Decision details

COMMUNITY INFRASTRUCTURE LEVY FUNDING ALLOCATION

Decision Maker: Cabinet

Decision status: Recommendations Approved

Is Key decision?: Yes

Is subject to call in?: Yes

Purpose:

The purpose of the report is to invite the Cabinet to consider recommendations relating to infrastructure projects seeking funding in whole or in part from an amount of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies received to date.

Decision:

The Cabinet has

a) Noted the updates on delivery in relation to the projects previously allocated or in receipt of CIL funding commitments (see Appendix 1);

b) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.2 to DECLINE funding for Hilton Pavilion;

c) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.3 to APPROVE funding for Sawtry Pavilion;

d) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.4 to DECLINE funding for The Guardroom community hub, Bury;

e) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.5 to DECLINE funding for St Neots Community Fire Station Modernisation and Extension Project;

f) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.6 to DECLINE funding for Sports Provision, Abbey College, Ramsey;

g) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.7 to DECLINE funding for Folksworth Multi Use Games Area (MUGA);

h) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.8 to DECLINE funding for a new workshop with storage for Warboys New Parish Centre;

i) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.9 to DECLINE funding for King George V Pavilion works, Huntingdon;

j) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.10 to DECLINE funding for an extension to a footpath in Colne;

k) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.11 to APPROVE funding for a Community Centre Extension, Ramsey; and

l) Agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.12 to DECLINE funding for MAGPAS internal re-fit and purchase of an aviation tank.

Reasons for the decision:

As outlined within the report.

Resource Implications:

As outlined within the report.

Report author: Claire Burton

Publication date: 17/04/2024

Date of decision: 16/04/2024

Decided at meeting: 16/04/2024 - Cabinet

Effective from: 25/04/2024

This decision has been called in by:

Councillor Stephen John Corney who writes To allow for a full discussion on each application contained within the report and also I am aware of the CIL paper coming to us over the summer and I hope that by calling this in we will be able to filter any lessons learnt from this call-in into that paper."
Councillor Ian Derek Gardener who writes I am concerned that the Panel did not give a steer to Cabinet regarding the various applications. I think all applications should have been debated and a steer given, for complete transparency, if nothing else. Had this been the case the steer from the Panel may have been different or the same. At least all the Parish Councils and other applicants would have seen their application get a fair hearing, which i don’t believe occurred. "
Councillor Joanna Elizabeth Harvey who writes I don't believe every applicant had a full debate. I have also been approached by one council who felt that due process wasn't followed, though I have reached out to them and had a discussion around a way forwards with their application, and they are aware that the call in may not change the decision."
Councillor Stephen Cawley who writes I would like to Call In the item on CIL as I am concerned that the Panel did not give a steer to Cabinet regarding the various applications. I think all applications should have been debated and a steer given, for complete transparency, if nothing else. Had this been the case the steer from the Panel may have been different or the same. At least all the Parish Councils and other applicants would have seen their application get a fair hearing, which I don’t believe occurred. "
Councillor Ross Martin who writes who writes I am concerned that the Panel did not give a steer to Cabinet regarding the various applications. I think all applications should have been debated and a steer given, for complete transparency, if nothing else. Had this been the case the steer from the Panel may have been different or the same. At least all the Parish Councils and other applicants would have seen their application get a fair hearing, which i don’t believe occurred."

Accompanying Documents: