Agenda item

For committee to comment on the amended CIL Spending Strategy (appendix A), following approval of the original spending strategy in November 2018, for income generated by CIL. 

Cabinet member for economic development and regeneration, Councillor Robin Bennett, introduced the report on the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

The headline changes are;

1. Simplifying the process and prioritising the district’s corporate plan priorities.
2. Widening the geographic area where funds may be spent to provide more flexibility in funding projects across the whole of South Oxfordshire along with allowing funding to be spent across the district council boundary for projects in the Didcot Garden Town area, part of which is in Vale of White Horse district.
3. Extending funding parameters, so that we can effectively respond to priorities in the Council’s Infrastructure Development Plan (IDP) and our new Corporate Plan by removing the percentage allocation to internal council departments and widening the availability of the health care allocation, which to date, remains unspent.
4. Partnership working improvements with Town and Parish, to help them spend their CIL money.

No plans to change the County percentage as this is linked to projects identified in the infrastructure plan and is starting to be spent.

District portion is to be more flexible, so projects can get underway.

The paper can be reviewed in one year if needed.

Jayne Bolton, Infrastructure and Development Manager, and Mark Hewer, Infrastructure Development Team Leader, were also present to answer questions.

The committee raised the following points:

·       Would like to see funding used for public toilets and car parking. A view was expressed to include free to use toilets, to keep them accessible to all and consider gender neutral facilities. Officers added that toilet improvement projects are underway, example in Henley. This is a capital project. Car parking electric charge points may be considered under CIL. The district can change the split of CIL but the regulations are set by government and need to be capital projects. Projects can be developed by parish/town and then they could approach Jayne Bolton’s team to see if funding could be available towards the project from the district council’s CIL allocation.  However, the district council’s allocation is aimed at delivering district council projects / facilities.

·       The committee were informed that the essence of CIL is to get new infrastructure, but enhancing existing infrastructure is ok if it improves access or is a significant improvement. CIL is mainly governed by regulations.

·       Committee questioned the admin funding allocation. Officers explained that this is set in the CIL regulations. The district has spent a lot less than allocated, and the funding is carried forward. If not spent at the end of three years, it goes into the infrastructure pot, not lost. The funding for admin used to be for the monitoring planning team only. Now the funding also includes the infrastructure development team and there is more awareness of CIL because of this.

·       The green infrastructure pot is a case of just removing the 5% cap, potentially more can be spent.

·       A view was expressed that CIL could be spent on trial shuttle buses to leisure facilities from rural to town areas. It was confirmed that buses aren’t a capital project. It could be considered in the parish council CIL funding, but not the district pot, due to projects needing to be a capital project.

·       Councillor Turner will discuss Chalgrove funding with officers and Councillor Bennett.

·       Could the community enablement team help parishes to utilise funding, joint projects etc? e.g. connecting villages and towns with cycle routes. The development team do contact town and parish to help promote use of CIL.

·       The infrastructure development team started in year three of the funding and the use of CIL has been promoted.

·       Discussion was had about accessing the infrastructure pot. Committee was directed to paragraph 10D in the report – a panel and bidding process would be a bigger admin burden. The infrastructure team can be contacted for potential projects. There is five years for the town and parish councils to spend the money after receipt of it, and then it can be clawed back, but this would not necessarily happen straight away. The infrastructure team will work with town and parish councils to help them spend their allocation if required. The deletion of Regulation 123 lists and restrictions lifted on use of S106 funds, means that funds can be combined on projects. There is no developer clawback for CIL but there is still a need to demonstrate spending within CIL regulations.

·       Officers confirmed that healthcare projects were being worked on, working with OCCG to bring schemes forward. Examples are health centres in Harwell/Didcot and Benson.

·       Difference between strategic and normal development sites – strategic sites have a Section 106 agreement and all financial contributions are captured by this method rather than CIL. Concerns were raised about the financial impact of strategic sites on nearby parishes, if the build is gradual. It was confirmed that strategic sites are exempt from CIL charge and S106 secures financial contributions.

Committee expressed that they felt it was a very good report. Officers and the Cabinet member were thanked.

Committee motioned that they support the CIL paper and the spending of CIL going forward, with the comments above taken into account.