Content

RESOLVED
 
i)              
To approve and agree the Interim Infrastructure Delivery Plan and
its contents and adopt the changes recommended by the Committee,
with the additional wording of:

 
                        
i.        
The insertion of “It is intended to provide a list of
projects which can be considered for CIL funding through the
process set out in the CIL Governance Arrangements. There is a
recognition in the production of the document that projects may not
be progressed enough for all detail on cost, delivery and
timescales to be known, however it is expected this information
will be established over time.”, at the end of paragraph 4.2,
page 10

 
                      
ii.        
The insertion of “although not all of these will necessarily
be included in the schedule, subject to evidence of need:”,
after the word “below” at the end of paragraph 4.8,
page 11
 
 
ii)             
To agree the proposed changes to the CIL Governance Arrangements as
follows:
 
1.    
Reduction in the anticipated delivery timeframes for projects
included with the CIL Spending Plan from five years to three to
ensure projects put forward in the Spending Plan are deliverable in
the short- to medium-term have a good chance of being delivered
successfully

 
2.    
That a review of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan should take place
annually unless otherwise agreed by the Cabinet Member for Planning
and Infrastructure and Director of Place. Reviews are currently
timetabled to take place triennially. While an annual review is
expected at the time of writing, it is considered reasonable that
there should be flexibility around the timing of any review of the
Infrastructure Delivery Plan to ensure priorities can be met.
 
3.    
That responsibility for setting up the Infrastructure Projects
Working Group includes the Cabinet Member for Planning and
Infrastructure as well as the Director of Place. The decision being
shared at Officer and Cabinet Member level will ensure the
decision-making process is open and transparent.
 
 
REASON
 
To ensure the Council has an up to date Infrastructure Delivery Plan against
which infrastructure spending can be prioritised, and that this can
be managed in an effective timeframe.
 
ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED BUT REJECTED AS
IDENTIFIED IN THE REPORT
 
1. The Council could consider not agreeing to
progress the Interim IDP. This is not recommended on the basis that
the Council has not certainty over the likely progress and
timescale of the Local Plan (and, therefore, cannot say with any
certainty when the associated IDP would be adopted. This would
limit the ability of the Council to effectively contribute to the
delivery of infrastructure in the short to medium term.
 
2. The Council’s CIL remains in place
and receipts continue to be accrued but having no up-to-date IDP
prevents these funds from being used to fund much needed
infrastructure projects.
 
3. There is also the option not to agree the
proposed changes to the CIL Governance Arrangements, however, this
is not recommended for the following reasons:
 
a.    
Maintaining a five-year timeframe for projects to be considered in
the CIL Spending Plan would reduce the ability to deliver short- to
-medium-term projects which could come forward in the shorter
three-year window.
 
b.    
Continuing to require a review of the Infrastructure Delivery Plan
every three years would mean the Council would not have the ability
to reassess the infrastructure provision and needs of the
District annually. This provides less
opportunity to ensure that infrastructure spending, and the
potential list of projects to be considered for further spending,
is keeping pace with development and the needs of communities as
they arise.
 
c.    
Not agreeing the amendment which would include the Cabinet Member
in setting up the Infrastructure Projects Working Group would mean
there was more limited openness and transparency in the process
than if it were subject to joint Officer and Member decision
making.