Agenda item

To consider the reasons for the call-in request relating to the Strategic community Infrastructure Levy Cabinet decision.

Report from the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment.

Recommendations:

1. That Cabinet approves the allocation of Strategic CIL funds to the following project(s):

·       Medical Centres Improvements

·       Trans Pennine Trail Community Access

2.    That Cabinet approves delegation to the Strategic Director of Regeneration and Environment, in consultation with the Cabinet Member for Transport, Jobs and the Local Economy, to establish the process to release funding to the approved project(s) as set out in Section 5 of the report.

Councillor Steele declared a Non-pecuniary interest as a member of the Trans-Pennine Trail in relation to this item.

The Chair noted that this item had been brought forward on the agenda to enable the Leader of the Council to be in attendance. The Leader, Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment and the Assistant Director, Planning, Regeneration and Transport were welcomed.

At the Chairs invitation Councillor A Carter put forward the reasons for calling in this decision. It was noted that twelve projects were put forward for consideration, five were by the Integrated Care Board (ICB) and seven by the Council. It was felt that the discussion during the Cabinet meeting on 10 February 2025 did not explain the allocation of council resources in deciding which projects the council prioritised in progressing forward through the use of the strategic Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). The discussion was limited to what the prioritise were. It was queried what the vision for transport was within the borough, as it was felt that places such as the Todwick roundabout were a big priority because the majority of people travel by car or bus in the more rural areas of the borough. It was felt that the Council prioritised projects that involved cycle lanes and used a large amount of funding and would not provide benefits for the residents.

The Chair invited Councillor Yasseen to present her reasons for supporting the call-in request. It was noted that CIL was not an unrestricted funding stream for desirable projects. It should be used for must-have projects such as schools and GP surgeries. The funding was intended to address the real demand of pressures from aspects such as new housing developments. There was a lack of understanding in how some of the decisions had been made. It was indicated that this was a community led selection process therefore what was the methodology behind which projects were chosen. In Councillor Yasseen’s opinion, if the gateway tests were applied to Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme, it would not fulfil the second test regarding responding to the impact of growth. If Councillor Yasseen were to pick a project, that was community led, it would be the Broome Lane Crossing. This project had a large number of pressures due to the school and the issue regarding children’s safety, however it was noted that it had not been selected.

Councillor Yasseen wanted to understand the distribution of benefits, for example, whilst the investment in the 5 GP surgeries were welcomed, it was queried how they were chosen and was that based upon the distribution of benefit? Was it to address the impact of growth in those communities?

Councillor Yasseen felt that CIL was very defined statutory funding, and the Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme did a disservice to purpose of CIL funding. There was a real impact if aspects such as school expansions, or dental practices were not funded, however it would not affect essential public services if the Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme were not funded.

At the Chair’s invitation the Leader clarified the previous actions, noting that the Strategic CIL was adopted in July 2024 and was published for members information. The policy set out a series of gateway tests that considered aspects such as whether they were infrastructure projects that were funded, if they supported growth delivery, if they had been identified in the local plan or the brownfield register or could be included in the local plan infrastructure delivery plan. It was explained that around 10-15 years ago a document setting out several billion pounds worth of infrastructure requirements in the borough was created. This document included things such as railway bridges, access to service roads, and other projects and included more potential infrastructure need than funding was available for. It was clarified that more weight would be given to projects where match funding was available. There needed to be a clear project delivery plan, and the project was deliverable within five years. At the very least, annual consideration was given to which infrastructure schemes could be brought forward, taking into account, what was developed enough, what could not be funded elsewhere, what potentially had match funding, leading to what was deliverable in the current circumstance.

The Leader explained that the Council approached a number of different partners, agencies, and organisations to ask for their submissions, which were assessed against the set of criteria. As a result of the selection process there would be infrastructure schemes put forward for progress that did not bear any obvious relationship to others. The Leader queried the language used by Councillor A Carter, who had mentioned ineligible schemes including the Todwick roundabout scheme and noted that these were schemes that were not ready for progression at that moment in time. Schemes such as the Todwick roundabout scheme was not in a position to receive funding were placed on a holding list, they were not regarded as ineligible.

The report listed a couple of schemes, which could potentially meet the requirements set out in the policy however it was not proposed to fund those at this time for reasons such as they had not been through a full public consultation process and therefore it would be pre-emptive to agree it ahead of that consultation.

The Leader explained that the presumption in law from the Government that active travel schemes would be given priority and consideration. The Council did not want to build roads between places without the infrastructure to help people move more, which was reflected in the Council’s policies and priorities. Whilst it did not mean that those roads would not get funded, it did mean that priority would be given to active travel schemes. It was clarified that for larger developments that Section 106 funding would be the method through the normal process.

In terms of the GP surgeries, the set of investment in those specific GP surgeries was at the request of NHS colleagues. The Council’s officers had inspected many GP surgeries to create a view about what investment may look like and partners had been asked to consider where their investment priorities would be. Health partners had indicated those surgeries and available funding. The Council had then assessed that package of GP surgery improvements through the process.

The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment explained that documentation had been sent to over one hundred people representing the various infrastructure providers as set out in the July 2024 Cabinet report. Applications were invited. The planning service conducted an appraisal of those because they were independent of delivery. The Council also submitted proposals, and it was clarified that the planning service were independent of delivery structures so carried out an assessment and made recommendations. The process had been reviewed since the initial round and a second round of CIL applications would be progressed in the future. The Council had, had extensive contact with a range of infrastructure providers, which included telecoms, utilities companies, internal council services, and health services.

It was acknowledged that more could be done to inform providers of upcoming application rounds. In order to increase transparency and increase involvement of a wider range of people, the next round of decision making would progress through the Council’s capital programme board which was chaired by the Section 151 Officer. This meant a wider range of people would appraise the schemes prior to submission to Cabinet.

It was clarified that the Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme was deemed to be eligible because there was a policy within the Local Plan promoting access to recreational opportunities and healthy living. The wider purpose of Strategic CIL was to support and enable growth within the borough and a key component of that, as well as the provision of education services, health services, and transport improvement was to enable people, in light of future housing growth, to live healthier lives and to have access to better recreational opportunities.  The Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme was deemed to do that through providing more people with opportunities to access leisure facilities.

The other projects were not deemed to be suitable to proceed, as previously stated they were not at the right stage of readiness and could be considered in future application rounds when the technical details and funding packages had been worked up to a greater extent.

The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that CIL had been in place for nine years and the funding available had increased over that time. Over the past five years, since the Sites and Policies document was adopted and there was sufficient land available for housing growth, the Council had collected around £2 million a year. Assuming that level of growth continued it created the opportunity for further funding rounds to come forward. It was noted that it was not a significant amount of money and unless used wisely, one scheme could use most of the available funding. Cabinet approved the matrix, gateway tests and scoring and when bids were submitted, the planning service were open, fair and transparent in how it scored against those projects, to indicate the same tests were applied independently to each of those schemes.

The Chair invited members of the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board (OSMB) to raise questions and queries on the points raised earlier. From the information provided Councillor A Carter felt the Council and its partners decided which schemes to progress and then went out to consultation. One of their concerns was how residents were able to input into a decision. There was no link between residents and ward members suggesting schemes to getting those schemes brought forward to be progressed by the Council. There was no clarity regarding how a GP or dental surgery would be able to access this funding as it seemed the Council was relying on the ICB to determine that a GP surgery was in need. It was queried how projects got their priority and how the public could become engaged in that process?

The Leader explained it started with the infrastructure necessary for the delivery of homes and employment opportunities in the infrastructure delivery plan. The Council started with a large number of schemes, the Council then developed those schemes, it is partners or private companies. As those schemes attracted core funding from either the Council, the health service, the South Yorkshire Mayor Combined Authority (SYMCA) or private investment, they could then be consulted upon, and the CIL could be used to supplement those schemes upon meeting the relevant criteria.

In terms of GP surgeries, the Council was dependent on health service partners to guide it on where they wanted the investment to be used. Those priorities were formulated against an infrastructure plan against all the other things the Council did. He noted that the Broom Lane crossing may be funded through some of the active travel work undertaken but it would be an interesting test about the requirement of all the funding, the other infrastructure that would need to be build in that location. At some stage following public feedback that scheme may proceed or not, but it was not eligible for the CIL funding at this time.

In Councillor Yasseen’s view the Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme did not meet the requirements. It had been completed in 2004 and had received a lot of funding already. Councillor Yasseen felt that the funding would be better spent for the outcomes of local people, for parks and recreational spaces, Herringthorpe Playing Fields for example. The Council had promised a master plan for there since 2022. There were a lot of recreational areas, green spaces and parks that were more local to where residents lived that would make a bigger difference that on the Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme. Councillor Yasseen felt the Council was not engaging with those who represented the local communities. Councillor Yasseen queried if the surgeries chosen would provide a greater health outcome or meet higher demand needs? Councillor Yasseen indicated the Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme was a bad use of public funds and advised the Council to see it from the perspective of local residents, who experienced gridlocked roads, schools at full capacity, issues accessing GP surgeries and dental surgeries.

Councillor A Carter expressed his support for progression of the GP Surgery schemes but queried if the ICB was a good source of information on where the need was.  The Chair asked the Leader to provide assurances on which bodies it consulted with on public infrastructure and how often schemes were reviewed?

The Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme ran directly past resident’s homes and was used as a local recreational facility, every bit as much as Herringthorpe Playing Fields were, or Rother Valley Country Park and other green spaces within the borough. It was the Council’s responsibility to maintain it. The Leader felt this was just as important as transportation and the scheme was in line with the priorities set out. Regarding Broom Lane, there was no other way of funding at this time, and it did not have a prepared proposal. The Council would need to consider that it looked like, conduct public engagement, how extensive it could be along with the costs before the Council could determine the appropriate way to progress it.

The Leader indicated the Council could not commit to writing to all GP surgeries but would look at what the best way to engage with various parts of the NHS regarding access to GP’s or other elements that may fall within future rounds. The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment highlighted some of the bodies who were engaged, which included water companies, such as Yorkshire Water, Seven Trent, broadband telecoms providers, gas and electric providers, green infrastructure providers, such as Wildlife Trust and Environmental Agency and Natural England. Specifically in relation to health, as well as the Council’s internal public health team, it included the ICB, Sheffield Health, Social Care, Rotherham NHS Foundation Trust, Rotherham NHS primary care and NHS property services. The Strategic Director for Regeneration and Environment committed to looking to widen engagement with the health service and would look to conduct pre-application engagement with infrastructure providers.

Councillor Tinsley queried what was being done to ensure improvements, funding for GP practices was being picked up at a planning stage? The Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the Council had adopted the Developer Contributions Supplementary Planning Document which looked at healthcare provision in more detail.

In relation to the Trans Pennine Trail Community Access scheme Councillor Keenan noted that OSMB was scrutinising decisions for the whole borough and the whole of the borough needed access to wildlife and it was understood that supporting this scheme did not mean that other schemes could not come forward. Councillor Keenan expressed a desire to ensure that engagement was undertaken with different wards to consider infrastructure projects in those areas.

In response the Leader noted that the strategic CIL funding was not a never-ending pot of money however the Head of Planning and Building Control had already explained that more funding was received with each development. The Leader noted that the Trans Pennine Trail was well used by local residents and those from further away.

In a response to Councillor Carter’s questions, the Leader noted that the project list referred to earlier was part of the Local Plan, which was a suite of where development would take place and what infrastructure needed to accompany it. The Local Plan will be reviewed over the coming years and as part of that process, submissions for inclusion would be welcomed. The Head of Planning and Building Control explained the Local Plan was a 15-year document, but an infrastructure delivery funding statement was required every year. There was no requirement to publish the infrastructure delivery list. A new Local Plan would be required due to the increased housing targets. In response to a query from the Chair the Head of Planning and Building Control explained that the Local Plan would be for public consultation, which included all residents and elected members.

Councillor Blackham believed that CIL was becoming more important, therefore it was important that the information was processed and presented in clearer method to indicated where the priorities had come from and what was driving them. The Leader felt there was clarity, in so much as the Council had a Local Plan with a list of infrastructure requirements. It had a policy that said how the Council would apply CIL against those requirements. There was an annual scheme of assessing bids. This process would become clearer as further founds were undertaken. The process was transparent, but consideration would be given as to how it could be presented in the future.

In summary the Leader indicated he had explained the origins of the process, the policy, the relationship to the Local Plan and the need for infrastructure. Two of the schemes had been paused pending further engagement and a decision would be made as to whether they were progressed or not in the future. The Leader stood by the recommendations presented to Cabinet, which were agreed and would not like to change course at this stage of the first allocation of funding and could set back the Council’s ability to fund further infrastructure projects.

In summary Councillor A Carter indicated there was a need to have more of an understanding of where and how projects got to this stage and how the Council prioritised. It was felt further engagement was needed to ensure the strategic CIL was better attuned to residents needs, as the items on the Local Plan might not meet the need to residents. Councillor A Carter asked the OSMB supported the call-in request and asked Cabinet to look again at the decision because appropriate engagement had not taken place, and the current projects did not meet the needs of the residents.

The Chair noted that OSMB had three options available with regard to the call-in. The first was that OSMB did not support the call-in request and therefore the original decision could be implemented. The second was to refer the decision back to the decision maker, Cabinet, for reconsideration, with OSMB setting out the reasons in writing. The third was that OSMB referred the matter to Council for consideration.

Before moving to the vote, the Chair suggested requesting that a Member Seminar be arranged to provide information on the what the Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy was, and the process used for prioritising schemes.

The Chair moved to a vote for those in favour of supporting option two, to refer the decision back to the decision maker, Cabinet, for reconsideration with the additional recommendation for a member seminar.  Four members of the Board voted in favour of supporting option two.  Five members of the Board voted against supporting option two, therefore it fell.

Resolved: that the Overview and Scrutiny Management Board

1.    Did not support the request for call-in, therefore the original decision can be implemented.

2.    Agreed that a Member Seminar be arranged to provide information on the what the Strategic Community Infrastructure Levy was, and the process used for prioritising schemes.