Agenda item

This report proposes an amended governance structure which will be the principal means by which CIL monies will be spent on the infrastructure necessary to support new development.

The Head of Regulatory Services, Kimberley Rowley, presented the report which proposed changes to the governance arrangements based on experience of previous application cycles. She noted that each application was different, and so some element of judgement as to whether to award CIL would always be required.

Inviting members to debate the proposals, the Chair reminded that this report is about the governance process, and not about specific applications.

A member identified that the current criteria may weigh against highways proposals, as these do not meet climate or sustainability criteria. It was noted that such applications may score higher in other areas and can include active travel elements to promote sustainable transport.

Councillor Oliver Cooper raised concern that when applications were presented to the Policy and Resources Committee for approval, limited information was provided about those applications that had not met the threshold for approval. He cited an example where he felt that the criteria may not have been correctly applied, and it was important Councillors had information to make an informed decision. With this in mind, he proposed an amendment to replace:

“Even if a bid complies with the CIL eligibility and meets the CIL scoring threshold, further consideration and a judgement will be applied by the Working Groups in terms of the priority of the project for the District”

With:

“All bids will be referred for scrutiny to the Policy & Resources Committee, including those recommended by refusal by the CIL Officer Working Party or CIL Moderation Group, including with its application form and its CIL scoring.  Even if a bid complies with the CIL eligibility and meets the CIL scoring threshold, the Policy & Resources Committee is not required to recommend the bid”

This was seconded by Councillor Philip Hearn.

In response to this amendment, it was noted that applications can be lengthy and require detailed consideration, which might not be feasible to do in a committee setting or in the public domain. It was clarified by Councillor Cooper that it would be helpful for the Policy and Resources Committee to be provided with a copy of the key application information and scoring sheet. It was also suggested that if members wished to consider applications in more detail, any questions would need to be submitted in advance to aid quality of debate at the meeting.

Councillor Stephen Giles-Medhurst reminded members that the Committee would be considering the next round of CIL applications at its meeting in June. He suggested that with those applications, officers could, in consultation with group leaders, include further information on those applications not recommended to be taken forwards. Following this, further revisions could be made to the governance process. On this basis, Councillor Cooper withdrew his amendment.

A further query was raised as to whether the Council’s approach of payment in arrears could disadvantage those groups who could not afford to pay for capital work in advance. It was confirmed that for voluntary and community groups, the Council could agree specific arrangements, and Parish Councils can obtain loans in order to finance investment.

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Giles-Medhurst, seconded by Councillor Sarah Nelmes, and agreed by General Assent.