Agenda item

Report of the Leader

The Leader began her introduction by saying our approach to Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has been of keen interest to Council, with reports last year adding greater transparency and governance. She continued to make the following points:

-       Planning Committee Members will already be seeing changes in reporting, with planning improvements driven forward as we work through the improvement plan developed in response to this year’s Planning Advisory Peer Review, but as previously reported, the CIL pot is only growing at a slow rate, due to the instalment policy included in our approved CIL policy, and the strategic allocations are not presenting on the anticipated trajectory;

-       Members saw the positive work of the CIL Neighbourhood Panel earlier this year, when CIL money was allocated to a variety of neighbourhood projects, and as the strategic pot grows, appropriate governance needs to be put in place to start making allocations;

-       This report provides Terms of Reference (TOR) for the Joint Committee and a refreshed Infrastructure List, much broader than the previous one and focussed on priorities recognising that a new Infrastructure Delivery Plan is needed to support the Strategic Local Plan;

-       the CIL Joint Committee builds on the collaborative working with Gloucester and Tewkesbury, recognising that development outside our area has impacts on infrastructure in Cheltenham and enabling the councils to look collectively and strategically at the infrastructure demands affecting our area. Recognising that infrastructure costs are significant and far exceed the funding drawn from CIL,  she said that working together offers opportunities to identify wider strategic funding sources where CIL can help match fund investment;

-       we have reviewed our infrastructure list and identified Cheltenham’s priorities, and this will be a foundation document for the work of the CIL Joint Committee;

-       we are confined by our boundaries, restricted on building height, keen to avoid urban sprawl – so it is important that we remain in communication and work together with our partners for the benefit of all our residents at greater speed by pooling our resources;

-       triggers for review have been written into the Terms of Reference to ensure we have safeguards to revisit this in the future if appropriate.  For example, if a left-field development in one area has the potential to create a significant impact on its infrastructure, there is legitimate rationale for all three councils to go back to each other to reconsider the particular instance;

-       there is a lot for the CIL Joint Committee to do, but these are the basic terms of reference.  It is important to note that each council will retain sovereignty in its decisions - the committee has decision-making powers but not without the consultation of each respective council, bolstered by membership – two from each authority (the leader and the relevant planning lead). 

In response to a Member’s question, the Cabinet Member for Customer and Regulatory Services explained how the pie chart on Page 258 of the report added up, and that the allocations for neighbourhood projects in parished and unparished areas amounted to roughly 7%  each, 15% in total.  He said a note could be added to future iterations to make this clearer. 

In response to further Member questions, the Leader said that:

-       regarding Gloucestershire County Council, whether it is satisfied with the report, and whether it will seek S106 agreements to be incorporated into planning permissions  to cover education requirements, J10 and other essential infrastructure not covered by CIL, she said it sits on the Joint Advisory Group (JAG) and has been involved in all dialogue so far;

-       since the report was published, we have had discussions with the county about the infrastructure list.  Members are aware of the financial challenges arising from key infrastructure projects, and the need to give the government confidence that no stone is being left unturned, and also the need to seek contributions from the county – S106 is its preferred route for major highways projects and education, but in reality these will need to be a blend of S106 and CIL, as the CIL pot will not be big enough. An amendment would help clarify this;

-       the terms of reference have gone through all three authorities, and the joint advisory group will be replaced by the CIL Joint Committee, which will be properly formulated, more transparent, open and accountable than the joint advisory group.  Once agreed, the panel will comprise the leader and one other from each council (this will be the planning portfolio holder from CBC) and a Chair will be elected;

-       the council has been accused of sitting on CIL money, but the relationship with the county council has improved greatly over the last few years. 

In debate, Members made the following comments:

-       congratulations to the Leader on negotiating the joint terms of reference.  For clarification, these are for the CIL Joint Committee - the Joint Administration Group (JAG) will continue for strategic and local planning generally, with the CIL committee replacing it in terms of CIL but not in total;

-       recommendations 3 and 4 are really important safeguards.  With current contributions to the £11.9m CIL pot being Gloucester approximately £1.5m, Cheltenham approximately £2.5m, and Tewkesbury £8m, the pooling of 80% for strategic infrastructure will bring huge benefits for Cheltenham, provided we get a vote on what goes into the final list.  In previous years, the priority has basically been £56m to be spent on roads, rather than the liberal democrat goal of a more holistic approach to infrastructure. There is now a much broader range of products in the infrastructure list, including green transport, cycling hubs, EV charging points, health infrastructure, upgraded recycling – all the things we should be looking at – and the council will be able to vote on these important items; 

-       we are clearly entering into a new and welcome era of collaborative working with our neighbours and the county council, although it will be a challenging process and  there is still a long way to go with £11.9m in the pot and bids from the three authorities amounting to £32m. It would be interesting to know how far the infrastructure list reflects our corporate ambitions and policies, and how it will add more value to town; hopefully it can be changed and added to as new projects come along;

-       the list includes some very welcome projects for Cheltenham, including the Petersfield Community and Sports Hub, enhancements round railway station, improvements the cycle ways, and public realm work for the High Street.  Gloucester and Tewkesbury have also put in requests, but there don’t seem to be any requests for funding from the county council.  There needs to be something to record what the county is doing as a strategic partner, such as providing finance for hospitals and many other things.  This is a concern – the county enters into S106 agreements for strategic items, including schools and J10, but is there a cast iron guarantee that if it bids for that funding, it will get it?;

-       on smaller-scale planning applications where a county councillor has highlighted the need for an S106 agreement to deal with 400% over-subscribed parking and planning authority has not acted on this, it can be difficult to explain this to residents who assume all councils are working for the public good.  We need to make sure that the four authorities and other areas of public service are aligned to serve the public.  This needs to be looked at in more detail;

-       Junction 10 is on hold at the moment, with no immediate prospect of government funding, yet on that hangs 5k houses, and a link road to the cyber park development and employment land.  This has been in discussion for 12 years, with the cost increasing from £25m to the current £127m; it must be sorted with the county and partner councils as S106 payments will not cover it although housing on the NW extension will pay a levy towards it;

-       working across councils is challenging but the list of projects is really important, as we will need the infrastructure to go with any new houses we approve.  Pooling of funds is very much in Tewkesbury’s interest as residents in Bishops Cleeve, Churchdown, Shurdington, Tewkesbury and other outlying TBC areas come to consume local services in Cheltenham and Gloucester – it is not in TBC’s interest for their CIL money to be spent in Tewkesbury only as their residents would ultimately lose out.

In response and summing up, the Leader made the following observations:

-       the county council has been fully engaged with the process and made a big difference, consulting with wider stakeholders.  The report references some of the county list, including mass transit, GP surgeries, express bus service and cycle links, but it is important to remember that this is an interim list and a living document which will change with the times.  Some of the original highway works already gone back to the county with work in progress, paid by the county;

-       CIL and strategic planning have been under discussion for a long time, which is why we sought advice from the Planning Advisory Service on how to approach this – only by working together will we be able to benefit residents across all three districts. So far, negotiations have been successful, with the three councils being realistic about what they can achieve together;

-       Gloucester will make its final decision at Council on 25th January, and Tewkesbury is programming its decision making for the new year.  Once all three Councils have agreed, the CIL Joint Committee will convene, a Chair will be elected, and work can start. 

RESOLVED THAT:

1.            the establishment of a Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee under s101(5) and s102 Local Government Act 1972 and under Part 1A Chapter 2 Section 9EB of the Local Government Act 2000 and pursuant to the Local Authorities (Arrangement for the Discharge of Functions) (England) Regulations 2012 is agreed;

2.            the Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee Terms of Reference, as appended to this report (Appendix 2) are agreed;

3.            the pooling of strategic Community Infrastructure Levy monies by the three partner Councils of Cheltenham, Gloucester and Tewkesbury with governance as set out in the Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee Terms of Reference is agreed;

4.            the Infrastructure List for those items relating to the administrative area of Cheltenham Borough is reviewed and approved, and this list will be combined with the lists of Gloucester, Tewkesbury and Gloucestershire County Council to form the basis of the work of the Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee.

5.            engagement will be entered into with wider infrastructure providers (e.g. NHS, emergency services, Environment Agency etc.) outside the local authorities to identify any wider infrastructure priorities to be considered by the Community Infrastructure Levy Joint Committee.