Issue - meetings

At its meeting on 17 November 2021 the Executive Committee considered a report on the Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Rate Summary Statement Requirements and RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

1.   That the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) relating to the financial year ending 31 March 2021 by 31 December 2021 be APPROVED.

2.   That the Annual Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Rate Summary Statement be published alongside the IFS.

46.1          At its meeting on 17 November 2021 the Executive Committee had considered a report on the Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) and Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Rate Summary Statement Requirements and recommended to Council that the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) relating to the financial year ending 31 March 2021 by 31 December 2021 be approved; and the Annual Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Rate Summary Statement be published alongside the IFS.

46.2          The report which was considered by the Executive Committee had been circulated with the Agenda for the current meeting at Pages No. 10-38.

46.3          The Chair of the Executive Committee proposed the recommendation and the Vice-Chair seconded it.

46.4          A Member noted that the Council was requiring S106 money faster than it was being spent meaning there was quite a large balance and she questioned how much of the £10.4 million was unallocated and how much had been spent this financial year. The Head of Development Services advised that she would check and advise Members accordingly. Another Member raised a query in terms of infrastructure and the Head of Development Services confirmed that the list included all infrastructure identified in the JCS adopted in 2017 and she would look at providing a list of the infrastructure for the JCS. In addition, Officers were currently reviewing the CIL and as part of that would have to look at what infrastructure was currently required so this would be available in due course. Referring to the JCS examination inspector, a Member indicated that it had been made clear that the County and Borough Councils could not ‘double dip’ on infrastructure in strategic sites and that there should be a Memorandum of Understanding to ensure this was the case; he questioned whether that had yet been agreed. In response, the Head of Development Services undertook to find out and advise the Member accordingly.

46.5          It was

                 RESOLVED           1. That the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement                              (IFS) relating to the financial year ending 31 March 2021 by                                  31 December 2021 be APPROVED.

                                                2. That the Annual Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL)                                                 Rate Summary Statement be published alongside the IFS.

To approve the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement and to note that the annual Community Infrastructure Levy Rate Summary Statement would be published alongside it.

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL:

1.     That the publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) relating to the financial year ending 31 March 2021 by 31 December 2021 be APPROVED.

2.     That the Annual Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Rate Summary Statement be published alongside the IFS.

60.1          The report of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Manager for the Joint Core Strategy (JCS) authorities, circulated at Pages No. 96-124, provided an update on the preparation of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2021 and this year’s CIL Rates Summary Statement. Members were asked to consider the information and recommend to Council approval of the publication of the IFS relating to the financial year ending 31 March 2021 by 31 December 2021 and to note that the annual CIL Rate Summary Statement would be published alongside it.

60.2          The CIL Manager for the JCS authorities advised that this was the second annual Infrastructure Funding Statement which needed to be published by 31 December each year. The Statement reported on the previous financial year and so provided a snapshot. It was required to cover three areas: to report on the CIL; to report on S106 Agreements; and to provide the infrastructure list. The format was prescribed in legislation which made the statement quite unreadable to general members of the public but it was factual. The Infrastructure List was different and was shared with Cheltenham Borough Council and Gloucester City Council based on the projects derived from the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) for the JCS. The List was being reported on as adopted last year and projects had been added since that time. The CIL Rates Summary Statement provided an explanation of how inflation was taken into account and how the index was required by government to apply those changes. The index was prepared by the Royal Infrastructure of Chartered Surveyors and the changes set in December would apply for the next calendar year in line with the charges set by that body.

60.3          Referring to Page No. 110 of the report, a Member asked what was meant by the description ‘recode litter bins to relevant planning obligations for 2020/21 (£689.33). Install mixed waste bin at Crippetts Lane, Shurdington (£110)’. In response, the CIL Manager for the JCS authorities undertook to check that and confirm. Another Member questioned why the authority gave CIL funding to the Police and Crime Commissioner and the CIL Manager for the JCS authorities confirmed that this was S106 funding not CIL funding – in fact no CIL money had yet been spent. There were obligations negotiated for specific purposes and Case Officers would have got feedback from the Police and Crime Commissioner regarding his requirements and that was written into agreements. The difference with CIL was that it was essentially a tax which never had to be given back to developers. If Parish money was not spent within five years it came back to the Borough Council and spending was monitored annually; Parishes could decide to keep the funding for longer but that was at the Borough Council’s discretion and the Parish had to put its request in writing two weeks before the five years were up. If the funding went back to the Borough Council it would go into the bigger pot to be  ...  view the full minutes text for item 60