Agenda item

The Committee considered a report which summarised the Community Infrastructure (CIL) regime, including the new statutory requirement for the Council (as the CIL charging authority) to publish an Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) by 31^st December annually; the role of Parish and County Councils; and the process for identifying projects for CIL spending.

A proposed IFS was appended to the report, setting out:

·         ‘Section 106’ funding obligations triggered throughout the District; 

·         ‘Section 278’ (Highways) agreements entered into with Surrey County Council; and

·         Projects that have been / will be funded by CIL income.

Councillor Bourne, seconded by Councillor Botten, proposed the following additional resolution:  

“.. agree to the immediate formation of a 7 Member politically balanced group (2,2,2,1) tasked to determine a method of evaluating and rating future CIL requests, with the group advised by Officers to ensure adherence to the CIL regulations. The result to be brought back to this committee for formal agreement and implementation. This will be followed up with Member briefing sessions to inform all Members of the new process and how best to represent projects in their wards”.

Councillor Cooper proposed the following amendment to Councillor Bourne’s proposal:

"Without prejudice to the outcome of the CIL bid - Grange Meadow (item 19),agree to the immediate formation of a 7 Member politically balanced group … [the remaining text as per the above]

… this was agreed.

Regarding the proposed IFS, Members questioned the absence of anticipated infrastructure projects not yet presented to the Committee, especially the scheme to improve Croydon Road, Caterham which was being led by the Caterham Business Improvement District (BID) group. As projects had to be included within an IFS to qualify for CIL, Members favoured the insertion of an additional list of projects to which CIL allocations were expected. Given the initial challenges associated with the Committee having to adopt a revised IFS (incorporating such a list) at a future meeting before the end of December, it was suggested that that the recommended IFS (within the agenda pack) be adopted forthwith to comply with the Regulations. However, the Committee wished to confirm its intention to adopt an updated iteration of the IFS at the earliest practicable opportunity thereafter, incorporating an ‘additional list’ as referred to above.  

            R E S O L V E D – that:

A.     notwithstanding the intention to produce a revised replacement Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) as soon as practicable during 2020/21, the IFS as attached at Appendix A to the report be agreed;

B.    Officers prepare a charging schedule for the monitoring of planning obligations to bring back to this Committee for consideration; and

C.   without prejudice to the outcome of the CIL bid, ‘Grange Meadow’ (item 19 on the agenda), a Member Working Group, politically balanced (2,2,2,1) be formed and tasked to determine a method of evaluating and rating future CIL requests, with the Group advised by Officers to ensure adherence to the CIL regulations – the result to be brought back to this Committee for formal agreement and implementation – this will be followed up with Member briefing sessions to inform all Members of the new process and how best to represent projects in their Wards.

Note: Councillor Pursehouse declared a non-pecuniary interest in this matter on the basis that he was the Chairman of the Blanchman’s Farm Nature Reserve. He took part in the debate and voting as permitted by the Members’ Code of Conduct.