There were no apologies for absence.

To receive any disclosure by Members of personal and disclosable pecuniary interests in matters on the agenda, the nature of any interest and whether the Member regards the personal interest as prejudicial under the terms of the Code of Conduct.  Members are reminded of the need to repeat their declaration immediately prior to the commencement of the item in question.

There were no declarations of interest.

It was clarified there were no further matters arising.

At the last meeting, the Community Infrastructure Levy Steering Group (CILSG) considered the differences between the Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Community Grants Scheme (CGS) criteria.  As a result, Members requested that officers carried out a comparison exercise on how many projects in the past two years had been awarded funding from the CGS which might have also met the criteria for funding from Strategic CIL.

The Council’s CGS supported the development of community facilities, community activities and sustainable local action and applications were welcomed from voluntary or community organisations with an annual budget of £130,000 (funded from Earmarked Reserves).  The CGS was split into three levels of funding, from small grants under £500 up to a maximum grant of £30,000.  A scoring template was used to ensure that all applications were fairly assessed, with the CGS Grants Panel recommending to Cabinet which projects should be supported.

Appendix 1 to the report detailed the community grants awarded from 1 April 2018 to 31 March 2020.  It was noted that potentially six projects might have been suitable for Strategic CIL funding (one was below the current CIL threshold of £100,000); and seven projects might have been suitable for Local CIL funding (subject to consideration by the respective parish/town council).

Analysis of CGS projects which might have qualified for Strategic CIL identified that projects with a total value of above £30,000 totalled £506,115 and projects with a total value under £30,000 totalled £164,957.

Strategic CIL that was retained by the Council could be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure such as transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals and other health and social care facilities, but not affordable housing as set out in the relevant regulations.  The Council must spend CIL on infrastructure needed to support the development of the district which would be informed by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan.

Where all or part of a chargeable development was within the area of a parish or town council, the Council would need to pass on a proportion of the CIL receipts, this was known as Local CIL.  CIL receipts must be used to support the development of the Parish or Town Council’s area by funding the provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure; or anything else that was concerned with addressing the demands that development placed on the area.  Provided that it met requirements, Local CIL could be spent on a wider range of projects than that of Strategic CIL e.g. affordable housing or environmental improvements etc.  Similar projects would fall within the scope of the CGS.

During the debate the following key issues were noted:

·       Members were reminded that £130,000 from Earmarked Reserves was not sustainable.  Important to source other funding opportunities to ensure that this level of funding was retained in the future.

·       It was considered important to retain the CGS, as it not only supported larger projects but also supported smaller community non-strategic projects e.g. local scout and guide groups etc.

·       All organisations would be required to  ...  view the full minutes text for item CIL20/20

At the last meeting, the Chairman of the Community Infrastructure Levy Steering Group (CILSG) proposed several changes to the current governance arrangements and Funding Decision Protocol for the allocation of funds from Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL).  Officers were tasked with considering the Chairman’s proposals and the report detailed the response.  It was also suggested that the Membership of the CIL Officer Group include Members.

Strategic CIL retained by the Council could be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure such as transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals and other health and social care facilities, but not affordable housing.  The Council must spend CIL on infrastructure needed to support the development of the district which would be informed by the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP).

Appendix 1 to the report illustrated the new proposal for the sub-division of the Strategic CIL funds into three specific allocation areas, as follows:

·       Special Projects Fund (SPF): To apportion 55% of the Strategic CIL to fund projects across the district (those areas outside the parish of Bexhill) where the Council considered an infrastructure improvement or project.  Applications must demonstrate how their infrastructure proposal met the Council’s Local and Corporate Plan objectives and be identified as critical infrastructure within the IDP.

·       Distribution Fund (DF): To apportion 40% of the Strategic CIL to fund projects across the district (anywhere outside of the parish of Bexhill) and the amount requested be match-funded and only used in parishes or towns where housing was allocated.  In addition, projects that could demonstrate wider infrastructure impact could receive between 75% and 100% of funding.  Applicants must demonstrate a prioritised infrastructure plan and allocated funding would not be greater than the total Strategic CIL generated by the parish or town.

·       Climate Change Fund: To apportion 5% of Strategic CIL in support of the Council’s commitment to be a carbon neutral district by 2030 and fund climate change projects across Rother.

Over an agreed period, monies not allocated from the DF would be transferred to a Residual Fund.  To be apportioned for use in areas where large Community Land Trusts, exceptions sites or affordable housing schemes had been developed and were exempt from CIL.  This fund could also be made available to applications that were eligible for Community Grant Scheme (CGS) funding or considered within the Strategic CIL infrastructure definition and could not be funded through Local CIL or other funding sources.

It was proposed that both the SPF and DFs were only used against agreed priority infrastructure projects as per the Infrastructure List (IL) and that firm funding commitments were only made against actual funds received by the Council.  The minimum allocation would be £30,000.  It was also noted that the Council would not have to take out loans to fund CIL projects against reserves.

The IL was a statement of the infrastructure projects or types of infrastructure that the Council intended would, might, wholly or partly be funded by CIL.  This was a requirement of the Infrastructure Funding Statement  ...  view the full minutes text for item CIL20/21

There were no any other business items proposed.

It was agreed that the next meeting of the Community Infrastructure Levy Steering Group be held in June 2021, date to be confirmed.