Agenda item

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 spent on the Infrastructure List. If the Parish was not set up to deal with large sums of funding they could ask the Borough Council to retain it. In addition, if the Parish Council did not have a general power of competence, it may not be able to spend it on what it wanted and it could ask the Borough Council to do that on its behalf or, if it did not have any projects, it could ask the Borough Council to keep the funding.

60.4          The CIL Manager for the JCS authorities, advised that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan and Infrastructure Lists were used to justify becoming a CIL Charging Authority. There was a need to identify a gap and to raise CIL to help fill that gap; however, the amount of CIL must take into account viability and not stop development. Part of the reason for the update on progress of schemes was that it showed a lot of schemes had no funding guaranteed at the moment but could in future which was the reason for the Council wanting to demonstrate a large gap.

60.5          A Member noted that the frustration of CIL was that it was great for other agencies but there did not seem to be much in it for local district authorities. In response, the CIL Manager for the JCS authorities advised that the JCS was a partnership and, if the Council did not support delivery, it would not deliver the required level of housing meaning it would not have a five-year housing land supply. The Infrastructure List was based on the IDP for the JCS; however, there were three district Councils, including Tewkesbury Borough, who had examinations for district level plans. This was an opportunity to review CIL charging schedules and the Inspector had looked at CIL charging rates and had not been happy with some of the evidence presented and felt it should be reviewed. The Head of Development Services explained that the CIL Infrastructure List had been carried forward from last year with some projects already having received funding from the County Council. All of the projects listed had not collected that much money to date but the key benefit was in the partnership/collection and pooling of money. A Member understood that areas with a lot of development needed funding to support the needs in the community and, as a Borough Council, Tewkesbury did not get the left over funding as it was put into a bigger pot; he was concerned that the larger pot was dominated by the County Council and he questioned how the Borough Council could help shape what that was spent on. In response, the Head of Development Services indicated that the purpose of CIL was for strategic infrastructure. The CIL List was currently dominated by transport projects and it was being reviewed by district Councils – there was an opportunity for influence but expectations needed to be managed and must be strategic in nature.

60.6          It was