Agenda item

Community Infrastructure Governance Arrangements and Allocation of Funding To Infrastructure

Report of the Director of Business Development and Growth (enclosed)

Decision:

1.    Approval of the methodology for assessing and allocating CIL Infrastructure receipts.

2.    Approval of the allocation of £1,300,000 CIL capital infrastructure monies to the Chorley Town Centre enhancements/Flat Iron enhancements Market Walk project for spend in 2017/18

3.    The proposal for the governance of the 15% CIL receipts allocated to unparished areas of Chorley (Town Centre) was noted.

4.    The undertaking of a review of the CIL 123 List in early 2017 in order to remove obsolete projects and provide LCC with a full opportunity to propose new infrastructure projects, particularly education schemes for the allocation of CIL was noted.

Minutes:

The Executive Member (Resources) presented the report of the Director of Business Development and Growth that provided an update on governance and allocation of CIL infrastructure monies and sought approval for the proposals.

 

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) was introduced to simplify the process of calculating and collecting planning obligations and must be spent on infrastructure needed to support the development within the borough.

 

The Council adopted a CIL Charging Schedule in 2013 which required the application of CIL to new planning applications submitted following its adoption.  It is used to plug the gap on infrastructure projects which arise as a result of the scale of development required in the Council’s Local Plan.

 

These infrastructure projects are included on the CIL Regulation 123 List which is required by the regulations and can only be amended following appropriate consultation. The CIL Regulation 123 list is a living document that requires updating periodically to ensure any new infrastructure is added, and that any projects which are no longer required or have been delivered are omitted. A review of the CIL 123 list in addition to a full review of CIL is planned for 2017. A review will enable partners, particularly LCC to propose new infrastructure projects for inclusion on the list, and potential allocation of monies. This is important as LCC have suggested that there is a need for educational contributions to respond to the growing demand on school places in Chorley.

 

The Leader explained that the current list had been drawn up through the Local Development Framework process some years ago. Now that the council were more knowledgeable about its infrastructure needs and how the CIL process works they would be better equipped to make better suggestions next time around.

 

Parish Councils received a percentage total of CIL which could be spent on infrastructure needs in their areas within a five year period. The Council could look to providing match CIL funding deliver larger projects within the parishes.

 

There is a need to develop a framework as to how projects on the current CIL 123 list will be assessed and how the CIL receipts will be allocated, given that there is £1,549,338.68 of accumulated CIL receipts, it is appropriate to formalise a framework to decide how that money will be spent. 

 

Decision:

1.    Approval of the methodology for assessing and allocating CIL Infrastructure receipts.

2.    Approval of the allocation of £1,300,000 CIL capital infrastructure monies to the Chorley Town Centre enhancements/Flat Iron enhancements Market Walk project for spend in 2017/18

3.    The proposal for the governance of the 15% CIL receipts allocated to unparished areas of Chorley (Town Centre) was noted.

4.    The undertaking of a review of the CIL 123 List in early 2017 in order to remove obsolete projects and provide LCC with a full opportunity to propose new infrastructure projects, particularly education schemes for the allocation of CIL was noted.

 

Reason for the recommendation(s)

To allocate the CIL Infrastructure fund in the way that it is intended and ensure the methodology of how it is allocated is transparent.

 

Alternative options considered and rejected.

None

Supporting documents: