Agenda item

For the reasons set out in the report, the Streets and Environment Sub-Committee is recommended:

1.     To note this report in terms of the timings for projects set out in the Council’s Local Development Scheme; and,

2.     To note the content of this report regarding the Infrastructure Funding Statement 2022/23 and the Infrastructure Funding Statement itself.

The Sub-Committee considered a report set out on pages 69 to 86 of the agenda, which provided an update on the progress of projects set out in the Council approved Local Development Scheme (LDS) together with a summary of the 2022/23 Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS). The Cabinet Member for Planning & Regeneration and Plan Making Team Leader introduced the item and went through a presentation (Appendix D).

Members asked if there had been an increase in the number of complaints about residential extensions since the revocation of the Croydon Suburban Design Guide Supplementary Planning Document 2 (SPD2) in July 2022. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that the Cabinet report concerning the revocation of SPD2 had made clear that a new Supplementary Planning Document would be produced to replace the Household Extensions and Alterations component; since the revocation of SPD2, the Local Plan had been used to make determinations on the basis of character and appearance. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration stated that there had been an increase in enforcement activity as a response to the Mayor’s priorities and this did not necessarily relate to the revocation of SPD2.

The Sub-Committee asked how Croydon’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule compared to similar neighbouring boorughs. Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that comparison with other boroughs could be unhelpful, as the rates were set by the development viability, development costs and market values in each individual borough. Croydon’s CIL charging schedule had been set at £120/m2 in 2013 and indexed annually.

Members asked what proportion of CIL was successfully collected and heard that CIL only became payable on the commencement of development. For this reason, it was extremely uncommon for CIL not be collected, as there was enforcement available through planning ‘Stop Notices’ or liability orders from Civil Courts. As CIL was not an unknown cost, it was factored into the viability of development by developers. The Sub-Committee asked if there had been a reduction in CIL collected over recent years and the Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that this was the case, as CIL was linked to the market and developer activity.

The Chair asked about the timeline for the consultant’s review of the CIL charging schedule. The Plan Making Team Leader explained that the timeline had slipped due to a priority focus on the review of the Local Plan. Members heard that the consultant’s report had been completed and work on the CIL charging schedule would resume in the near future.

Members asked for more detail on the process of reviewing Conservation Area Appraisal and Management Plans (CAAMP). The Plan Making Team Leader explained that there would be initial consultations with residents, followed by walkabouts, and drafting of the documents. Once the document was completed, there would be a further consultation and a statutory requirement for a public meeting. Responses from this consultation and public meeting would be analysed and then the CAAMPs were adopted as supplementary planning documents following approval from Full Council.

The Chair asked if there were more transparent ways for residents to see how much CIL was being collected and spent. Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that the CIL charging schedule was published on the Council website, as was the Infrastructure Funding Statement. It was acknowledged that there was not a great deal of press around this but the Cabinet Member for Planning and Regeneration stated that CIL was discussed during regular meetings with residents associations.

The Sub-Committee asked about the ramifications of delays to the production of the Local Development Scheme (LDS). The Plan Making Team Leader explained that the Local Plan remained on track to be adopted by the end of 2025; it was acknowledged that some of the other documents were delayed as a result of the Local Plan taking priority, as well as staffing issues and legislative changes requiring the production of additional evidence. A detailed timeline to plan the production of the additional documents was being produced to identify ‘pinch points’ and ensure that both these and the Local Plan were not delayed.

The Chair asked about unallocated CIL and what was being done to ensure this was spent. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that some funds where always kept available for future funding years to account for the fact that CIL collection was determined by development activity. The Sub-Committee were advised that the full budget papers would make clear that there was a requirement that £6.4 million a year be available to support the Capital Programme. As a result of this, there was a cautiousness in allocating CIL to ensure that enough was available to support the Capitol Programme and corporate budget position. The Chair asked about the possibility of increasing councillor access to CIL, possibly through Ward Budgets. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration responded that borough CIL was about supporting the Capital Programme on projects that mitigated growth set out in the Local Plan; the ‘Local Meaningful Proportion’ was used to support communities, where appropriate, accounting for Councillor’s suggestions (and previously by Ward Budgets). It was explained that it was strongly encouraged that officers bringing forward projects, resulting from Council endorsed strategies or engagement with communities, first access Section106 funds as this may have a time constraint or be limited to a specific location. The Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that this approach was taken to try to balance the funding to communities and projects through the three different funding streams.

The Chair asked about unspent funds on projects set out in Table 2 on page 82 of the agenda. Head of Spatial Planning, Growth Zone and Regeneration explained that it was the responsibility of the individual project officers to spend the funds once they had been allocated. The Chair asked for a written response explaining why funds had not been spent on CIL Local Meaningful Proportion funded projects. Members asked if CIL had ever been lost due to not being spent on time, and heard that there were no time allocations or restrictions on the spending of CIL funds.

Members asked where the Council’s priorities for spend on infrastructure and affordable housing were set out. The Plan Making Team Leader explained that the Infrastructure Delivery Plan was produced on a yearly basis and was produced following information from infrastructure providers informing the Council what infrastructure they needed to align with the Local Plan to deliver development over its lifetime. When bids were received for CIL or Section106, officers looked to the Infrastructure Delivery Plan to ensure that these aligned with other programmes. Members heard that affordable housing sat outside of the CIL programme.

The Chair asked how sites for ‘On Street Secure Cycle Hangers’ had been determined. The Director of Planning & Sustainable Regeneration explained that resident requests had been collated, and once there were sufficient requests for an area site visits would be undertaken to determine viability. The Chair asked how the availability of the scheme had been communicated to residents, and heard that this had been done through the Council website.

Requests for Information

1. The Sub-Committee requested information on the four projects with unspent funding relating to Table 2 (CIL Local Meaningful Proportion projects & amounts allocated or spent for 2022/23, page 82), as well as the money not spend on Vehicle Charging Points (Table 3, Summary details of infrastructure that has been allocated but not spent during 2022/23, page 84).

2. The Sub-Committee requested information detailing the schemes or planning references for the 115 new affordable homes secured through Section106 agreements in 2022/23; as well as information on the amount of unspent Section106 monies at the end of 22/23 related to affordable housing and information on how this related to the wider Housing Strategy.

3. The Sub-Committee requested a summary of the details of each project from Table 4 (Items of infrastructure on which that money was spent, and the amount spent on each item, page 85).

Conclusions

1. The Sub-Committee acknowledged that the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule and Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) were both published on the Council website, but encouraged officers to think about additional ways to communicate with Members and residents about where and how CIL was being spent.

Recommendations

The Sub-Committee recommended that the Council consider ways to engage residents to determine their views on where they would like to see Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) spent in the borough, and for stronger communication with residents around CIL schemes such as the ‘On Street Secure Cycle Hangers’.