Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) Requirements
Report of the Cabinet Member Customer and Regulatory Services
The Cabinet Member Customer and Regulatory Services introduced the report, explaining that the funding statement detailed the funds they had raised and spent from two sources: traditional developer contributions and the new Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). It also included an infrastructure list, which was an informative rather than binding list of potential future projects. The IFS and infrastructure list were part of a route to greater transparency and openness.
He acknowledged that the government’s proscribed format was indigestible and very hard to follow, and suggested that in the future he and officers would work on building infographics that displayed the data in a way that would make it easier to understand what had been raised and where it would go. He discussed the different areas that were guaranteed a certain proportion of funding, including some parish councils. It was important to be transparent and accountable, and to align with climate change priorities like modal shift.
The Cabinet Member Safety and Communities suggested that it should be highlighted that parish councils with a Neighbourhood Plan received a greater proportion of funding than those without one – with the difference being 25% to 15%. The Cabinet Member Customer and Regulatory Services agreed, and noted that the funds mitigated the impact of developments and helped parish councils to share in their benefits.
The Cabinet Member Safety and Communities suggested that due to the size of the North West Cheltenham development, it would be worth the Cabinet Member and officers meeting with the parish council to ensure they were fully aware of its implications. The Cabinet Member Customer and Regulatory Services agreed with this.
The Cabinet Member Safety and Communities added that infrastructure took many forms, including schools and medical centres, and that a more diverse infrastructure list was needed to reflect these needs. The Cabinet Member Climate Emergency echoed this, noting that parts 3.2 and 3.4 of the report made clear that the list was under review. He was pleased by the focus on sustainable transport, and hoped that the review would be meaningful and look to reflect the values they had set out as an authority, for example through cycle lanes and pedestrian infrastructure. The Cabinet Member Customer and Regulatory Services agreed with these points.
The Cabinet Member Housing supported the report and welcomed the focus on openness and transparency. It was important that residents could understand its implications and what the future held for their area.
The Leader thanked the Cabinet Member Customer and Regulatory Services for his contributions and members for a constructive debate. There was a great deal of crossover between the CIL and the Joint Core Strategy, and she would continue to work closely with him on it.
The Leader moved to the vote, where it was unanimously:
1. The Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) relating to the financial year ending 31st March 2021 be approved for publication;
2. It be noted that the Annual CIL Rate Summary Statement will be published alongside it by the 31st December 2021.
- 2021_12_21_Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) Requirements_report, item 8. PDF 283 KB
- 2021_12_21_Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) Requirements_appendix 2_draft IFS, item 8. PDF 910 KB
- 2021_12_21_Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) Requirements_appendix 3_CIL statement, item 8. PDF 686 KB