Home > Your Council > Issue

Issue - meetings

Larger Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) Bids

Meeting: 16/01/2019 - Executive (Item 67)

67 Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) Bids (Larger) pdf icon PDF 186 KB

The Executive is asked to consider the recommendations of the Community Infrastructure Levy Investment Panel (CILIP) on the bids received relating to the larger scale projects reviewed by the Panel at its October meeting.


Additional documents:


Decision that:


1.     the report be noted, including the content of Appendix A which summarises all of the larger scale bids received through the recent Community Infrastructure Fund (CIF) bid process;


2.      funding be approved for three larger scale CIF bids as follows:

      EB6 – Elstree University and Technical College; EB14 – Community       Hertsmere (Aycliffe Road); and EB15 – Community Hertsmere (Leeming       Road), totalling £623,875, as detailed in Report EX/19/06 and as       recommended by the Community Infrastructure Levy Investment Panel       (CILIP);


3.     larger scale CIF bid EB17 – Hertswood Academy, Cowley Hill,   Borehamwood, be deferred;


4.     funding for larger scale bids AL4 – Red House Surgery, Watling Street, Radlett and EB19 – Hertfordshire County Council, Pegs Lane, Hertford be not approved for the reasons given in report Appendix A;


5.     larger scale bids BU2, BU3, PB1, PB7, PB8, EB10, EB11 and EB18, relating to Hertsmere Leisure, be considered at a separate meeting of the Executive; and


6.     further detail be provided in future reports on CIF bids to include the names of the organisations in the report’s recommendations.


Reasons for the Decision


National legislation stipulated that CIL monies should be spent on improvements to infrastructure, including its replacement, operation and maintenance to support development which had taken place within the local area. 


The Council’s CIL Panel was tasked with considering the bids received and ascertaining which projects should receive funding in the light of national and local level legislation as well as the Council’s own guidelines, officer recommendations and input from external and internal consultees.  The recommendations of the Panel were now presented to the Executive, in accordance with the agreed processes, for a final decision on funding pledges to be made. 


The reason for not approving the bids listed in (4) above was that they failed to meet the criteria outlined in the assessment process.


Alternative Options Considered and Rejected


          An alternative option was to spend no CIL monies at the current time.  However, this option was not supported due to the recent relaunch of the bidding process and the fact that a number of strong applications had been received from local groups and organisations. 


Another option was to endorse a higher number of bids than recommended.  However, this was not supported as the Council needed to ensure that monies were allocated fairly and in accordance with the process previously agreed by the Executive, having regard to the agreed assessment criteria.


Key Points Arising from the Discussion


·       The non-Executive Member reiterated his point made at the previous Executive meeting regarding the targeting funding for infrastructure needs which he felt was magnified in the larger bids.  He commended the conscientious work of the Panel which had considered the bids within the prescribed criteria but suggested that the process and criteria be reconsidered for future bids.


Responding, the Portfolio Holder agreed that CIL should primarily be used to address the infrastructure deficit.  He advised that the intention was to earmark a top slice of the funding for small organisations  ...  view the full minutes text for item 67