Agenda item

Scrutiny of Planning Related Cabinet Reports

To consider the following Planning related reports scheduled for Cabinet consideration on 12 February 2020:

 

   Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) strategic and neighbourhood governance

 

The O&S Board is asked to scrutinise the reports and make recommendations to Cabinet as appropriate.

 

Cabinet member invited to attend for this item: Councillor Margaret Phipps, Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning.

 

The Cabinet report will be published on Tuesday 4 February 2020 and available to view at the following link: https://democracy.bcpcouncil.gov.uk/ieListDocuments.aspx?CId=285&MId=3726&Ver=4

Minutes:

The Chairman invited the Portfolio Holder for Strategic Planning to introduce a Cabinet report on the Community Infrastructure Levy(CIL) Strategic and Neighbourhood Governance, a copy of which had been circulated and appears as Appendix D to the Cabinet minutes of 12 February 2020 in the Minute Book.  During the course of discussion the following points were raised:

 

·       That the idea of redistribution was inline with the aim of the neighbourhood portion of CIL (NCIL). Across the country NCIL was being used in a number of different ways in different areas. The pooling system had been in operation and was working well. It was noted that people impacted by development in one area would use facilities developed in other areas.

·       A Councillor asked about the areas in which CIL was zero rated. It was noted that there was not consistency across BCP. In these cases those areas would also have access to the CIL pooled funds

·       The need to engage with communities and loosing the link with local communities through the pooling method was questioned. Community groups from all areas were able to bid into the pot.

·       The public perception of where investment was made and how CIL was distributed and the overall image of the conurbation. An example was given of the impact of the accessible playparks which had been developed.

·       A question was raised regarding areas creating town or parish Councils in order to retain CIL funds if they are not distributed in a fair way. It was also note that the significant housing targets which needed to be delivered could only be accommodated through significant town centre development. The purpose of CIL was to mitigate the impact of development on the local infrastructure.

·       The non NCIL portion of CIL already went to a central fund and just 15 to 20 percent was retained locally but not necessarily immediately in front of the development. Wards could work with neighbouring wards to pool the funds.

·       There was issues raised around what was considered local or a neighbourhood and whether these areas were on a ward basis.

·       A Councillor suggested that the pooling method seemed to enhance community engagement but questioned if there were safeguards which could be employed to ensure that no areas were disadvantaged. It was confirmed that this could be factored into the set up of the distribution mechanism. The set up would be consulted upon.

·       It was noted that lots of areas did not have community groups and that these would be disadvantaged. It was noted that ward Councillors should work with community groups but where there were none this should not be a barrier to ward councillors submitting bids.

·       Some Board members suggested that some form of hybrid between the two options outlined for pooling or distribution by ward may be a possible solution between the two.

Following the discussion it was proposed and then: 

 

RESOLVED that: Cabinet be recommended to amend recommendation ‘d’ of the report to the following:

‘Recognising the opportunity for wards to pool resources if they wish to, to agree that option 1 as set out in this report will be introduced and replace the legacy CIL Neighbourhood Portion arrangements in Bournemouth and Poole on 1st October 2020.  The legacy arrangements will remain in place until they are superseded on 1st October 2020’

 

Voting: For: 9; Against: 5

 

Cllr Farquhar asked to be recorded as voting against the motion.

Supporting documents: