Agenda item

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 process wasn’t followed or the decision was unreasonable of uninformed. Councillor Roberts then went on to explain that he believed neither was the case with the decision before them and that the avenue available to Huntingdon Town Council was to submit a new application.

Following on, Councillor Dew explained that in the format the application was received the Cabinet made the correct decision.

Councillor Sanderson explained that he believed that too much emphasis was placed on the cricketing element of the scheme and not enough on the cancer care network element. He asked if the scheme would have been approved if the amount requested was reduced but it was explained that Huntingdon Town Council would have to resubmit their application if there was a material change.

A comment was made, by Councillor Butler, on whether funding could be applied for from an alternative source.

The Panel,

RESOLVED

that the decision is not referred back to the Cabinet for reconsideration and therefore the decision shall take effect from the date of the Overview and Scrutiny Panel meeting.

(At 7.08pm, during the consideration of the item, Councillor E R Butler entered the meeting.)