Agenda item

For committee to consider the Cabinet paper and make any recommendations to Cabinet.

Committee considered the cabinet paper. This paper was introduced by Cabinet Member Councillor Debby Hallett.

The report summarised the work completed by the review so far, which was coming to a close. There was also a revised CIL charging schedule attached. Includes an independent examiner’s recommendations. We advise adoption of this, with implementation of the new CIL charging rates being planned for 1 November 2021.

The council needed to prove that there was an infrastructure funding deficit, in order to justify the levy on CIL without impacting viability of sites.

Prior to public consultation, Cabinet were briefed twice, to explain the rationale and evidence.

The viability assessment carried out showed variation in the potential CIL rate levy across the district. The assessors suggested a green field/brown field split. However, Council agreed that this would be difficult administratively, and agreed on zoning. There will be three zones.

Zone 1 – Eastern parishes – highest CIL rates

Zone 2 – Wantage, Grove, and Faringdon – lower CIL rates

Zone 3 – rest of the district

There will be separate rates for minor developments in all zones. Strategic sites will have nil CIL due to S106 agreements.

Examiner recommends approval of the charging schedule, as there was no negative impact on viability.

Questions and clarifications from the committee:

·       Clarification asked for on determination of how CIL was spent. It was explained that CIL spend was separate to this schedule. Section 123 list was no longer needed but spend will be identified in the Infrastructure Funding Statement. There was also a CIL spending strategy, which was reviewed annually.

·       It was asked what funding we were going to raise now? Cathie Scotting would provide details, but Cabinet Member did add that the new zoning should raise around £6 million over the life of the schedule.

·       It was queried whether lower charging rates factor into the proportion of spend in those low CIL rate areas. Concern that incentivising building on lower rate areas would be unwise if the spend on infrastructure was also proportionately low. It was responded that the spending strategy was accepted in December 2020, and the details will follow. Officer added that the need for infrastructure was identified in the infrastructure funding gap statement. CIL was not tied to particular sites, it was a general pooling mechanism to spend funds wherever the infrastructure was needed. Although the town/parish councils of low CIL areas receive less funding, they will benefit from wider infrastructure. CIL was based on viability in terms of what can be levied.

·       Implementation date details were asked for. It was responded that the software system, Ocella, needed updating, this was planned. We were allowing for some contingency time, in order to get approval from Cabinet and Council – this was the trigger for implementation. It was confirmed that the new schedule applies to any planning applications after this date.

·       Timing of payments – can you borrow from the CIL pot to provide funding for infrastructure upfront? Cabinet Member responded that for County led infrastructure, forward funding had been given historically as the CIL funds were expected. It was assessed on a case by case basis.

·       A discussion was had regarding why strategic sites were not subject to CIL. It was explained that all infrastructure on these sites was secured through S106. It was not advisable to apply for CIL in these cases. Education was currently funded through CIL. It may be a future consideration to fund this through S106. Open spaces, play areas, recycling, street naming and affordable housing tended to be funded via S106. CIL tended to cover other projects such as leisure contributions and public art. Details will be provided in the Supplementary Planning Document. Should not collect funding for particular infrastructure from both schemes.

Chair closed this item.