CIL funding personnel. - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Take a look at a recent lively - what 's meant by infrastructure - debate in another CIL PAS forum "Feeding back to DCLG" For me infrastructure for planning purposes is related to structures, facilities, works (of a public nature) needed to support the local economy/community. Others may think of it in a wider sense beyond any Dictionary definition of infrastructure.

The explanatory note that accompanies the CIL Regulations 2010 states that ‘Infrastructure is defined in section 216(2) of the [Planning 2008] Act (see below). 216 Application (2) In subsection (1) “infrastructure” includes— (a) roads and other transport facilities, (b) flood defences, (c) schools and other educational facilities, (d) medical facilities, (e) sporting and recreational facilities, and (f) open spaces. I tend to agree with the views of ‘106 rulez’ that infrastructure is related to structures, facilities and works (of a public nature) that underpin the Local Plan. Para 13 of the 2012 CIL Guidance states: “Information on the charging authority area’s needs should be directly related to the infrastructure assessment that underpins their relevant Plan, as that planning identifies the quantum and type of infrastructure required to realise their local development and growth needs.” This includes a footnote with reference to para 162 of the NPPF which states: Infrastructure 162. Local Planning Authorities should work with other authorities and providers to: •Assess the quality and capacity of infrastructure for transport, water supply, wastewater and its treatment, energy (including heat), telecommunications, utilities, waste, health, social care, education, flood risk and coastal change management, and its ability to meet forecast demands; and •Take account of the need for strategic infrastructure including nationally significant infrastructure within their areas. I personally don’t see how this can cover personnel. In respect of the meaningful proportion passed to neighbourhoods, the spending of CIL is more flexible (see Reg 59C(b) below) which could potentially allow for funding to be directed to police resource. However, this is at the discretion of the ‘neighbourhood’ and doesn’t need to be stipulated in a Reg 123 List. Reg 59C of the CIL Regs: Application of CIL by local councils: 59C. A local council must use CIL receipts passed to it in accordance with regulation 59A or 59B to support the development of the local council’s area, or any part of that area, by funding – (a) The provision, improvement, replacement, operation or maintenance of infrastructure; or (b) Anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area.

I should also mention that para 12 of the CIL Overview document states: What is infrastructure? The Planning Act 2008 provides a wide definition of the infrastructure which can be funded by the levy, including transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities. This definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities such as play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities. This gives local communities flexibility to choose what infrastructure they need to deliver their development plan. The onus of this paragraph is very much on physical improvements i.e. to facilities rather than personnel. Hope that helps.

I'm not sure if it's in the regulations, but is there potentially an implication from the recent guidance re the 'golden thread' from Infrastructure Delivery Plan through to the rates when charge-setting? e.g. authorities have to demonstrate a funding gap in order to charge CIL, based on their IDP (even though the CIL doesn't get anywhere close to filling said gap). The IDP and funding gap have to take account of known funding sources, which should include government grant funding. Therefore a question to be answered could be whether or not police officers are already funded through govt. grant, even if that grant is reducing. I've heard the same argument applied to health centres and even schools. Personally, I think you would struggle to justify levying a CIL for the purpose of funding police posts, if hypothetically that was the only reason you were charging. That said, once the CIL is in place, there doesn't seem to be any ongoing link back to the IDP / funding gap and the rules seem to be very flexible, except that CIL must be spent to support development. Your task at that stage would be to prove that the funding of police officers would support development (rather than just filling the gap left by budget cuts, for example).

The CIL Reg 2013 (Amends 2010 Regs Part 7) NB: not yet adopted into statute but clearly set out latest DCLG thinking on the matter... 59C (b) and 59F (3)(b) will allow Communities to use their 25% of CIL and Charging Authorities (where a community Plan is not in place), to use 15% of CIL to fund "(b) anything else that is concerned with addressing the demands that development places on an area". Assuming this makes it into Legislation I think "anything else" is pretty self-explanatory. I am trying to use this to fund more front line Police Officers.