Decision Maker: Cabinet

Outcome: Recommendations Approved

Is Key Decision?: No

Is Callable In?: Yes

Date of Decision: March 19, 2025

Purpose:

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.