1.       CROSS-CUTTING ISSUES AND IMPLICATIONS

2.      INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND

2.1        The report of 11 September 2018 entitled ‘Maidstone Community Infrastructure Levy Administration and Governance’ (sections 1.27-1.33) your-councillors (maidstone.gov.uk), was approved at the meeting of the former Strategic Planning, Sustainability and Transport Committee. This report highlighted that where there is chargeable development within an area of a parish council, under the CIL regulations, the Council must pass the proportion of receipts on to the parish to spend, even where a parish falls within a ward. Unlike this neighbourhood portion of CIL funds passed to parish councils, non-parished areas such as wards had no prescribed processes for how CIL should be spent in areas that are not a town or parish council.

2.2        For wards which have no parishes, neither the Planning Act 2008 nor the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 prescribe how local engagement should take place or whether neighbourhood CIL should be allocated to a particular geographic area or what projects it should be spent on within an area. The Council has the discretion as to how it allocates this money. However, it must have regard to government guidance which is contained in the CIL Planning Practice Guidance (PPG) (see - www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy).

CIL Planning Practice Guidance (updated April 2022)

2.3        The CIL PPG states: Communities without a parish or town council can still benefit from the neighbourhood portion. If there is no parish or town council, the charging authority will retain the levy receipts but should engage with the communities where development has taken place and agree with them how best to spend the neighbourhood funding.

2.4        Charging authorities should set out clearly and transparently their approach to engaging with neighbourhoods using their regular communication tools for example, website, newsletters, etc. The use of neighbourhood funds should therefore match priorities expressed by local communities, including priorities set out formally in neighbourhood plans.

2.5        The law does not prescribe a specific process for agreeing how the neighbourhood portion should be spent. Charging authorities should use existing community consultation and engagement processes. This should include working with any designated neighbourhood forums preparing neighbourhood plans that exist in the area, theme specific neighbourhood groups, local businesses (particularly those working on business led neighbourhood plans) and using networks that ward councillors use.

2.6        Crucially this consultation should be at the neighbourhood level. It should be proportionate to the level of levy receipts and the scale of the proposed development to which the neighbourhood funding relates. Where the charging authority retains the neighbourhood funding, they can use those funds on the wider range of spending that are open to local councils, for example CIL (Regulation 59) towards;

·         the provision, improvement, replacement, operation, or maintenance of infrastructure; or

·         anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area

2.7        In deciding what to spend the neighbourhood portion on, the charging authority and communities should consider such issues as the phasing of development, the costs of different projects (for example, a new road, a new school), the prioritisation, delivery and phasing of projects, the amount of the levy that is expected to be retained in this way and the importance of certain projects for delivering development that the area needs. Where a neighbourhood plan has been made, the charging authority and communities should consider how the neighbourhood portion can be used to deliver the infrastructure identified in the neighbourhood plan as required to address the demands of development. They should also have regard to the infrastructure needs of the wider area.

2.8        The charging authority and communities may also wish to consider appropriate linkages to the growth plans (Infrastructure Delivery Plan) for the area and how neighbourhood levy spending might support these objectives.

Proposed Governance and Process

2.9        Specific consideration needed to be given to the consultation process within unparished areas. A remote meeting was held in July 2020 with ward councillors, the Head of Development Management and the CIL Project Officer. The approach of entrusting community engagement to individual ward members was discussed. Ward councillors were keen to take an active role to spend the CIL within their areas. This would involve local ward councillors going out to their communities to canvas opinions on projects which would benefit the community most. Ward councillors would have an important role to play using their networks and assisting the Council with the consultation process by using their usual forms of engagement with their constituents to inform a wider audience and gauge the priorities.

2.5        As most CIL chargeable development in Maidstone is built within parished areas, the CIL receipts have been considerably lower for wards. Due to this, the Council deferred the governance arrangements for the spending of the neighbourhood portion of CIL in wards to allow enough CIL receipts to accumulate.

2.6        The Council currently has available for spending a total of £122,995.34 collected from 10 wards in the Borough.

3.           AVAILABLE OPTIONS

3.1    No other option is assessed.

________________________________________________________________

4.       RECOMMENDATION

4.1    That the Planning and Infrastructure Policy Advisory Committee     

recommends to the Executive that the governance and process guidance set out in Appendix A and B and associated recommendations of the report be approved.

5.       RISK

5.1        If the CIL governance and procedural arrangements are accepted then this would reduce the risk of CIL monies not being spent in accordance with addressing the demands that development places on an area.

­­________________________________________________________________

6.       CONSULTATION RESULTS AND PREVIOUS COMMITTEE FEEDBACK

7.        REPORT APPENDICES

The following documents are to be published with this report and form part of the report:

·         Appendix A: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) – Governance and Procedural Arrangements for CIL Ward spend (October 2022)

·         Appendix B: Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) –Application Form to Request Neighbourhood (Ward) CIL Funding

8.        BACKGROUND PAPERS

The report of 11 September 2018 entitled ‘Maidstone Community Infrastructure Levy Administration and Governance’ (sections 1.27-1.33 attached) your-councillors (maidstone.gov.uk)