Agenda item


Purpose of the report:  Policy Development and Review


This report provides an overview of the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) across the eleven planning authorities in Surrey and an update in relation to the changes to the s106 regime, including the impact upon the ability to seek developer contributions from new development.





Paul Druce, Infrastructure Agreements & CIL Manager


Key points raised during the discussion:


1.    The Committee discussed paragraph 22-23 on page 17 of the Agenda which highlighted barriers that existed for Local Area Committees in the governance of CIL and voting restrictions that applied to county council Members. One Member stated that voting was open to all Members including those from borough and districts and the county council. It was explained that in some areas only County Members attend meetings but that Local Area Committees had a role to play in the governance of CIL.


2.    The Committee asked officers to clarify the relationship between CIL and Local Committees and if there was a requirement for CIL money to be dispersed within the district or borough it originated from. Officers stated that generally CIL monies will be spent in the area that secured it, although it was possible for cross border infrastructure to be funded using CIL. The involvement with Local Committees was challenging as CIL money was district/borough money, but officers assured the Committee that work was being undertaken to involve county councillors in the process and to inform Local Committees of bids in their area. Officers agreed to report back on progress with Local Committees.


3.    The Chairman assured the committee that the Infrastructure Agreements & CIL Manager along with members of his team would work on behalf of SCC to make sure bids were sensibly placed.


4.    Members questioned the cost of developing green and brown belt sites. Officers informed the Committee that brown belt sites are typically more expensive as costs often include the demolition and clearing of the previous development and any contamination arising from previous commercial uses.


5.    The Cabinet Member for Highways, Transport and Flooding informed the Committee that is was Members responsibility to involve themselves in CIL bids and ensure that members considered the whole county when making any decisions regarding CIL.




The Environment and Transport Select Committee agreed the following recommendations;


a)    Officers should continue collaboration with Borough and District colleagues in their preparation of Local Plan policies, Infrastructure Delivery Plans, CIL Charging Schedules and Regulation 123 Lists to ensure the County Council is able to support development in each of the areas by securing and providing strategic infrastructure at the required time,


b)    Officers should continue to seek mitigation of infrastructure impacts from developers, on an application by application basis, in those LPA (Local Planning Authority) areas where CIL is not adopted post 6th April 2015,bearing in mind the restrictions placed on s106 agreements for any given district and borough. Details of any infrastructure mitigation that have not been achieved should be recorded.


c)    Officers should establish a reporting back regime to establish the level of ‘infrastructure deficit’ arising from new development which is not being mitigated by the allocation of CIL or site specific s106 or s278 agreements,


d)    That officers should continue close working with the planning authorities operating CIL, and where possible negotiate changes to the governance arrangements and the Regulation 123 Lists in an attempt to ensure that any infrastructure deficits are kept to a minimum.


e)    Officers should continue to seek agreement as to how the governance regime for CIL will operate in each of the areas by way of a memorandum of understanding or other suitable agreement, and


f)     That further work required to secure a suitable governance regime in each of the areas should be undertaken, in the light of the possible different models for governance, given that the Woking model is one that appears to offer the most open and transparent collaborative process for deciding which projects CIL monies should support.


Actions/Further information to be provided:

·         For a progress report to come back to committee later this year.

·         For the Infrastructure Agreements & CIL Manager to produce an update on the Judicial Review once further information on this was available.


Committee Next steps:



Supporting documents: