To RECOMMEND TO COUNCIL that establishment of a Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee with the Terms of Reference as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, including the pooling of strategic Community Infrastructure Levy monies by Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Councils be APPROVED; that the amended Infrastructure List, as set out at Appendix 2 to the report, be APPROVED for publication; and that engagement with a wide range of infrastructure providers e.g. NHS, emergency services, Environment Agency be ENDORSED in order to identify any wider infrastructure priorities to be considered by the Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee.

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

1.    That establishment of a Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee with the Terms of Reference as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, including the pooling of strategic Community Infrastructure Levy monies by Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Councils be APPROVED.

2.    That the amended Infrastructure List, as set out at Appendix 2 to the report, be APPROVED for publication.

3.    That engagement with a wide range of infrastructure providers e.g. NHS, emergency services, Environment Agency be ENDORSED in order to identify any wider infrastructure priorities to be considered by the Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee.

74.1          The report of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Manager, circulated at Pages No. 51-72, set out the proposed governance arrangements for the allocation of CIL infrastructure funding.  Members were asked to recommend to Council that establishment of a CIL Joint Committee with Terms of Reference as set out at Appendix 1 to the report, including the pooling of strategic CIL monies by Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Councils, be approved; that the amended Infrastructure List, set out at Appendix 2 to the report, be approved for publication; and that engagement with a wide range of infrastructure providers e.g. NHS, emergency services, Environment Agency be endorsed in order to identify any wider infrastructure priorities to be considered by the CIL Joint Committee.

74.2          In proposing the report recommendation, the Lead Member for Built Environment advised that the Executive Committee’s support was being sought to establish a CIL Joint Committeeto provide governance for the allocation of the strategic infrastructure part of CIL receipts collected by the three partner councils and recommended approval of the Terms of Reference for the Joint Committee; to pool strategic CIL Infrastructure funding by the three partner councils; to publish an amended Infrastructure List; and to engage with a wider range of infrastructure providers to identify other priorities for consideration by the Joint Committee for inclusion on the Infrastructure List.  The Terms of Reference, attached at Appendix 1 to the report, included an agreement to pool funding, subject to a periodic review, and required consensus of all three partner councils for proposed allocations with decisions and reviews to be reported to Executive Committee and the Cabinets of the partner authorities.  Gloucestershire County Council would be entitled to attend meetings but would have no voting rights and would not be able to scrutinise bids for funding.  The second part of the recommendation was around publication of an amended joint Infrastructure List, last published as part of the Infrastructure Funding Statement in December 2023, and it was recognised that a full reassessment of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan, upon which the Infrastructure List approved for publication in the December Infrastructure Funding Statement 2020 was based, was required and would take place alongside the preparation of the Strategic and Local Plan (SLP).  Members would recall that when CIL funding was received it went into three pots - up to 5% may be used for administrative costs; either 15% or 25%, depending on whether a Neighbourhood Development Plan was in place, must be passed to the Parish in which the development took place; and the remaining 70% to 80% must be spent in accordance with Regulation 59 of the CIL Regulations 2010 on the “provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure to support the development of its area”.  It was the third pot that was proposed to be pooled.  The amended Infrastructure List, attached at Appendix 2 to the report, was the Infrastructure List approved for publication in December 2023 with an amendment made at the request of the County Council to the pipeline of projects requiring more work to identify costs.  The title of the final section ‘Projects not to be funded from CIL’ had been removed, pulling the three projects that had been identified into the group of shared projects.  The Infrastructure List included only local authority priorities, therefore, a wider targeted exercise was proposed with key stakeholders such as the NHS, emergency services, utilities, Environment Agency, Sport England and others to identify other priorities for consideration by the CIL Joint Committee.

74.3          In seconding the proposal, the Chair explained that a joint approach was particularly important in terms of things such as a joint waste depot.  It was important to bear in mind that the Infrastructure List was ongoing and was not a final list.  The recommendation included a commitment to work with partner agencies and he was especially keen to work with the Environment Agency in order to secure appropriate flood infrastructure which was vital to facilitate development in the area; issues within Tewkesbury Borough impacted the other local authority areas so this was in their joint interest and that was the point he would be making at the meetings of the CIL Joint Committee, if approved by Council.

74.4          In view of what the Chair had said in relation to the importance of flooding infrastructure, a Member asked why that could not be included in the Infrastructure List today and was advised that, as it currently stood, it was still necessary to identify what works needed to be done.  Furthermore, the three partner authorities were working collaboratively with decisions being made by consensus, therefore it would be inappropriate for Tewkesbury Borough Council to recommend amendments without the agreement of the other councils.  Once the work had been done, he could not see why the other partners would have concerns as it was a common problem facing them all.  The Lead Member for Built Environment reminded Members that the recommendation sought to gain agreement to work collectively with Cheltenham Borough and Gloucester City Councils, as well as Gloucestershire County Council, and it was important not to get bogged down in the detail of the Infrastructure List itself as that was not exhaustive and was open for discussion going forward.  In response to a query, the Chair pointed out that a number of items on the list were not necessarily strategic and, bearing in mind the amount of money in the pot and the cost of strategic infrastructure projects, CIL in and of itself would not be the magic solution to fix all of the challenges faced. 

74.5          A Member sought clarification as to when Ward Members would have been notified and had input into the Infrastructure List.  The Chair gave assurance there would be a process for wider Member involvement but explained there would be a lot of things Members might like to see within their Wards which could be delivered via other means such as Section 106.  The Chief Executive advised that CIL legislation had been in introduced in 2010 and this process should have been put in place many years ago.  There were two main components of CIL with 15-25% going to the local community for locally strategic infrastructure and the remainder for delivery of strategic infrastructure required to deal with the totality of growth coming into the area.  A number of things included in the Infrastructure List were matters of local, rather than wider strategic significance and the CIL Joint Committee would need a process to look at how the projects aligned with delivering the strategic infrastructure required to enable growth, for example, a new depot would be for the majority of the Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough area due to the amount of additional houses that had been built and therefore was strategic.  There were inevitably more requirements than the amount of funding available so a lot of work was needed by Officers in terms of how they could be prioritised.  The purpose of the report was to ensure the correct governance was in place and the CIL Joint Committee proposal would be based on consensus to ensure that all three authorities were satisfied with the projects that would go forward.  The Member indicated that she wanted to ensure Ward Members were kept up-to-date with regard to CIL projects in their areas which had not necessarily happened in the past and the Chief Executive confirmed he was happy to commit to that.  The Chair advised there would be an opportunity for Members to be involved in the place making of the communities they represented, via the place making agenda he had instructed Officers to put together.

74.6          A Member asked who had compiled the Infrastructure List and was informed the initial list had been put together by Officers.  The Member raised concern there was no reference to Brockworth GP surgery and was advised that GP surgeries were included under ‘shared’ at Page No. 70 of the report.  The Member explained that the lack of healthcare facilities had been an issue in Brockworth for several years and needed to be urgently addressed given the amount of residential development in the area.  The Chief Executive explained that CIL was just one part of the jigsaw in terms of funding the items in the plan.  Officers had updated the list as an interim piece of work and, subject to approval by Council, once the CIL Joint Committee was established, they would look to do that in more detail.  The Lead Member for Built Environment indicated that, whilst she respected what the Member was saying and understood those concerns, Members were not being asked to make decisions today on what the money was spent on and supporting the report would not preclude something from being included on the Infrastructure List going forward.  In response to a concern regarding Tewkesbury Borough Council potentially being outvoted by the other partner authorities, the Chair stressed that decisions would be made by consensus so all three partners had to agree; it was about cross-boundary working to mutually benefit all residents in the area.  A Member queried whether schools were funded by Section 106 money and was advised they could be funded in many ways which could include Section 106 contributions; CIL had been used in the past to fund schools, albeit not within Tewkesbury Borough, and the County Council had pointed out that the money within the CIL pot was not a huge amount in the context of delivering infrastructure such as schools, new motorway junctions, road infrastructure etc. so it would be important to consider how it could be put to best use.

74.7          The Associate Director: Planning explained that the changes to the Infrastructure List attached at Appendix 2 to the report had effectively been made to protect the County Council’s position so it would have the ability to potentially make requests from the CIL pot towards education or strategic transport improvements, notwithstanding that the strong preference would be to secure this via Section 106.  Under the proposals within the report, it would be for Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Councils to determine how they wanted to spend any CIL which was secured as that decision was not made at the point of granting planning consent.

74.8          Upon being put to the vote, it was