Agenda item
Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL) 21/6/23
Minutes:
The Committee noted that the decision made by the Mayor in Cabinet on Cabinet - Wednesday, 21st June 2023 in respect of agenda item 6.2 ‘Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL)’ was ‘called in’ under the Overview and Scrutiny Committee Procedure Rules of the Council’s Constitution by (‘Call-in Members’).
Accordingly, the Committee considered:
• the Cabinet Report Wednesday, 21st June 2023on the ‘Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy (NCIL).
• the Mayor in Cabinet Decision published on 23rd June 2023.
• the “call in” requisition from the Call-in Members (dated 29th June 2023).
• representations by the Call-in Members; and
• representations from Councillor Kabir Ahmed (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Inclusive Development and Housebuilding).
The Committee also noted that thedecision, published on 23rd June 2023 had:
1. Approve the revised Local Infrastructure Initiatives Programme consisting of LIF Programmes 1-3 as set out in paragraph 3.9-3.11 and Appendix 1 of the report.
2. Note the return of £17.285m of LIF from discontinued projects from LIF Programmes 1-3 to the main NCIL pot.
3. Approve the proposed NCIL implementation framework for decision making on the allocation of future NCIL set out in paragraph 3.12 (Table 3) of the report to ensure that spending of NCIL remains in accordance with CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended).
4. Approve the proposed NCIL allocations of £20.456mfor 2023-24 to 2025/26 set out in paragraph 3.13 a-c of the report.
5. Note that decisions on project level allocations of NCIL on an annual basis to Capital Programme and Affordable Housing schemes, will be made via the Council’s standard Capital Programme governance process up to Cabinet.
6. Note that decisions on the allocation of NCIL to individual grants will be made via the existing Council Grants process set out in the Cabinet Paper approved on the 29th of March 2023 Cabinet meeting.
7. Delegate approval of detailed PIDs and change notes for individual projects remaining to be delivered through LIF Programmes 1 – 3 to the Director, Planning & Building Control following consultation with the Mayor and Chief Executive.
8. Note the Equalities Impact Assessment / specific equalities considerations as set out in Paragraphs 4.1-4.4 of the report.
The decisions above have been Called-In by Councillors Sirajul Islam, Sabina Akhtar, Shubo Hussein, Amy Lee, James King. This is in accordance with the provisions of the Overview and Scrutiny Procedure Rules of the Council’s Constitution.
In addition, the Committee noted the following alternative course of action proposed in the call-in:
- Revisit the consultation process associated with the report on the grounds that it is unconstitutional Part A, Article 3, Section 1, Subsection b, ‘This decision does not seem to have been taken with due and proper consultation.’
- Ensure that consultation has taken place with affected groups such as neighbourhood forums and community groups and rewrite the consultation process to use neighbourhood forums/plans as the primary consultation method (in areas without forums/plans conduct targeted community consultation) to ensure that the report is line with government guidance on s106 funding.
- Pause the cancellation of the s106 projects listed at appendix 1b of the report on the grounds that it is in contravention to Part A, Article 3, Section 1, Subsections a, and e of the Borough of Tower Hamlets Constitution:
v This decision does not seem proportionate to the desired outcomes; and
v There is a lack of clarity of aims and desired outcomes.
- Assessing the cancelled schemes to ensure that they do not already in line with the Council’s strategic plan as this was the given reason at 1.2. for bringing the paper to cabinet.
- Under the proposed method for consultation some of the cancelled schemes at appendix.1b would also continue to qualify for NCIL funding as they align with the issues identified in the ARS and asking for re-submission seems incoherent for best use of resources and officer time.
- Cabinet should re-assess whether any of these schemes would fit into the new NCIL programme and revise its blanket cancellation of the schemes at appendix 1b adding more schemes to the list at appendix 1a where appropriate.
- Investigate as to whether the cancellation of certain schemes may have equality/statutory implications and subsequently; ensure residents with protected characteristics will receive like for like earmarked funding so they are not disproportionately affected by any decision to cancel schemes e.g., funding for accessible play equipment, dropped curbs etc.
The Call-in Members then presented to the Committee their reasons for the call-in and above-mentioned alternative course of action, and a summary of the points raised is summarised as follows:
v The projects that have been cancelled were nominated by residents, these infrastructure projects are for the benefit for local people and have achieved wider support. E.g. (i) the six-year campaign to bring back the famous statue and repair Frank Dobson Square in Bethnal Green; (ii) the regeneration of Roman Road West to provide a sustainable revitalisation of the high street to be delivered in partnership with the wider community; and enhanced street cleaning around Mile End Underground Station. However, the funding for these schemes has now been cancelled, with little to no explanation from the Council.
v It was felt that the Council has ignored residents and that the community should not be allowed to decide where money should be spent in their neighbourhoods e.g., instead increasing investment in the infrastructure that will underpin the transition to a greener economy there has been reduction to many recycling local projects.
In conclusion, the Committee was asked to recommend to the Executive that they (i) re-assess whether any of these schemes would fit into the new NCIL programme; (ii) revise the blanket cancellation of the schemes as set out in appendix 1b of the report adding more schemes to the list in appendix 1a of the where appropriate; (iii) investigate as to whether the cancellation of certain schemes may have equality/statutory implications and subsequently; ensure residents with protected characteristics will receive like for like earmarked funding so they are not disproportionately affected by any decision to cancel schemes e.g., funding for accessible play equipment, dropped curbs etc.
The Committee then posed a number of questions summarised as follows concerning:
v Was not the current administrations manifesto a contract with the electorate that had outlined the visions and policies that made up the program for delivering what residents wanted i.e. What is implemented in 2023 reflects the will of the people as expressed in the election in 2022.?
v The NCIL is intended to provide a framework for the meaningful participation of local communities to support development by participating in local investment in infrastructure, and to address the demands that development places on an area. Therefore, when the Local Infrastructure Initiatives Programme was revised did the Council go back to those communities that would be affected; residents given enough time to respond and was there sufficient time given to analyse the results, evaluate the process and consider their views before any decision was made?
v A significant number of the cancelled schemes were concerned with the borough’s environmental commitments (e.g., active travel, park creation and recycling) which is a concern as Tower Hamlets consistently ranks amongst the worst authorities in the country for its air quality and recycling rates.
v Communities should be consulted on how to spend the levy revenues arising from the development that takes place in their area. The Council and communities must consider how NCIL funding can be used to deliver any infrastructure development.
v The guidance on NCIL requires the Council to engage with the local communities before deciding on how to spend the NCIL and ensure that expenditure reflects the priorities as expressed by the local people.
The Cabinet Member for (Cabinet Member for Regeneration, Inclusive Development and Housebuilding) Councillor Kabir Ahmed then provided his response:
v As mentioned at Full Council on the 19th of July 2023 the Local Plan the was adopted in 2020 is currently under a full review, including assessing the effectiveness of all policies, and drafting new policies where required.
v The direction of policies will be underpinned and informed by, national and regional policy requirements, local objectives, new evidence base and consultation and engagement with all Tower Hamlets’ communities.
v Key milestones for the review of a Local Plan are early engagement on issues and policy proposals which will be considered at Cabinet in October 2023.
v The Officers assessing NCIL bids will follow the same process as under the previous administration that will include the (i) range and scale of benefits to the local community; (ii) robustness of project plan and delivery time limits; and (iii) project viability and value for money.
v Projects will need relate to one or more of the identified community priorities or Neighbourhood plan priorities.
v Projects must achieve a long-lasting sustainable outcome by benefiting the local and/or wider community in the Borough. This must provide evidence of improvements for borough residents.
v As a resource for the Council NCIL income provides indirect positive impacts in the medium to longer term on groups with protected characteristics in the borough. The infrastructure and services that CIL will provide ?for example schools, health and community facilities, improvements to green open spaces, climate change mitigation and adaption, public transport improvements, more accessible stations and healthy routes for walking and cycling? will enhance accessibility and liveability of all sectors of society. All infrastructure that is wholly or partly funded by CIL benefits the whole borough, and this in turn has the potential to create positive impacts for those with protected characteristics. There may be particular benefits for those with disabilities, older people, parents, and children, and those on lower incomes.
v The Council will use existing engagement/consultation processes to gather views on what the local people consider to a be priority for local infrastructure improvements within their local neighbourhoods. The Council conducts an Annual Residents Survey (ARS) to gather residents’ feedback on the Council, local area, and the quality of the services.
v The survey has the advantage of being based on statistically representative sampling. The data from the survey can be broken down by ward which makes it a useful tool to help determine priorities at a neighbourhood level.
v The NCIL allocations will be informed by the residents’ feedback through that survey. The top concerns would be used to inform the NCIL allocations for capital projects for that year using neighbourhood level statistics to ensure local priorities are being addressed.
v Whilst the NCIL regulations do not specify a specific process for agreeing how NCIL should be spent, the Council’s chosen public engagement approach will ensure that the use of NCIL funds aligns to the priorities expressed by local communities, including those set out formally in the neighbourhood plans.
v There are in addition to NCIL funding a wide range of grants and funding options available to residents of Tower Hamlets that are administered by the Council and projects can be considered for funding through these other funding options on a project-by-project basis (e.g. Cycle Hangers) and where value for money is proven, the Council will be investing in such schemes.
v At the last Full Council, a petition had been received regarding curbs to infrastructure Projects asking the Council to reserve its decision to cut NCIL funding for infrastructure projects and that it was vital funding for projects that had already been approved were implemented. It was noted that some of the projects that had been approved had been nominated by less than twenty people and as such the administration was reviewing the projects to which NCIL money had been allocated.
v The Government’s wants the Council to increase recycling rates and reduce carbon emissions by aligning household waste recycling and non-household municipal waste that is household-like. Accordingly, the Council will need to look at if recycling material streams where separate collection of recyclable materials is not technically or economically practical or does not provide a significant environmental benefit.
v The Council has seen the amount of waste recycled by its residents drop steadily over the last four years. Accordingly, the Council will be redirecting resources within the overall budget so as to reinforce (i) infrastructure work, (ii) public realm works; and (iii) the Boroughs recycling and green agenda as part of the regeneration of the Borough and to support the needs of the residents of the Borough.
v The projects referenced earlier it is felt do not offer value for money and as funds are not infinite they need to be directed to address those neighbourhood priorities that will have the widest community impact and offer the best value for money will be prioritised.
A summary of the committee’s response is set out below:
v Council finances are in a challenging position as the government tightens the squeeze on local budgets, services either vanish or are scaled down dramatically.
v Decent, well-resourced public services are essential for the Borough as they are a driver of economic growth and provide the fabric that holds local communities together. The budget therefore needs to be put on a sustainable basis, to manage costs within the amount of revenue received. This is particularly important in an environment where there is uncertainty of future revenue sources, and dependence on grant revenue. The Council needs to commit to services over the longer term, especially those infrastructure projects are for the benefit for local people and have achieved wider support.
v The Council must manage its costs to ensure that it does not spend more on these services over time than they earn from rates, grants, and fees and charges. Having the right information on costs will allow the Council to make informed decisions on how to decide which services and the level of services to provide to the community and to improve a council’s financial position.
v The Councils current financial position is a serious issue and one that should be subject to further scrutiny.
v There needs to be transparency and accountability in this process for the benefit of obviously the residents and their communities.
As a result of a full and wide-ranging discussions, the Chair moved, and it was RESOLVED that the decision be reaffirmed.
Supporting documents: