Agenda item

This task group has been requested by the Scrutiny Members to ensure Brent Council is achieving the best financial outcomes for the borough with its current CIL and section 106 agreements.  The purpose of the task group is to analyse and the current CIL and S106 processes with a view to ensuring that communities and councillors are engaged in the making of funding decisions. The review was concerned with the CIL and S106 policies, engagement with communities and members and funding collection and allocation.  The review also focused on the future of planning in Brent and looked at the South Kilburn development.

The report from the Director of Performance, Policy and Partnerships advised that the Scrutiny Committee had established a task group on Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 to ensure the council was achieving the best financial outcomes for the borough with its current agreements, to analyse and the current processes with a view to ensuring that communities and councillors were engaged in the making of funding decisions.

The task group chair, Councillor Farah, in introducing the task group report, advised that the review was concerned with the CIL and S106 policies, engagement both with communities and members, funding collection and allocation.  The review focused on the future of planning in Brent and looked at the South Kilburn development and the aim was to get the best outcomes. Meetings had taken place with officers, the voluntary sector and with developers at South Kilburn and he hoped the recommendations would be taken forward.

Mr Faraz Baber (Sudbury resident and task group member) outlined the challenges faced by the task group in understanding how CIL receipts were collected and the process for distribution. There was difficulty in establishing accountability and assuring residents that they would gain.  He felt there was a need for a clear plan and understanding how developers could help Brent develop positively particularly in coming years with decreased government grants. Mr Baber drew a connection between CIL and development management policies discussed earlier in the evening and felt there was a need for early discussions between developers and members over development proposals. Members noted that staff changes had caused some delay in getting information.

The committee heard that the task group members had discussed the difference between CIL and S106 funding and the view was put that S106 had a wide remit and clear and transparent information should be available to Planning Committees when they were making decisions. Regarding affordable housing, the 50% target was not being met and it was suggested that the council could decide to place greater emphasis on S106 to help achieve the target. Councillor Mashari (Lead Member, Regeneration and Growth, Employment and Skills) advised that efforts were being made to recruit staff to lead on CIL.

The committee commended the work and commitment of the Sudbury local residents, asked how lessons learned could be communicated to other areas through Brent CONNECTS and workshops and it was suggested that a route map be prepared and circulated. Members heard that a presentation and check list were already available and on the council’s website and it was suggested that information be circulated to support ward discussions. The committee discussed the former ward working funding as an alternative vehicle and were reminded that CIL had the advantage of being for the entire ward instead of for successful community group bidders.

The committee discussed recommendation 26 in the task group report which suggested that consideration be given to creating independent review experts to advise the Planning Committee on some of the more complicated and difficult planning applications in particular, existing planning department expertise and the proposals for funding and the committee agreed that information be obtained on best practice on independent advisers for Planning Committees, replacing the need for this recommendation.

Regarding recommendation 23, it was proposed that council planning negotiators ensure that agreements are aligned with council priorities in order to take full advantage of future development/ regeneration opportunities, the committee suggested that Lead Members should have oversight. The committee also suggested an addition to Recommendation 8 concerning voluntary sector involvement, that all members be offered advice and training.

RESOLVED:

(i)         that the consider the contents of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) and Section 106 task group’s report be noted;

(ii)        that the recommendations made by the task group be approved and the development of an action plan across the council and partner organisations to take these forward be supported, subject to:

The addition to recommendation 8 that training and guidance to be up to standard; the addition to recommendation 23 that portfolio holders have oversight; and deletion of recommendation 26;

(iii)       that a progress report against the recommendations be submitted in six months’ time.