To receive a verbal update from the Deputy Director for Places.
Minutes:
Mr Rob Harbour, Deputy Director for Places, provided the Panel with a verbal update.
The adopted Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) included a Regulation 123 list, which identified the infrastructure requirements which would be funded by CIL payments in Rutland.
The Regulation 123 list was currently described as generalised, it identified the potential infrastructure funding gap that existed at the time of preparation in 2015/16. The infrastructure need was identified to support development proposed by the Core Strategy and Site Allocation and Policies Development Plan Document (DPD).
The review of the Rutland Local Plan would take the plan up to 2036. An integral part of the plan was to identify where new development would take place in that timeframe. The infrastructure needed to support the development would therefore be different to what was agreed in 2016 when the CIL was adopted. The Regulation 123 list would need to be reviewed following the adoption of the Local Plan to identify infrastructure.
As part of preparing the new Rutland Local Plan, an Infrastructure Delivery Plan had been commissioned looking at the existing provision across the county. It would also look at planned investments and where additional capacity could be provided, and looked at the impact of projected growth within the local plan and future demands and gaps in infrastructure provision through additional development, alongside where indicative costs towards meeting that infrastructure were required.
The IDP would set out potential infrastructure to support growth within the county. However, the funding was limited despite funding from CIL or Section 106, there would always be a funding gap which was common throughout the country.
A draft IDP was currently being produced, but this would need to be revised in order to accompany the next Local Plan, and made sure the two were synced.
The proposed next steps were to prioritise the infrastructure need identified to ensure provision of those elements which were considered essential. A stakeholder workshop would be held to help inform on the prioritisation process and ensure the IDP took a strategic approach. The workshop would include internal and external stakeholders.
The Regulation 123 list would be reviewed to reflect need and prioritisation process, and to provide greater clarity about the schemes and projects which could be funded through CIL payments.
The inclusion of schemes within the Regulation 123 list did not commit the Council to fund all which were on the list, however it did set out a transparent way to identify what the Council would consider.
The review of the Regulation 123 list would go through a public consultation and eventually be recommended for approval by Council.
There was a proposal from Government to remove the requirement for a Regulation 123 list and instead recommend the use of an “Infrastructure Funding Statement” that sets out infrastructure requirements. However this would require a change of legislation if it were to pass.
During discussion the following points were noted:
i. Mr Harbour stated there was benefit to having an Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) and a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Without both in place it would be difficult for the Council to properly negotiate funding with developers.
ii. Money collected from CIL should be spent strategically, therefore there was clear benefit with setting out a strategic approach and being transparent with an Infrastructure Delivery Plan.
iii. When Parish Councils received CIL money they could only spend on capital items and would receive more if they had a Neighbourhood Plan.
iv. Mr Brown suggested that an item regarding spending CIL money should go to the Parish Council Forum.
v. RCC was currently the collecting authority for CIL money and the money is paid out at the discretion of the Council to services such as the NHS and blue light services when a service comes to us with a need and is on the Regulation 123 list.