providers can make a claim for that money via a request form.  We would also provide details on how we would assess the requests.

A Member requested that a briefing on CIL be organised as this was a complicated but important topic although we did not know how long CIL would last and also what would be the implications with the forthcoming White Paper. 

The Chair advised that any briefing would be provided virtually as Members only need to meet when making decisions and it would be more environmental to meet virtually.

A Member asked what currently happens with CIL money and how does this proposed structure differ.  On the Parish money was there any accountability for them to the Council on how that money is spent and that it is spent within the rules.  Clarification was sought with regard to Paragraph 2.3 and reference to the unparished area of Rickmansworth which seemed to add confusion.

The Head of Regulatory Services responded that in terms of how the money is spent currently there has not been an agreed regime in place.  With any infrastructure projects the cost is substantial and as in line with other CIL authorities the money was pooled for a number of years.  The Governance arrangements have been evolving and had been in discussion with the past Head of Service in Local Plans to get to this position. There has been increased pressure on that funding from Herts County Council who applied for nearly £1m of funding recently.  Some of the reason for the high amount currently pooled is people are not aware that we have that funding but are becoming aware now and we will have increased pressure to provide CIL funding.  This report seeks to regularise the process so that it is transparent and communicate that we are collecting monies and that they are available.  From this there will be a lot more demand on the funding and we will need to make decisions with Members on how we spend the money.  Officers do not envisage a time again where the Council would have this amount of funding available once people become aware of it.  It had taken 7 years to pool the money.  On the Parish Councils accountability more details would need to be provided but it was understood that once you pass the money to the Parishes it becomes their responsibility on how they spend the money. 

A Member referred to Paragraph 5.9 where it advised that Officers will prepare a series of recommendations for the release of CIL funds and thought that once a recommendation for using the funding came to the Committee it was pretty much clear they had made a successful request and wondered how Members could earlier input in the process.  They also referred to Paragraph 6.2 and the spending of the money within 5 years and that we may require them to pay back some or all and wondered what mitigating circumstances there would be to not spend the money within 5 years.  On the unparished areas of which there is only Maple Cross and Mill End those residents would be able to lobby the Council directly and would have a direct link to a pot of money.  It maybe that the Parishes are not advertising their money and they have no accountability on the spending of their money and the residents may not feel they have the same ability to use that CIL money or exercise their right to apply for the money. 

The Director of Community and Environmental Services said it was important to remember that the Parish Councils are still covered by the CIL regulations and could be held to audit by members of the public.  On the point raised about clawback there can be things like a pandemic which can cause you to delay works but officers would look into that.

The Head of Regulatory Services pointed out at Paragraph 6.2 it stated that if an applicant does not spend CIL money within five years of receipt or does not spend it as agreed then the Council may require them to repay some or all of those funds or provide details of the mitigating circumstances why it had not been spent and this would be looked at on a case by case basis.  Some of the funding will go to large scale infrastructure projects with the money for the project applied for at a very early stage. The project could easily take 5 years to start due to the form of development but details will be included in the legal agreement that they have to sign up to.

A Member was surprised to see so much funding accumulated but asked if there was a breakdown of where the funding had come from and which development projects and could this be broken down by Wards.  The point of having CIL money was to spend on projects in the immediate area or wider area as a result of development.  Was the intention to spend the CIL money on projects in proportion to where the CIL monies were received?  Had any funding been allocated to the Parishes so far and what percentage of the money had been spent so far?

The Chair advised that the money was spent where it was needed and is over the whole District and not just in one place.

The Director of Community and Environmental Services emphasised that the Council deliberately wanted a pool of money to be built up in the first instance.  If we were advertising and trying to spend it as soon as it first came in there would only have been small amounts available for small projects and it would have constantly been used up. The idea was to build up a sufficient amount so that it could contribute to strategic projects.  It had taken slightly longer to get to this point as the pandemic had held up some of the work.  Officers can make reports available to Members showing where the money had come from but it does not mean it had to be allocated in exactly that way. The whole point of CIL is that it is for larger projects as well as smaller projects.  It does not just mean if you raise “x” in one area that money must be spent in the area it was raised.  It may be that projects overlap different areas so there needs to be flexibility. The previous regime of just having Section 106 money was far more restrictive and you could only pool certain amounts which meant it was not being as effective and could only be used for strategic projects.

The Head of Regulatory Services said on the neighbourhood pots of money it would go to the Parishes to be spent on local projects but for the unparished area the Council will hold the money and details would go through Ward Members.  Funding is allocated to the Parishes twice a year.  It was not possible to provide a figure on the percentage of the funding spent so far but 15-25% of the funding received would go to the Parishes/Community Council.

A Member welcomed the report as they had wanted to see the money spent but we had received very few applications.  Members may recall that in the last 12 months some applications had come forward to the Committee.  If you want to see what your local Parish/Community Council are doing Members should contact the Clerks as there may be things they would like to do in partnership with the District. 

Councillor Chris Lloyd moved the recommendation, seconded by Councillor Raj Khiroya.  The Councillor was aware that Chorleywood Parish Council had been receiving 25% of the CIL money twice a year.

On a question raised by a Member outside the Committee on why Watford Rural was zero rated, the Director of Community and Environmental Services advised that the level was set at zero in order that the regeneration project be viable because if CIL had been set at the time the regeneration programme would not have been able to take place.  CIL money for leisure facilities had been allocated to the area already but a review of the CIL Charging Schedule would take place as part of the Local Plan review.

On being put to the Committee the motion was declared CARRIED by the Chair the voting being unanimous.

RECOMMEND:

That the Committee recommend to approve the CIL Governance arrangements as set out in paragraphs 5.3 to 6.2 of this report.