Agenda item

For the committee to review and give comments on the CIL Spending Strategy.

Cabinet member for Development and Infrastructure, Councillor Judy Roberts, introduced the report on Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).

Councillor Roberts ran through the main changes as follows:

CIL charging started in Vale in November 2017 and the spending strategy was approved in April 2019 as a two-year pilot. As of 30 October 2020, we have £3.5 million collected through CIL. Charging rates are being reviewed soon. This report is regarding how we spend it. There have been issues spending it, and we want to make sure it is spent to support the new developments in the Vale of White Horse District.

Alterations have been proposed to help us bring forward new projects, which still need to meet CIL criteria, which is quite strict with clear restrictions.

Current criteria for CIL is that it can be spent on new infrastructure and increased infrastructure due to a new development. Discretion can be used in the NPPF for maintenance of existing infrastructure, if the infrastructure is essential for the community where new development is taking place.

Allocations remain similar to the original strategy, but rather than breaking down the Vale of White Horse District Council (VOWH) section, we are putting all parts together into a pot, to give greater flexibility to amass funds to be able to proceed with projects. For example, the arts 2.5% allocation takes a long time for the pot to amass a good amount of money for a project. Still keeping sections (arts, leisure etc) at the forefront of our minds, especially green infrastructure, linked to corporate plan.

There is a widening of the geographic area - Didcot Garden Town (DGT) spans both South and Vale districts. Regulation 123 list has been removed, which allows pooling of CIL and Section 106 funds towards the same projects. Parish percentages remain as they are (25% for those with neighbourhood plans and 15% to those without).

Oxfordshire County Council (OCC) asked us to include libraries and recycling centres – we are widening the scope to include this.

Under special circumstances, funding for SEND schools outside of the district could be considered.

A new arrangement with OCC is proposed for them to submit projects for funding in time for budget setting which means changing the reporting period to end on 30 September so that we can consider projects as part of the budget setting process.

The aim is to get money spent for the benefit of the public.

Mark Hewer, Infrastructure and Development Team Leader, and Jayne Bolton, Infrastructure and Development Manager, were also present to answer questions.

Chair welcomed questions from the committee and asked to avoid specific ward examples – these can be handled outside of the meeting.

The discussions and comments for the Cabinet member to consider are summed up below

• Discretion on improvements maintenance and replacements – how much discretion do we have. e.g. cycle path improves access? It was replied that increased access needed for new residents would potentially meet criteria. Maintenance will be considered if it is end-of-life maintenance – an extensive maintenance that will keep a facility operational for the benefit of the public.
• Point 14 – crossing district boundaries – is South doing the same? Officers added that DGT residents use both areas and would benefit from both. Yes, South is proposing the same and is subject to approval at Cabinet.
• Committee members supported the changes to enable funds to be spent.
• A suggestion was made to include, in yearly CIL reporting, where money is spent and where are the developments are. Where has the money come from and does it match up?  What safeguards are in place to protect areas that get less spend? It was replied that an annual statutory report is required by Government to show how funds are spent. An extra report would need to be internal and would require officer time. A forward plan of projects is planned. S106 has to be spent in the area it is generated. CIL is more flexible but we should consider locality scoring to ensure fairness.
• OCC aligned timing conversations were had – have conversations been had with OCCG also? Cabinet member referred to Appendix B. There is only one OCCG officer dealing with this matter. The proposed changes are intended to help the district to support health projects. Officer replied that OCCG had no objection to proposals. OCCG cannot own assets, and there are considerations to being unable to fund private companies, such as surgeries. Lots of effort has gone into talking to OCCG to try and spend the funding.
• Regulation 123 removal means CIL and S106 can be used to fund the same projects.
• Will maintenance spending mean that new projects will be delayed? It was replied that large new developments would have new infrastructure first. The new flexibility means that each development can be assessed individually. For example, a small development, in conjunction with S106, may just require extension to a current facility.
• Funding of heating schemes, ground source heat pumps for new developments – it was confirmed that this work tends to be put in place when the development is built. It can be difficult to align such projects. Would be a S106 agreement for onsite infrastructure.
• When was the infrastructure development plan (IDP) last updated? – it was confirmed it was 2016 with Local Plan part one. OxIS criteria has changed. Consultation has occurred, and the IDP won’t be updated until the criteria is in place. The new criteria will allow for green and blue infrastructure.
• Geographical spend is wanted in reporting – Cabinet member to note for the Cabinet paper.

Officers and Cabinet member were thanked.