Agenda item

The Panel received a report which provide an update on the Haringey Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL), including both 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 27 to 34. The following arose as part of the discussion of this item:

1. The Panel queried why there were differing CIL rates across different areas of the borough and questioned whether these were due to be updated to reflect appreciating land values. In response, officers advised that the CIL rates were set based on viability evidence and that evidence showed that viability was higher in the west and central parts of the borough. The CIL rates were relooked at in 2017 and an increase in CIL rates in the east of the borough was subsequently introduced. Officers advised that the CIL rates across the borough were at around the maximum level without putting future development at risk.
2. In response to a question, officers advised that legislation permitted an area that had adopted a neighbourhood plan to retain 25% of the CIL receipts generated in that area. This was in contrast to around 15% of Neighbourhood CIL being redistributed to areas that did not have an adopted plan.
3. The Panel sort clarification about the amount of money generated in the east versus the west of the borough, given differing CIL rates and a general lack of development in the west of the borough. In response, officers acknowledged that the levels of development differed across the borough and that the majority of CIL generated came from the east and centre of the borough. Officers contended that it was fair that the majority of CIL revenue should be spent in those areas. Officers advised that NCIL had a redistributive element to ensure that areas that had the most development received a higher proportion of CIL funding.
4. In response to a follow-up question, officers set out that the evidence base showed that CIL rates were about right in the west of the borough and that it shouldn’t be the CIL rates that detracted from development. Instead, the relative lack of development was ascribed to the fact that there were very few development opportunities in the west of the borough. The Neighbourhood Plan would be looking at how to increase these development opportunities.
5. The Panel sought clarification around Schools Streets and whether these could be implemented anywhere across the borough. In response, officers advised that Strategic CIL could be spend anywhere in the borough and that this included School Streets, along with a number of other walking and cycling projects and road danger reduction projects that were being developed across different parts of the borough.
6. In relation to the proposed Crouch End Neighbourhood Plan, officers advised that some funding to support this was allocated in 2022, however the neighbourhood forum were not quite ready at that point. Officers advised that the Council recognised that the money for this area needed to be spent and it was hoped that this would be allocated towards the end of the year at the next round of Neighbourhood CIL allocation. 
7. In response to a question about who got to chose how the funding was spent in an area without a neighbourhood forum, officers advised that funding was ringfenced in areas with neighbourhood forums. The neighbourhood forums were consulted on how the money was spent but they did not take the decision. Instead, there should be a wider engagement exercise with residents. The allocation of NCIL funding in areas without a neighbourhood plan (just as for those with a neighbourhood plan), would still be subject to a process of engagement but would ultimately be a decision taken by Cabinet.
8. The Panel sought clarification about whether the amount of unallocated CIL money remained at £1.74m. In response, officers advised that the amount of unallocated CIL money as of 2022 was £1.74m but that further money would have been accrued since then. Some work was needed on the CIL approach following changes to ward boundaries.
9. In response to a question about participatory budgeting and the role of VCSOs, the Panel was advised that there was no agreed approach to participatory budgeting at present and that as the money related to infrastructure projects, it would be Council-led as per the relevant statutory framework.
10. In response to a comment, officers challenged the assertion that the majority of CIL spending was in one area. Officers set out that there was an allocation of parks funding in 2020 and that the projects were spread across different areas of the Council. It was emphasised that the allocation of CIL was part of an engagement process with residents.
11. In relation to a question about changes to ward boundaries, officers set out that the starting point would be to respect the boundaries of existing neighbourhood forums, both in Highgate and those in development.
12. The Panel commented that Camden and other neighbouring boroughs had higher CIL rates than Haringey. In response officers advised that Camden had higher levels of viability and so had higher CIL rates. Overall, it was suggested, Haringey was broadly in-line with its statistical neighbours. Officers also emphasised that CIL was just one of several ways in which developers provided contributions to local authorities. The other main example was Section 106 money, which included provision of affordable housing.
13. The Panel questioned whether any consideration had ben given to having variable CIL rates depending on the size of developments. Officers responded that this had been given consideration in the past but that the government had been clear that local authorities should not seek to jeopardise smaller sites by seeking to extract additional developer contributions.
14. In response to a question, officers advised that government guidance sets out that strategic CIL should be spend on projects in the capital programme, and that these were quite broad in scope and also aligned with the Council’s political priorities

RESOLVED

That the Panel noted the report.