Agenda item


The Task Group discussed CIL Distribution and Spending and the comments that had been submitted by Members of the Task Group in advance of the meeting.  Members were reminded that they were looking at the procedure for how the money should be distributed, but were not looking at specific or individual projects.


The Task Group was reminded that development which had been agreed prior to the introduction of CIL would not be liable for CIL, neither would Custom or Self Build Development.  It was noted that unparished areas, such as King’s Lynn, would not receive Parish CIL payments, but did get other sources of funding, such as Section 106.  The LDF Manager provided the Task Group with information on how Section 106 money, collected by NCC, had been spent.


The Task Group also received a document which showed how the Parish money had been distributed.  Parishes were required to produce an annual report to show how CIL money had been spent and these were available to view on the website at


The following comments were made by the Task Group:


·        Models would need to be tested and the process would need to be reviewed in the future to see what does and doesn’t work.

·        Parishes which were unlikely to have any significant future development would not receive a lot of the Parish fund.

·        Consideration needed to be given to how requests from Norfolk County Council for County statutory functions should be dealt with.

·        The Task Group generally agreed that the money should be portioned to strategic, smaller and community projects.  It was suggested that it should be split evenly into thirds, or a 60/20/20% split.  The Task Group was informed that CIL could not be used for maintenance of projects or paying of wages. 

·        Match funding should be considered for strategic projects and the Task Group would need to consider if match funding would be a requirement for the smaller and community projects as this could be a problem in unparished areas as they would not have a Parish precept.

·        Criteria for projects would need to be considered.

·        Community groups and Parishes would need to work together to ensure that there was no duplication.

·        The Task Group considered different ways that CIL could be distributed and examples were provided such as using all funds for large strategic infrastructure projects such as dual carriageways/bypasses etc. or having a five year plan for the distribution of funds. 

·        County funding could be used to match fund CIL for strategic projects.

·        Reference was made to the workshop sessions that Councillors present at recent Panel meetings had participated in, which asked for their Corporate Priorities.  The feedback from these sessions could be used to determine priorities and criteria for strategic CIL spend.


Members were informed that once they had concluded their work they would need to present a report to the Regeneration and Development Panel.  Any recommendations from the Panel would then need to be presented to Cabinet.


AGREED: Officers would take the comments and suggestions from the Task Group and produce distribution and spending options for the Task Group to consider at their next meeting.

Supporting documents: