Issue - meetings

To consider the decision made by the Cabinet on 11th February 2021 on the Community Infrastructure Levy Spend Allocation, which has been called-in by the Panel, as described in the report by the Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny).

With the aid of a report by the Democratic Services Officer (Scrutiny) (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Call-In in relation to the Community Infrastructure Levy Spend Allocation was presented to the Panel. Members were reminded that the reason for the Call-In was the decision relating to the Cricket Pavilion, King George V Playing Field, which was not approved by Cabinet at their meeting on 11th February 2021. During his introduction, the Chairman outlined the Call-In process and the options available to the Panel.

The Members who Called-In the item were invited to address the Panel and outline their reasons for doing so.

Councillor Chapman stated that he believed that the facility would be beneficial in supporting the Cancer Care Network, as well as accommodating sports which currently are not accommodated in Huntingdon

Councillor Morris stated that he believed Cabinet had misunderstood the scheme. He added that Huntingdon is lacking in certain facilities and that the scheme would provide a place for wheelchair cricket, as well as meeting space for the Cancer Care Network.

Councillor Wakeford stated that he had Called-In the decision for procedural reasons. He explained that the scheme had been through the process and had received approval from Officers, only for the Cabinet to not approve the scheme. He questioned that were the reasons for not approving the scheme clear and could they have been identified at an earlier stage of the process.

At this stage, the Chairman clarified to Members that he had attended the Cabinet meeting at which the decision was taken and that he had accurately presented the Panel’s comments on the report to the Cabinet.

The Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning, Councillor Jon Neish, addressed the Panel and explained the reasoning behind Cabinet’s decision. He explained that the Council had £28m of CIL receipts to spend on various infrastructure projects and that there is a need to achieve a balance financially. He added that the Cabinet viewed the scheme as desirable but not essential and that it did not significantly contribute to improving infrastructure in the Huntingdon area.

Councillor Wakeford asked whether the documentation for the invitation of bids should be amended to reflect the need for a scheme to significantly contribute to improving infrastructure. In response, the Executive Councillor explained that the Council has only a finite amount of CIL receipts and that the Council would have to be mindful of balancing competing priorities.

Following on, Councillor Morris asked for more guidance and clarification on what is considered an essential infrastructure project. In addition, he added how much would the Council want to contribute to the major infrastructure schemes from the CIL fund and wouldn’t this preclude investment in other schemes. In response, the Executive Councillor explained that the Council is not only funding major projects and CIL will fund a wide variety of schemes.

Councillor Roberts explained that, according to his understanding, there are two reasons why a decision is Called-In. They are that either, the  ...  view the full minutes text for item 69

To receive a report from the Service Manager (Growth) seeking the Cabinet’s agreement on infrastructure projects to be funded in whole or in part by an amount of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies received to date.

Executive Councillor: J Neish.

The Cabinet has:

(a)  noted the information on projects already in receipt of funding commitments and the updates on their delivery;

(b)  noted the funding bids submitted for £50,000 or less and the approvals in line with delegated authority agreed at the Cabinet’s meeting on 22 October 2020 (Minute No 20/33 refers);

(c)  discussed the funding for projects detailed in paragraph 10.2 of the report now submitted and determined the following:

(d)  delegated authority to the Corporate Director (Place) and Service Manager (Growth), in consultation with the Executive Leader and Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning, to make final agreements for contracts to be issued on projects allocated CIL monies in principle, subject to provision of necessary evidence, with the exception of the Special School at Alconbury Weald which, due to the scale of funding offered, will be reported back to Cabinet for its final sign off.

With the aid of a report prepared by the Service Manager (Growth) (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Cabinet were invited to consider and agree infrastructure projects as outlined in paragraph 10.2 to be funded in whole or in part by an amount of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies received to date.

By way of background, the Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning advised that the latest funding round had been launched on 10th November 2020 with  around £28 million of CIL receipts now currently available for spend on infrastructure projects. Attention was drawn to a number of planned strategic transport projects which included the A428 Black Cat to Caxton Gibbet Improvements, A141 Huntingdon, A14 Improvement Scheme, A1 Improvement Scheme, East West Rail Bedford to Cambridge opportunities and Edison Bell Way link road and the potential for future financial support being requested for these schemes. Finally, it was reported that Appendix 3 of the report outlined project bids under £50,000 which had been determined in accordance with delegated authority given to the Corporate Director (Place) and the Service Manager (Growth) in consultation with the Executive Councillor for Strategic Planning.

Councillor S J Corney, Chairman of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel (Performance and Growth), presented the outcome of the Panel’s discussions at its meeting on 3rd February 2021 drawing particular attention to the Buckden to Huntingdon Safe Cycling and Walking Route, Cricket Pavilion, King George V Playing Field and Special School (Alconbury Weald) schemes. The Cabinet concurred with the comments of the Panel in respect of Cambridgeshire County Council making a greater contribution to the Buckden to Huntingdon Safe Cycling and Walking scheme and noted the comments which had been made regarding the Cricket Pavilion at King George V Playing Field which was considered to be a desirable scheme rather than essential or critical.

Following debate on each of the schemes outlined in paragraph 10.2 of the report, the Cabinet expressed their support and approval for three of the five schemes, namely Special School (Alconbury Weald), The Valley land management programme and Swimming Pool Changing at One Leisure St Ives. Whilst supportive of the principle of the Buckden-Huntingdon Safe Cycling and Walking Route, it was agreed not to approve the scheme at this stage as the Cabinet would like to see what contribution, if any, would be made by Cambridgeshire County Council towards the cost of the project.

Having regard to the Cricket Pavilion, King George V playing field, in response to questions raised by a Member, it was clarified that the scheme would seek to replace and improve the current facilities provided on the site. Following discussions, and whilst being mindful of the budget available, Members concurred that CIL funding in the Huntingdon area should be prioritised for future major infrastructure projects and agreed not to approve the scheme. Whereupon, the Cabinet

RESOLVED

(a)  to note the information on projects already in receipt of funding commitments and the updates on their delivery;

(b)  to note  ...  view the full minutes text for item 53

Members are to receive a report on the Community Infrastructure Levy Spend Allocation.

By means of a report by the Service Manager Growth (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Spend Allocation was presented to the Panel. In relation to the Buckden to Huntingdon Safe Cycling and Walking Route, Councillor Roberts commented that it was a beneficial scheme, however the percentage of funding to be obtained from CIL was higher than desirable. Councillor Gardener expressed the view that the proportion of funds obtained from CIL should not exceed 50% of the project cost. Members suggested that the County Council should be requested to make a greater contribution to the scheme. In response, the Panel was informed that such a restriction might not be beneficial and that the project was subjected to match funding.

Councillor Roberts questioned why the Cricket Pavilion, King George V Playing Field scheme had been recommended for approval and raised a general point on what was deemed desirable or essential. In response, Members were informed that the scheme had met the criteria, which was why it was recommended for approval. It was understood that the critical, essential and desirable definitions were linked to those used for the Local Plan and that the scheme would enable the facility to meet Sport England requirements.

Councillor Cooper-Marsh sought further information on the Splash Park and Learner Swimming Pool in St Neots. It was confirmed that the scheme was recommended to be declined because the application lacked sufficient information and that what information was provided did not meet the criteria.

Councillor Dew questioned whether the Special School would provide places for pupils from Huntingdonshire only or if pupils from other Local Authority areas would attend as well. If it was the latter, Councillor Dew questioned whether the other Local Authorities should contribute towards the costs of the project. The Panel was informed that pupils from outside of the Huntingdonshire would attend the school but that funding arrangements, particularly from other Local Authorities, had yet to be confirmed.

The Chairman welcomed the report and projects being presented. Having commented on the transparency the governance arrangements had given to the CIL application process, the Panel

RESOLVED

that the Cabinet be encouraged to endorse the recommendations contained within the report.