Agenda item

To receive a report inviting the Cabinet to consider recommendations relating to infrastructure projects seeking funding of £100,001 or more in whole or in part from an amount of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies.

 

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)  noted any new allocated CIL projects for £100,000.00 or less approved by delegation on 5th February 2026 (see Appendix 2);

 

c)  noted the project to be approved in accordance with Stage 2 CIL governance review with the level of funding to be agreed in line with delegated authority as stated at para 2.5 of this report;

 

d)  agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.3 to APPROVE funding for 3 Padel Courts in Huntingdon;

 

e)  agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.4 to APPROVE funding for a construction skills workshop in Huntingdon;

 

f)  agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.5 to APPROVE funding for enhancements and improvements to Paxton Pits;

 

g)  agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.6 to APPROVE funding for relocation of the 6^th form college at Abbey College in Ramsey;

 

h)  agreed officer recommendation at Paragraph 4.7 to APPROVE funding for reconfiguration and refurbishment of the fire station in St Ives;

 

i)  agreed officer recommendation at Paragraph 4.8 to APPROVE funding for the SAPHIRE new constructional skills centre in St Neots;

 

k)  agreed officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.10 to APPROVE funding for the increase of two classrooms for Warboys Primary Academy;

 

l)  agreed officer recommendation at Paragraph 4.11 to APPROVE an extension of time for Wheatsheaf Road; and

 

m)  agreed to

 

(1)  support the principle of the allocation of CIL funding towards a youth centre in St Neots;

 

(2)  support in principle the allocation being for a maximum of £500k;

 

(3)  a CIL funding award being made, based on (1) and (2), subject to:

 

(a)  securing ownership or arrangements to acquire the building, or a suitable alternative;

 

(b)  securing planning permission and any other necessary consents to facilitate the works needed to facilitate the youth centre;

 

(c)  securing a full commitment from the Town Council towards the proposed scheme; including the identification of and provision of necessary match funding and longer-term funding to ensure the proposal is viable now and in the future;

 

(d)  the provision of additional information for the scheme to satisfy outstanding concerns such as choice of location, impact on the town centre vitality, assessment of provision of existing and future youth and community spaces, and demonstrate long term viability of the proposal;

 

(e)  sufficient information and clarification being presented to Officers to demonstrate satisfactory compliance with all other aspects of our established CIL governance;

 

(f)  all matters being resolved within a period of 6 months (which may be extended by agreement); and

 

(4)  delegated authority for the final decision to the Head of Planning, Infrastructure & Public Protection in consultation with the Corporate Director (Place), Leader, Executive Councillor for Finance, and Executive Councillor for Planning to approve a CIL funding award for this project and determine the final level of CIL funding to be awarded.

 

See Minute No. 25/77 – Members’ Interests.

 

A report by the Head of Planning, Infrastructure & Public Protection was submitted (a copy of which is appended in the Minute Book) inviting the Cabinet to consider recommendations relating to infrastructure projects seeking funding of £100,001 or more in whole or in part from an amount of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) monies.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Councillor Sanderson introduced the report, drawing attention to the comments of the Overview & Scrutiny Panel (Performance & Growth), particularly the concerns that there was no provision currently in St Neots that provided a dedicated space for young people.

 

The Cabinet drew attention to the helpful supplement document circulated prior to the meeting setting out a breakdown of the CIL allocations to date, alongside growth data, and requested that it be shared with Town/Parish Councils. The Chair also requested that when that information was circulated, Town/Parish Councils be encouraged to engage early with officers and take advantage of their advice.

 

To allow for Cabinet Members to vacate the room during the discussion of the applications which they had declared an interest on, the debate and vote on each recommendation was taken in turn.

 

Recommendations A, B and C.

 

The recommendations were noted.

 

Recommendation D

 

Councillor Harvey vacated the room.

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Councillor Harvey re-entered the room and took back her seat at the meeting.

 

Recommendation E

 

The Cabinet welcomed the funding as it was conducive to bringing young people into the construction industry.

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Recommendation F

 

The Executive Councillor for Resident Services and Corporate Performance, Councillor Ferguson sought advice whether he needed to leave the room during the discussion and vote as he was Ward Councillor, however the Chief Executive advised that being the Ward Councillor did not give him a conflict of interest that was sufficient to require him to leave the room. Councillor Ferguson confirmed he had not campaigned on behalf of the application.

 

The Executive Councillor for Communities, Health and Leisure, Councillor Kerr also sought advice as Portfolio Holder, however the Chief Executive advised that this was her normal Portfolio Holder business and would not constitute a conflict of interest in terms of debating and making a decision.

 

The Cabinet commented on the potential of Paxton Pitts Nature Reserve as a tourist attraction, particularly with the uniqueness of its wildlife, and highlighted the health and welfare benefits for residents across Huntingdonshire that the improvements would bring.

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Recommendation G

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Recommendation H

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Recommendation I

 

The Cabinet welcomed the opportunity the courses would help provide for local people as a result of the occupational skills training facility, and that it would draw more investment from other educational providers.

 

The Executive Councillor for Economy, Regeneration and Housing, Councillor Wakeford made reference to the funding which had been secured from the Cambridgeshire & Peterborough Combined Authority (CPCA) ‘Cold Spot’ capital investment to help build the Skills Centre Hub, and as the Council’s representative on the CPCA’S Skills Committee he had pushed on behalf of the Council, however he placed on record that he had not been involved with the CIL bid element and therefore felt comfortable participating in the discussion and vote.

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Recommendation J

 

Councillor Davenport-Ray vacated the room.

 

The Executive Councillor for Resident Services and Corporate Performance, Councillor Ferguson advised that he would vote against the Officer’s recommendation to refuse funding. He commented that despite its size and the scale of financial contribution from residents, provision for young people in St Neots was poor, with facilities limited and opportunities constrained. He also made reference to the comments made at the Overview & Scrutiny Panel (Performance & Growth) which he agreed with, and commented that engaging with detailed, informed scrutiny was part of good governance. A youth centre was not a threat to vitality, it was a generator as it would provide footfall, life and activity, and reference was made to the fact that the retail unit had been vacant for the previous 3 years. Furthermore, he disagreed with the suggestion that St Neots had its growth needs met through S106 funding, which did not address the cumulative impact of growth across an entire town, advising that this was what CIL was designed for.

 

The Executive Councillor for Communities, Health and Leisure, Councillor Howell made reference to the Community Health and Wealth Building Strategy, particularly the feedback from the community co-production sessions in 2024 which included “make community use of empty units” and “local talent pathways and improved skills offer for young people”. Making use of the vacant building in some way could help align with those sentiments.

 

The Executive Councillor for Finance & Resources, Councillor Mickelburgh commented that the biggest impact of Council funding since 2010 had fallen on youth service provision. His own experiences of youth sport and activity was how well young people responded and got involved in the community. Having the opportunity to be involved with such activities was an important part of development. As such, he was also minded to vote against the Officer recommendation.

 

The Executive Councillor for Economy, Regeneration and Housing, Councillor Wakeford also referenced the harm as a result of cuts to youth service provision. Whilst he was of the opinion that Cabinet would welcome funding, there was a question of approving a bid that had elements of work needing to be completed, including that St Neots Town Council had not engaged with the Council and there was not yet Planning permission. Though he had confidence it was a deliverable project, he expressed anxiety at endorsing expenditure that had not gone according to governance process, however he was open to persuasion as to how to solve that.

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Councillor Sanderson commented on the benefits of youth service provision, however further work needed to be done in terms of the bid. He also referenced the lack of Planning permission, and that St Neots Town Council had not yet engaged with the Council. However, he was open to ideas as to how to make the application work.

 

The Executive Councillor for Parks & Countryside, Waste & Street Scene, Councillor Kerr commented on the importance of finding a location young people could call their own and have a safe space to engage, and encouraged the idea of finding a way to work around the various elements of the bid needed in order to make it viable to approve funding.

 

The Executive Councillor for Governance and Democratic Services, Councillor Harvey was mindful of ensuring governance was followed, however as the bid stood, she was minded not to support going against the Officer recommendation. 

 

The Executive Councillor for Planning, Councillor Sanderson proposed Recommendation J, “to agree officer recommendation at Paragraph 4.9 to refuse funding for the reconfiguration of a retail unit to become a youth centre in St Neots”, which was duly seconded by Councillor Wakeford.

 

In order to help clarify matters, the Deputy Chief Executive and Corporate Director (Place) advised that Cabinet were not bound by the recommendation in front of them. Officers had seen sight of the full bid as submitted and advised accordingly, however the Cabinet were at liberty to take a contrary view if minded. He noted the questions and comments regarding being able to make an approval conditional, and advised there were examples previously where decisions were taken to make bids contingent on certain factors. If Cabinet were minded to make an approval conditional, in practice it would be delegated back to officers with the conditions set out for the applicants and officers would only release funding in accordance with the subsequent agreements made with them. In other cases, where bids were considered lacking in areas, Cabinet had given a steer and a direction of travel had been given to applicants which had come back in front of Cabinet through the governance process.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive and Corporate Director (Place) also clarified that the proposal in front of Cabinet, which had been seconded, was to refuse the application. That matter would have to be concluded to then seek an alternative recommendation. The Chief Executive further clarified that if the vote had a majority against the recommendation to refuse funding and therefore was not carried, there would then be an opportunity to put an amendment forward and be debated, that could then give the conditions Cabinet had questioned regarding whether the bid could be approved, subject to those conditions arising thereon. In the event Cabinet were unable to agree either to support the officer recommendation to refuse, and not have a majority decision on an amendment, that would suggest Cabinet did not have sufficient information before it to make a decision, therefore the logical outcome in that situation would be to consider deferment pending the points raised during the debate.

 

When put to a vote, the recommendation to refuse funding was declared to be lost.

 

The Executive Councillor for Resident Services and Corporate Performance, Councillor Ferguson proposed the following additional recommendation:

 

1)  to support the principle of the allocation of CIL funding towards a youth centre in St Neots;

 

2)  to support in principle the allocation being for a maximum of £500k;

 

3)  agree to a CIL funding award being made, based on 1 and 2, subject to:

 

a.  securing ownership or arrangements to acquire the building, or a suitable alternative;

 

b.  securing planning permission and any other necessary consents to facilitate the works needed to facilitate the youth centre;

 

c.  securing a full commitment from the Town Council towards the proposed scheme; including the identification of and provision of necessary match funding and longer-term funding to ensure the proposal is viable now and in the future;

 

d.  provision of additional information for the scheme to satisfy outstanding concerns such as choice of location, impact on the town centre vitality, assessment of provision of existing and future youth and community spaces, and demonstrate long term viability of the proposal;

 

e.  sufficient information and clarification being presented to Officers to demonstrate satisfactory compliance with all other aspects of our established CIL governance; and

 

4)  delegate the final decision to the Head of Planning, Infrastructure & Public Protection in consultation with the Corporate Director (Place), Leader, Executive Councillor for Finance, and Executive Councillor for Planning to approve a CIL funding award for this project, and determine the final level of CIL funding to be awarded.

The Executive Councillor for Resident Services and Corporate Performance, Councillor Ferguson further commented it would be sensible to put a reasonable timescale for the applicants to satisfy the conditions, and suggested 6 months may be appropriate.

 

The Cabinet were content with the additional recommendation, which satisfied some of the questions and concerns raised earlier in the debate. However, a concern was raised regarding the funding allocation being a “maximum of” £500k and being able to demonstrate best value for money. The Chair, Councillor Conboy sought advice on whether there was an automatic value for money test that would be helpful in allaying this concern.

 

The Deputy Chief Executive and Corporate Director (Place) advised that it was helpful to set a maximum to work within a range, and in terms of doing due diligence over all bids, part of the assessment the team did was looking at the information to justify the figure that was finally settled on. In terms of responding to the bid and hearing the comments the Cabinet had made, there would be enough for officers to craft a response to the application to steer them that the figure was an upper limit, and applicants needed to demonstrate the need for the full costs being applied for. In terms of the final checks and balances, that would be delegated to Officers for a professional assessment of which value for money would form a part. Officers would also consult with Cabinet if concerns remained. . Officers would also write back to the applicants to replicate what had been discussed during the debate.

 

The Cabinet reflected on the contents of the report, commenting that there had been a fair amount of evidence of need in terms of letters of support, population data and public survey and the community interest. Comments were raised around whether there might be an opportunity to do something that might benefit young people in terms of helping them towards employment by giving them practical experience in a commercial setting as well youth facilities.

 

In response to comments from the Chair, the Deputy Chief Executive and Corporate Director – Place advised that the Cabinet could only consider what was before it.

 

The Cabinet were reassured that there would be officer oversight and the proposal would have to comply with CIL framework, so from a governance perspective there were enough safeguards in place.

 

Councillor Ferguson confirmed that the additional recommendation would also include a 6-month timescale for the applicants to satisfy the conditions. The additional recommendation was duly seconded by Councillor Howell.

 

When put to a vote, the additional recommendation was carried.

 

Councillor Davenport-Ray re-entered the room and took back her seat at the meeting.

 

Recommendation K

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Recommendation L

 

The recommendation was approved.

 

Whereupon it was

 

RESOLVED

 

that

 

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

 

b)  any new allocated CIL projects for £100,000.00 or less approved by delegation on 5^th February 2026 (see Appendix 2), be noted;

 

c)  the project to be approved in accordance with Stage 2 CIL governance review with the level of funding to be agreed in line with delegated authority as stated at para 2.5 of the report, be noted;

 

d)  the officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.3 to approve funding for 3 Padel Courts in Huntingdon, be agreed;

 

e)  the officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.4 to approve funding for a construction skills workshop in Huntingdon, be agreed;

 

f)  the officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.5 to approve funding for enhancements and improvements to Paxton Pits, be agreed;

 

g)  the officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.6 to approve funding for relocation of the 6^th form college at Abbey College in Ramsey, be agreed;

 

h)  the officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.7 to approve funding for reconfiguration and refurbishment of the fire station in St Ives, be agreed.

 

i)  the officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.8 to approve funding for the SAPHIRE new constructional skills centre in St Neots, be agreed;

 

k)  the officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.10 to approve funding for the increase of two classrooms for Warboys Primary Academy, be agreed;

 

l)  the officer recommendations at Paragraph 4.11 to approve an extension of time for Wheatsheaf Road, be agreed; and

 

m)  it was agreed to

 

(1)  support the principle of the allocation of CIL funding towards a youth centre in St Neots;

 

(2)  support in principle the allocation being for a maximum of £500k;

 

(3)  a CIL funding award being made, based on (1) and (2), subject to:

 

(a)  securing ownership or arrangements to acquire the building, or a suitable alternative;

 

(b)  securing planning permission and any other necessary consents to facilitate the works needed to facilitate the youth centre;

 

(c)  securing a full commitment from the Town Council towards the proposed scheme; including the identification of and provision of necessary match funding and longer-term funding to ensure the proposal is viable now and in the future;

 

(d)  the provision of additional information for the scheme to satisfy outstanding concerns such as choice of location, impact on the town centre vitality, assessment of provision of existing and future youth and community spaces, and demonstrate long term viability of the proposal;

 

(e)  sufficient information and clarification being presented to Officers to demonstrate satisfactory compliance with all other aspects of our established CIL governance;

 

(f)  all matters being resolved within a period of 6 months (which may be extended by agreement); and

 

(4)  delegated authority for the final decision be given to the Head of Planning, Infrastructure & Public Protection in consultation with the Corporate Director (Place), Leader, Executive Councillor for Finance, and Executive Councillor for Planning to approve a CIL funding award for this project and determine the final level of CIL funding to be awarded.