Agenda item

Purpose of the report:  Policy Development and Review

This report provides an update and overview of the implementation of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) across the eleven planning authorities in Surrey and the outcomes to date.

Witnesses

Paul Druce, Infrastructure Agreements & CIL Manager

Declarations of interest:

None

Key points raised during the discussion:

1. The Infrastructure Agreements and CIL Manager introduced the report and provided further updates since the report was published, highlighting that Waverley Borough Council was currently working on their charging schedule and were hoping to publish it very shortly. Furthermore the Board were informed that SCC have recently made 31 applications for CIL funding for a variety of projects to Reigate and Banstead Borough Council with a view to the projects being included in their five year Strategic Infrastructure Plan.  

2. A Member raised concern with the five contributions restriction in accordance with the requirements of the Regulation 122 once CIL was adopted and asked for more information regarding this. The Officer explained this complex area, informing Members s106 requests could still be sought to support development if the infrastructure or project had not previously sought five s106 contributions. It was further stated that this restriction was causing significant difficulties for authorities such as the County Council and that local plan site allocations helped the County plan for S106 contributions on strategic sites as a result of the on site requirements of such large sites.   

3. Following on from the discussion above, Members requested whether the CIL Adoption progress in Surrey table on page 37 of the report could in future indicate which Boroughs and Districts allow s106 contributions from the developer.  

4. There was a discussion around whether it was possible to make revisions to Regulation 123 lists and the Officer indicated that this was possible but a short public consultation was required. The Infrastructure Agreements & CIL Manager advised that Elmbridge Borough Council had recently undertaken such an exercise.  

Mike Bennison left the meeting at 11:35am  

5. A Member referred to SANGS (suitable alternative natural green spaces) and requested the Officer elaborate on the impact money directed to infrastructure has on this. The Officer advised the inclusion of SANGS significantly reduced monies available for other infrastructure due to its high cost and would encourage the allocation of CIL monies to be reconsidered in order to avoid such implications. It was explained that the large amount of money allocated to SANGS was required in order to generate the housing, as was being done in Surrey Heath. But this has an impact on education and highways infrastructure which in turn is not being funded from CIL.   

6. The officer was asked on what grounds an application could be rejected by Local Authorities for where CIL should be spent. Members noted that Education was being excluded from a number of CIL and s106 lists, but the widely held view was that it should be covered by CIL, especially as it was a statutory responsibility for the County to cover the costs and provide school places.  

6. A Member highlighted how the previous regime did not affect Education in the same way as CIL whereas now the new regime has increasingly stripped them of resources. The Board noted the suggestion to scrutinise and look closer into the financial break down of expenditure and the monies collected around CIL to ensure value for money. The Infrastructure Agreements & CIL Manager stated that more engagement with local authorities at a variety of levels was actively taking place to ensure that applications for CIL were considered more favourably at the allocation stage.  

7. The Chairman expressed the view that schools should be located in areas where CIL funding has been provided to avoid upsetting Council Tax payers and the local residents. It was explained that Elmbridge had reconsidered a number of previously rejected education CIL applications and had approved them following local engagement and that Tandridge had recently rejected a CIL application for education.   

8. The Cabinet Member for Environment, Highways and Flooding explained that £14.72M had been collected as a result of CIL across the Surrey authorities to date, and it was important for the board to see where this money had been spent as in times of financial need, it was vital to ensure spend was allocated to key concerns that were also value for money.   

9. A Member shared the view that CIL was challenging for two tier authorities and emphasised how it was important to address how CIL is allocated to ensure that it was used better to help Surrey residents. The Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning explained that the issue of CIL allocation was due to be discussed at the Chief Executives meeting arranged for 9 December 2016 and that he would report the outcome in due course.   

11.  The officer was asked about the recent consultation by Government surrounding CIL. The Board were advised that Government would be publishing the report of the Panel which was set up to consider the consultation responses in due course. The County Council had lobbied government as part of the consultation process.  

Recommendations:

The Economic Prosperity, Environment and Highways board endorsed the following recommendations:

a)    That Officers 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, where possible, the County Council is able to support development in each of the areas by securing and providing strategic infrastructure at the required time,

b)    That Officers continue to seek mitigation of infrastructure impacts from developers through s106, on an application by application basis, in those LPA areas where CIL has not been adopted, unless restricted by the up to 5 obligation restriction,

c)    That Officers continue to seek agreement as to how the governance regime for CIL will operate in each of the areas, including the involvement of County Member in the process where possible, and

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

Actions:

EP11-For the Infrastructure Agreements & CIL Manager to provide the Board with details on how much money from CIL has been collected and what it has beenallocated to by the planning authorities.

EP12- For a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) progress report to be added to the forward work programme for Summer 2017.

EP13- For the Cabinet Member for Environment and Planning to report back to the Board on the outcome of the Surrey Chief Executives meeting to discuss the allocation of CIL funds.