Members considered the recommendations from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Spending Board.  The Chairman of the Board addressed Cabinet on this item and explained the decisions made in respect of each application.

 

The Planning Policy Team Leader explained that the process for CIL applications was working well and that recent feedback from an independent body had been excellent for the process.  The Chairman thanked her, the team and the Chairman of the Board for their efforts.

 

Public Sector Equality Duty

Members noted that consideration had been given to impacts under the Public Sector Equality Duty.

 

Resolved:  That

 

A.     i) The £158,000 applied for, as set out in the report, for sports hall and     facilities at the Orchards Academy sports and Hall facilities at Swanley be approved on the following grounds:

 

·         strong social and economic benefits to the community;

·         the project was identified in an adopted strategy/plan;

·         sufficient evidence had been submitted to demonstrate a strong link between new development and the scheme.

·         strong community benefit.

·         there was strong community support of the scheme.

 

subject to a legal agreement being signed within 6 months of the decision date (or such further time as may be agreed between the parties) which shall require as conditions of payment that:

 

·        planning permission had been granted for the project

·        a community use agreement had been entered into.

 

ii) if the legal agreement was not signed in accordance with the above then funding applied for would be refused for:

 

·         failure to ensure the effective management of CIL funds;

·         failure to ensure sufficient certainty that the scheme would be delivered; and

·         failure to ensure a strong community benefit.

 

B.  i)  The £117,380 applied for, as set out in the report, for scheme “Kemsing Surgery Extension” be approved on the following grounds:

 

·         strong social benefits to the community;

·         there was evidence to show partnership working;

·         sufficient information had been submitted to show that the scheme would be delivered as planning permission had been granted:

·         the project was identified in an adopted strategy/plan;

·         strong link between new development and the scheme;

·         clear public benefits;

·         vital community benefit;

·         there was community support of the project.

subject to a legal agreement being signed within 6 months of the decision date (or such further time as may be agreed between the parties) which shall require as conditions of payment that:

·         monies were clawed back proportionally should the premises not remain in use for the delivery of NHS Services for at least 10 years; and

·         when a time line be submitted and approved by the Council and the applicant confirms in writing when the project was commencing.

 

ii) if the legal agreement was not signed in accordance with the above then funding applied for would be refused for:

·         failure to ensure the effective management of CIL funds;

·         failure to ensure sufficient certainty that the scheme would be delivered; and

·         failure to ensure a strong community benefit.

 

C.     i)  The £49,507.50 applied for, as set out in the report, for scheme “Otford Road traffic scheme” be approved on the following ground:

 

·         strong economic, social and environmental benefits to the community

·         the project was identified in an adopted strategy/plan

·         strong evidence had been submitted to demonstrate a strong link between new development and the scheme

·         strong local support.

 

subject to a legal agreement being signed within 6 months of the decision date (or such further time as may be agreed between the parties) which shall require as conditions of payment that:

 

·         all the funding for the project had been secured.

 

ii)     if the legal agreement was not signed in accordance with the above then funding applied for would be refused for:

 

·         failure to ensure the effective management of CIL funds;

·         failure to ensure sufficient certainty that the scheme would be delivered.

 

D.     i)  The £1,500 000 applied for, as set out in the report, for scheme “Wilderness sports and community facility” be approved on the following ground:

 

·         Strong social and environmental benefits to the community;

·         There was evidence to show partnership working

·         The project was identified in an adopted strategy/plan;

·         Strong link between new development and the scheme

·         Clear public benefit.

·         Strong community benefit.

·         There was community support of the project.

 

subject to a legal agreement being signed within 6 months of the decision date (or such further time as may be agreed between the parties) which shall require as conditions of payment that:

 

·         planning permission had been granted for the project

·         a community use agreement had been entered into.

 

ii) if the legal agreement was not signed in accordance with the above then funding applied for would be refused for:

 

·         failure to ensure the effective management of CIL funds;

·         failure to ensure sufficient certainty that the scheme would be delivered; and

·         failure to ensure a strong community benefit.

 

E.      i)  The £15,000 applied for, as set out in the report, for scheme “Weald Memorial Hall maintenance and renovations” be approved on the following ground:

 

·         strong economic, social and environmental benefits to the community;

·         strong community support of the scheme;

·         clear community benefit;

·         there was sufficient certainty that the scheme would be delivered.

 

subject to a legal agreement being signed within 6 months of the decision date (or such further time as may be agreed between the parties).

 

ii)   if the legal agreement was not signed in accordance with the above then funding applied for would be refused for:

 

·         failure to ensure the effective management of CIL funds.

 

F.   i) The £200,000 applied for, as set out in the report for scheme “Knockholt Village Centre Refurbishment” be approved on the following grounds:

 

·         strong social benefits to the community;

·         the project was in an adopted strategy/plan

·         there was strong local support of the scheme

·         strong community benefits

·         there was sufficient certainty that the scheme would be delivered.

 

Subject to a legal agreement being signed within 6 months, which shall require that funding was secured.

 

ii) if the legal agreement was not signed then it would become refused for:

 

·         failure to ensure the effective management of CIL funds

·         failure to ensure sufficient certainty that the scheme would be delivered.