Agenda item

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Governance Framework

Report OS/20/01 sets out the proposed CIL Governance Framework for thecommittee’s consideration


County Councillor Martin Whybrow has made a request to speak on this item. With the Chairman’s agreement he has been asked to submit a written note or pre-recorded video message to the committee. 





Report OS/20/01 set out the proposed CIL Governance Framework for the committee’s consideration.


Mr James Hammond, Strategic and Policy Senior Specialist, presented this report.  He also gave a presentation which is attached to these minutes. 


As planned two questions provided by Councillor Martin Whybrow were read out by Mr Hammond, after the Chairman had sought affirmation from members. 


The questions and answers are provided below: 


The first question related to (3.5, page 150 of the agenda pack) where the report stated: “the District Council is to prepare an IFS in conjunction with the County Council, and other stakeholders, the scheme prioritisation process for the allocation of CIL spend is to cross-reference the IFS once this document has been prepared and has been endorsed by the District Council”.


Question 1:  What will be the involvement of town and parish councils and elected county, district and town/parish councillors in helping to identify and prioritise schemes for allocation of CIL spend?


The CIL Governance Framework has been drafted to enable a balance of infrastructure to be provided across three broad scales in accordance with prevailing legislation:

  1. Town and parish level infrastructure – through the 15-25% allocation of CIL revenue for the town/parish in which the development occurs;
  2. District-scale infrastructure – projects that could benefit a number of towns and parishes in the district; and
  3. County-level infrastructure within Folkestone & Hythe district – education, waste, transport and other infrastructure provided by Kent County Council within the district.


There is considerable freedom for Parish and Town Councils to spend their proportion of CIL on the things that address the impacts of development on their area.

It is the opinion of officers that the appropriate means of identifying and prioritising the spend of CIL receipts on infrastructure projects shall be through cross-reference to the IDP documents that have already been prepared, and through re-engagement with service providers as part of ongoing work to prepare the first IFS. The IFS document itself will be something of a ‘fact check’ exercise, but presents a real opportunity to set out in a clear and transparent manner the infrastructure that they have, and may be funding, through CIL and section 106 planning obligations.

Nonetheless, it will be important to ensure that town and parish councils and elected county, district and town/parish councillors are kept informed of the key infrastructure items to be captured within the IFS. In terms of opportunities for active participation/engagement in the consideration of what CIL funding could support in terms of local infrastructure needs, the production of a Town or Parish Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) can be a useful starting point for local prioritisation (at the town or parish council level) of infrastructure projects. This is perhaps the best opportunity to allow local infrastructure requirements to be captured within future IFS documents, and which could include prioritisation of future CIL spend on some projects defined at the local scale. The key point is having evidence presented to demonstrate

Those town and parish councils that are in receipt of CIL monies (at the time of writing Hythe town council is the only example), are required to prepare an Annual CIL Report for each financial year (1 April to 31st March) they receive CIL. 

Question 2:  Whether CIL spend will be wholly in the area that it was collected?


For example, will CIL collected from developments in, say, Dymchurch be used solely for schemes in Dymchurch (this is over and above the percentage that is allocated to a town or parish councils) on the basis that it is intended to alleviate the impact of developments on local communities?


It is understood that Cllr Whybrow is referring to the strategic component of collected CIL receipts that is held and where the allocation of spend is controlled by the district council. The purpose of the strategic CIL component is to support the delivery of strategic and local infrastructure improvements on a district wide basis. Given the scale of some items of strategic infrastructure that are needed in order to support development across the district, it is likely that a significant proportion of receipts received in any year will be accumulated for larger projects.

Accordingly, these monies are not proposed to be ‘ring-fenced’ for associated spend in the area in which the CIL receipt arose.  CIL cannot be used to fund solutions to existing problems i.e. traffic calming/management or on repairs to existing infrastructure in an area that hasn’t experienced housing growth.

However, officers are to profile the expected future CIL receipts by town or parish area to provide a broad indication as to what monies could be reasonably expected to be made to the district council each year until 2031, and from that the local apportionment shall flow to town or parish councils. This will give town and parish councils a level of foresight as to the expected flow of CIL monies under the Neighbourhood allocation, and from that the priorities of a Town or Parish Council can responding accordingly within the local Infrastructure Delivery Plan.


Councillor Mullard raised a question regarding a large property development in the ward of St Mary in the Marsh, where, he believes the CIL payment was made to New Romney.  Mr Hammond advised he would look into this query. 


Members raised the following points:


·         Fairness and transparency when allocating funding is paramount.  Internal oversight will be apparent and the IFS statements will set out overall objectives for direction.  The IFS Framework statement is designed for the next ten years however, the Council will carry out annual reviews. 

·         Collaboration with town and parish councils including partners such as coastal community teams and local CCGs to be encouraged in highlighting potential projects for receipt of CIL monies. 

·         Town and parish councils will be offered support by the District Council in identifying allocation of funds into the local community, however the  Council would, ultimately, receive a bigger portion of CIL monies. 

·         Parish wards with a neighbourhood plan are awarded a higher amount of  funding, at present, there is only one ward in the district with a plan. 


Overall members were keen to encourage town and parish councils to carefully consider how CIL funding is spent with the support of the district council.  A gap exists in large housing and infrastructure projects which needs to be rectified.  Ultimately this will mean more houses being built. 


Proposed by Councillor Rebecca Shoob

Seconded by Councillor Gary Fuller and



To receive and note report OS/20/01.


The Chairman sought and received affirmation from all members present.    




Supporting documents: