Agenda item

To recommend to Council that publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement, relating to the financial year ending 31 March 2023, by 31 December 2023, be approved and that the Annual Community Infrastructure Levy Rate Summary Statement be published alongside the Infrastructure Funding Statement by 31 December 2023.

That it be RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL that:

1.     Publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) relating to the financial year ending 31 March 2023 by 31 December 2023 be APPROVED, subject to appropriate amendments to the IFS if necessary to clarify what had been brought forward, received, spent and allocated for future maintenance thereby arriving at the closing balance.

2.     The Annual Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Rate Summary Statement be published alongside the Infrastructure Funding Statement by 31 December 2023.

61.1          The report of the Community Infrastructure Levy Manager, circulated at Pages No. 67-117, asked Members to recommend to Council that publication of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) relating to the financial year ending 31 March 2023, by 31 December 2023, be approved and that the Annual Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Rate Summary Statement be published alongside the IFS by 31 December 2023.

61.2          In introducing the report, the Lead Member for Built Environment advised that the CIL regulations required both the IFS and the CIL Rate Summary Statement to be published by 31 December each year.  The IFS contained three chapters: the CIL report, answering set questions on income and expenditure during the reported year; the Section 106 report answering questions set in the regulations on agreements entered into and undertakings made, contributions received and spent and non-financial obligations secured and delivered; and, an infrastructure list which was a statement of the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure which the charging authority intended would be, or may be, wholly or partly funded by CIL.  A summary of CIL and Section 106 income and expenditure was provided at Paragraph 2 of the report with further detail at Appendix 1.  She stressed that the purpose of the report was not to forensically examine specific Section 106 income or projects, not the process or approach – any queries about specific Section 106 Agreements could be taken away from the meeting.  An internal audit of the Section 106 processes had recently been undertaken and Officers were currently considering the draft findings which would be reported to the Audit and Governance Committee in early 2024.  The infrastructure list included was not exhaustive or definitive; the projects listed had been compiled by Officers at Cheltenham Borough, Gloucester City and Tewkesbury Borough Councils and decisions around CIL spend would be made by the joint CIL Governance Committee which was in the process of being established and a separate report in relation to that would be considered by the Executive Committee and Council in early 2024.  Finally, it was important to point out that the new Strategic and Local Plan (SLP) would be underpinned by a lot of detailed work on infrastructure planning and identify the long term infrastructure requirements to support planned development which would include working with communities to understand aspirations.  CIL charges would also be reviewed to ensure that the Councils were maximising the planning gain that could be secured through new developments.

61.3          A Member drew attention to Page No. 110 of the report and noted there had been a change in terms of GL1 Leisure Centre and asked whether an amendment was required.  With regard to projects not to be funded by CIL, she asked whether they could potentially be funded by CIL or if they specifically could not be.  In response, the Community Infrastructure Levy Manager advised that this was the infrastructure list as it currently stood; legislation required that the list should include what the Council intended may be wholly or partially funded by CIL but was not a commitment and a separate report on that would be taken to each of the SLP authorities in the New Year.  In terms of GL1 and Oxstalls Sports Park, their inclusion reflected the need for expenditure in relation to those facilities and was nothing to do with recent occurrences.  With regard to projects not to be funded through CIL, the schemes listed included two joint highway projects which the County Council asked to be included alongside all education requirements because of the level of funding needed – CIL would not be able to cover the full cost of those schemes, for instance, M5 J10 was in the region of £260m whereas CIL collected between the three partners over four years amounted to £11m.  Education was a complex issue in two-tier authority areas such as Tewkesbury Borough and the County Council was concerned it would be unable to secure sufficient Section 106 contributions if they were funded via CIL.  It was not that these schemes and requirements could not be funded via CIL as there was discretion to fund any infrastructure which supported development; however, from the Local Education Authority perspective, the only education contributions which should be sought were those which met the three tests in the CIL Regulations – whether it was necessary, related to the development from which it was being taken and reasonable.

61.4          A Member questioned whether inflation would have an impact in terms of what could be achieved and confirmation was provided that was the case.  The CIL Regulations were very prescriptive in terms of the CIL Rate Summary Statement and essentially included an index taking into account inflation information published on 1 November each year.  The Council then provided a statement as to whether there had been an increase or decrease - this year there was an increase of 7% and those rates had to be published as being applicable to the next calendar year between 4-31 December.

61.5          With regard to Page No. 70, Paragraph 2.2 of the report which related to the IFS Section 106 report, a Member raised concern that the figures provided for what had been received and spent during the year did not correspond with the opening and closing balances.  The CIL Manager undertook to look into this following the meeting and to make amendments to clarify the figures if necessary.  The Member indicated that whilst he accepted this was a statutory report, the overriding issue was that money was being accrued which ought to be being spent in communities.  He understood that money was not available until developments were completed but felt it was important to be on the front foot in terms of ensuring the money was utilised in an expedient manner.  The Lead Member for Built Environment provided assurance this was being looked into in detail and a report would be taken to Council for Members to debate.

61.6          It was proposed, seconded and