Agenda item

Purpose of Item: Policy development and review.

To update the Committee as to progress towards implementation of CIL in Surrey’s Borough and Districts.

Witnesses:

Paul Sanderson, Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager

Key points raised during the discussion:

1.    The Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager confirmed that Elmbridge Borough Council had begun collecting CIL monies, and a further eight Borough and Districts were in the process of adopting CIL. To start collecting CIL councils were required to have an up-to-date local plan. Four councils were still to adopt up-to-date plans.

2.    It was explained that from April 2014 there would be restrictions on how Section 106 could be used even if Boroughs and Districts had not introduced CIL. However, the government were proposing to delay this until April 2015 to give councils more time to introduce CIL. CIL spending would be more flexible than under Section 106, although it would take some time to introduce and full receipts would not start to be received until 2017/18.

3.    The County Council was working was Boroughs and Districts to provide evidence of necessary infrastructure through the production of Local Transport Strategies. The Minerals & Waste Policy Team Manager confirmed the final decision of how CIL receipts were spent would be with the Boroughs and Districts, however the County Council saw CIL as an opportunity for further funding for important infrastructure projects.

4.    Members queried whether the County Council should expect a change in the amount of funding it will receive through CIL compared to Section 106. The officer stated that Districts and Boroughs would need to be accountable and publish how they use CIL receipts. There was no reason to suggest funding would not still be received for infrastructure projects such as schools, and roads which are high priorities for the public.

5.    The Committee queried whether large developments would provide Section 106 or CIL funding. It was confirmed that Section 106 could still be used after the adoption of CIL if the infrastructure required was directly related to a specific site. The relative use of Section 106 with CIL would depend on the circumstances of each development and whether or not major strategic sites were specifically mentioned in the CIL charging schedule.

6.    Members queried what the implications of a Borough or District not having an up-to-date Core Strategy would be. It was stated that in this situation the adoption of a charging schedule and the collection of CIL could be legally challenged. The government recommends that either CIL follows the adoption of a local plan or that the local plan and CIL adoption processes run concurrently.

7.    Members asked whether funding could be gained from developments beyond the boundaries of Surrey. It was stated that authorities could negotiate funding as long as they had a good case to do so, with the potential for money to be collected from one area and spent in another.

Recommendations:

1.    That the Select Committee supports the ongoing work of developing and agreeing local transport strategies in order to:

a.    Support the growth identified in Borough and District core strategies and;

b.    Help secure additional funding from the growing pot of CIL monies controlled by Boroughs and Districts and Local Communities.

2.    That Local Committees are requested to consider how they might best combine some of their capital allocation with other available funding, such as CIL, in order to maximise the impact on local transport issues and problems.

Actions/further information to be provided:

None

Committee next steps:

None.