Issue - meetings

The CIL Officer provided Members with information on what CIL was and what it could be used for.  A copy of her presentation is attached.

The Regeneration and Development Panel had previously set up a Task Group to develop governance arrangements for CIL and the Chair of the Task Group, Councillor Parish, presented the findings of the Task Group and the draft governance and spending arrangements that they had developed.

Councillor Parish outlined the work carried out by the Task Group and explained that the Task Group were still to conclude their work because they still needed to look at administration and accounting processes, but these processes would be dependent on if the Panel approved their work so far.

Councillor Parish highlighted the following:

·        The terms of reference of the Task Group.

·        The governance model suggested by the Task Group.

·        The importance of match funding.

·        The split between strategic, community and local projects and the criteria that they would have to meet.

·        An online application process would be developed.

·        The flow chart which showed the framework, processes and sign off process.

·        This was a new process, so the Task Group proposed that this would be reviewed after a year and a Task Group be established to monitor and review processes and funding applications as appropriate.

The Chair thanked the CIL Officer and Councillor Parish for their presentation and invited questions and comments from the Panel, as summarised below.

Councillor Morley asked for clarification on the application process and the CIL Officer explained that there would likely be an opening and closing date in which applications would be invited, this could happen on a six monthly basis.  After the closing date for applications they would be considered against the criteria and follow the processes as shown in the flow chart on page 37 of the Agenda.  She also explained that the application forms had been drafted to reflect the amount of money which could be applied for so that they were not over burdensome.

The CIL Officer clarified that the arrangements that were being proposed had no impact on the CIL Parish Fund, which was the portion of CIL which went directly to Parish Councils twice yearly and referred to the pie chart which was included in the report.

Councillor Spikings felt that a review of processes should take place within six months, rather than the year which had been suggested by the Task Group.  This would ensure that any issues were picked up early and could be rectified. 

The Portfolio Holder for Development, Councillor Blunt reminded the Panel that Cabinet had asked the Regeneration and Development Panel to develop the Governance arrangements for CIL and thanked the Task Group for their work.  He suggested that the Task Group invited Members of the Cabinet to a future meeting to brief them on their work to date.  In response to questions from the Portfolio Holder for Development, it was explained that the suggestions put forward by the Task Group was that projects  ...  view the full minutes text for item 91

Examples attached.

The Task Group discussed the CIL distribution and suggested process.  The Chair explained that there was scope to review the process on an annual basis.

The Planning Policy Manager reminded the Task Group of an Appendix to  a Cabinet report, which set out the potential governance structure for CIL spending and monitoring (copy attached).

The Task Group suggested the following amendments/comments as set out below:

CIL Fund Application Form/Criteria – Strategic Projects over £50,000

·        Clarification required as to how the list of decisions were recorded and if the decisions would be subject to the call in process.

·        Criteria questions:  total cost to be amended to read: Is the estimated total cost of the project over £50,000.

·        Add reference to timescale to include start and end date of project.

·        In Project details – add that a report outlining a brief description could be attached to the application form.

CIL Fund Application Form/Criteria – Community Projects between £10,000 and £50,000

·        Evidence of Need:  As one of the Corporate Objectives of the Local Plan reference to Neighbourhood Plans be included.

·        Evidence Need:  Plan could be requested to show how the project would affect the local area/information to show many dwellings.

CIL Fund Application Form/Criteria – Local Projects between £1,000 and £10,000

·        Criteria Question: remove match funding and amend to read:  Is there evidence to demonstrate there is a commitment (financial or otherwise) to the project.

CIL Fund Application Form/Criteria – Local Projects between £1,000 and £10,000

·        Scoring Criteria:  A Driver to research if it would be possible to see if the scoring could relate to a percentage of the parish precept.

AGREED:  The Task Group agreed the application forms/criteria for the three groups, subject to the amendments set out above.

Officers will present the attached report which consolidates the comments made by Members of the Task Group at the previous meeting.

The LDF Manager presented a report which consolidated the ideas and issues raised by the Task Group at their previous meeting in relation to how CIL money was distributed and spent.  He presented the three proposals along with pros and cons of each proposal.

It was also noted that the projected income from CIL was approximately £1.2 million.  It was highlighted that there was a Government exemption in place for self-build and if this was not in place the income would be up to around £2.5 million.

The Task Group considered the three proposals and the following comments were made:

Proposal 1 – Split 60/20/20

·        Projects would need to be looked at and prioritised.

·        Match funding would be crucial in most cases, but each case would be considered on its own merits.

·        It would be up to the Borough on how the strategic pot would be allocated.  Norfolk County Council projects would not be excluded, but projects would need to link in with the Borough priorities and benefit the local community.

·        An area to consider could be training applicable for skills needed for employment, which could benefit the local economy.

·        The Task Group was reminded that money needed to be used for infrastructure and had to be Capital funding.  CIL money could not be used to subsidise private business or for State Aid.

·        Resources required to administer the projects would need to be considered.  The Task Group was advised that at their next meeting they would be discussing detailed processes for distribution.

·        There would need to be flexibility on the 60/20/20 split if funds were over or under subscribed.  The split would also need to be reviewed annually.  It was noted that funds could roll over to future years if they were not spent.

·        There would need to be a time limit on when organisations received payment after completion of works.  It was explained that CIL monies could be released within seven days if required.

·        There would also need to be a process in place for how long CIL money would be allocated to an organisation, and if it was unused the process for the expiry of projects and reallocation of funds.  Clarification would also be required if the time limit was different to the limit on funds which were directly paid to Parishes, which was currently five years.

Proposal 2 - All Parishes

·        This would be a simple scheme, but would it serve the needs of the whole Borough as there would be no funds available for strategic projects.

·        It could be trialled. 

Proposal 3 – Split 3 ways

·        This was a variation of proposal 1, but with a different level of split.

·        It would be resource intensive and could potentially constrain the amount of larger strategic projects.

·        The Task Group was informed that 5% of CIL income could be used for administration of the scheme.

The Task Group considered all three proposals.

AGREED: 1. The Task Group supported Proposal 1.

2. Proposal 1 to ensure that there was  ...  view the full minutes text for item 4

Officers will present a report which consolidates the comments made by Members of the Task Group at the previous meeting.