Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provided an update in relation to the Haringey Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The update included the Strategic CIL and Neighbourhood CIL. The report was introduced by Bryce Tudball, Interim Head of Planning Policy, Transport and Infrastructure as set out in the agenda pack at pages 21 to 26. The Cabinet Member for Housing Services, Private Renters and Planning was also present for this item.  The following arose during the discussion of this report:

a.    The Panel sought assurances around whether the revised CIL charging schedule would result in the Council collecting more CIL money from developers. In response, officers advised that the rate had increased, so that the Council could expect to receive more money provided that the  amount of developments remained the same in future. The amount of CIL collected would depend on the number and location of future developments.

b.    The Chair suggested that the Council should produce a detailed update on the status of CIL money from each development and how that money had been spent. It was suggested that this was something that residents and councillors would both like to know.

c.    The Panel requested clarification around the total spend on C. £34m in the Wood Green Regen project. Officers clarified that this figure related to the full allocation within the Capital budget for that project (rather than the Strategic CIL contributions due). Officers advised that the total project comprised of more projects than was listed in the appendix and that this accounted for the total being £34m.

d.    The Panel requested further elaboration on the methodology for how Neighbourhood CIL was allocated. In response, officers advised that the idea was that money raised in a particular area should, as much as possible, be spend in that area. However, up until the CIL charging schedule was recently updated, the levy in the east of the borough was 11 times less than in the centre of the borough and 14 times less than in the west of the borough. As a result, the revised policy included 10% reallocation to Tottenham to reflect the fact that it had bigger infrastructure requirements.

e.    In terms of the breakdown, the Panel was advised that the neighbourhood CIL was made up of 15% allocation based on the number of developments in that area, 10% reallocation to Tottenham and the rest of the allocation was based on the number of wards in that area.

f.     In response, to a follow-up officers confirmed that developments in other parts of the borough would, in theory, have a proportion of the CIL money reallocated to Tottenham, but that this was not the case in Highgate because it had a neighbourhood plan in place and the CIL money from there was ringfenced as a result. 

g.    In response to a question on the process for instigating a neighbourhood plan, officers advised that there was a substantial piece of work involved in this and that of the three neighbourhood plan areas, only one had actually progressed to a plan for this reason. The key point for the Panel to note was that the neighbourhood plan had to be community led, rather than Council led, and that the first step was to establish a neighbourhood forum comprised of 21 or more people on the electoral register.

h.    In response to a follow-up question, officers advised that a neighbourhood plan would allow 25% of CIL funding to be ringfenced to a particular area and that the Council could then take a decision to reallocate additional funding to that area from elsewhere. 

RESOLVED

Noted.