Agenda item

ARobinson presented the report to the committee, explaining it covers the financial period between April 2020 and March 2021. There are 2 elements to the report, (1) the Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) and (2) the Section 106 update. CIL is a charge imposed on development and is calculated on a square metre basis for additional floorspace added by a development. It ranges from £150-£200 per square metre in the borough depending on the area being developed. In the financial year 2020-2021 the council collected £4.7 million in CIL broken down as follows:

·          £236,000 - administration costs of CIL.

·          £710,000 - earmarked for the neighbourhood proportion, which goes towards the town and parish councils and wards, including those with a Neighbourhood Plan. (See Appendix 1 for more details).

·          £3.7 million - core CIL funds, which can be used to contribute to infrastructure costs anywhere in the borough.

At the time of publishing the report the council held just over £9 million in CIL funds but as noted in Appendix 2, as of November 2021, that figure is nearer £14 million overall. For those wards that have a Neighbourhood Plan 25% of CIL from a development in that ward is allocated directly to those wards and the allocation is 15% in other wards. It is for ward counsellors have an open discussion about how the money is spent on infrastructure in their ward. An example of recent spending in a ward using this money was the updating of a play area in Adeyfield East. Cllr Rogers noted that in Bennetts End there is only £2,000 available.

CIL has only been in existence in the borough since 2015.

ARobinson added that the Council is in the process of preparing the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) to support the Local Plan. Looking at CIL against the IDP, CIL is unlikely to cover all infrastructure costs required by development in the borough.

ARobinson explained that a Section 106 Agreement is a legal agreement negotiated with developers to make planning applications acceptable. During the financial year 2020-2021 the council collected £184,000 in Section 106 funding. The previous years’ unspent and unallocated funding is rolled over and in that financial year the council allocated £880,000 to projects with a total of just over £900,000 being spent (see Appendix 2 for more details). Section 106 Agreement funds need to be spent specifically on infrastructure related to the development on which they are drawn. When asked, Alex explained that Section 106 obligations run with the land so, if a developer becomes insolvent, the same obligations will apply to the development under a different developer. Cllr Timmis will provide Alex with the details offline that relate to the doctor’s surgery that wasn’t fit for purpose that was built as a result of a Section 106 obligation in Markyate so that lessons can be learned to ensure this doesn’t happen again. Lessons have been learned from mistakes in the past, it was noted, and Section 106 obligations need to be delivered throughout a development and certain development milestones cannot be met unless S106 obligations, financial or non-financial, are met by the developer.

The IDP is still years away from being implemented and no significant infrastructure expense will be made until the IDP is ready for implementation. This is why councillors need more information about the requests they can make for infrastructure spends in their wards.

It was queried why the percentages were so small for wards when so much money is collected. ARobinson explained this was to ensure that there was money pulled into 1 pot for larger infrastructure spends across the borough, but Cllr Timmis felt this was unfortunate as this often resulted in larger spends in the town centre and not in other areas. ARobinson clarified that it is the borough council with authority on CIL.

ARobinson encouraged members to get involved with the preparation of the Local Plan, through committees, etc. The government’s planning White Paper was first published in August 2020. The Secretary of State is examining the proposed reform currently, so the borough is not doing any further work on it at the minute until more is known from government.

Cllr Birnie noted that the draft IDP shows a figure of £49.4 million on spend from CIL and S106 alone, leaving aside infrastructure to be funded by other designated bodies such as HCC and the LEP. As only £14 million has been collected over severak years, he queried where money to cover the shortfall would come from. ARobinson explained CIL was never intended to cover all infrastructure expense. There are other sources of funding for infrastructure, such as government bids and Homes England funding, for example. There is also LEP and direct government intervention where there is a gap in funding.

Publishing the IDP so early and in a draft form is unusual and therefore the council accepts that it is incomplete and there are gaps. Officers do need to fill in the gaps to have a more rounded conversation on the IDP. ARobinson explained that the 85% CIL portion is retained and to secure that money for an infrastructure scheme it needs to be included in the IDP to be prioritised. The process for the IDP is that it is submitted with the Local Plan to the Secretary of State for approval once it is in its final draft.

Cllr Birnie asked what a Grampian condition means and ARobinson explained that it refers to where a development cannot proceed until something else happens elsewhere. This needs to be prevented from stalling developments.

It was confirmed to Cllr Silwal that in Grovehill to spend that ward’s 25% share he needed to engage with the Neighbourhood Forum on future infrastructure requests.

Action:

·          ARobinson to provide guidance to members about how CIL money can be spent in their wards.

·          ARobinson to review whether it is possible for the committee to discuss the draft IDP separately. The IDP will be part of this committee’s future programme and reviewed regularly.

·          Cllr Taylor queried infrastructure in Berkhamsted that did not take place but was due to following a local development. ARobinson is to review this offline and answer Cllr Taylor’s specific queries on this point.

·          ARobinson to provide figures for outstanding monies from developers for CIL and Section 106 payments.

The report was noted