Meeting documents

Agenda Item 5 GLL Performance Update

Mr P Boyle spoke about the contract for the proposed leisure provisions within Taunton Deane from August 2019 onwards.  He thanked the Committee for the opportunity to speak on the item and advised that there were other members of the public that wanted to speak but who were unable to attend and had sent in letters which had been distributed to the Committee.  The users of the leisure centres aimed to work closely with the Council to achieve the best leisure service.  He asked the following questions for clarification:-

1.    Was there a Service Specification for the forthcoming (2019) Contract and if so please could it be made available?

2.    If there was a (2019) Specification how had Council Tax Payers, who were also users of the service, been involved in putting it together?

3.    Please could there be User groups in the Centres with local Councillors having the right of attendance if so desired?

4.    Were the finances of the provision independently audited?

5.    How did Taunton Deane independently monitor and evaluate the provision?

6.    How would the user voice be built into the monitoring of the future contract. (a service specification that would enable both the provider and TDBC be clear what must be delivered for the money)

A written response would also be issued out to the public.

Agenda Item 7 Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Allocations for 2019/20 – 2022/23

Mr A Debenham spoke about the CIL allocations and asked how the allocations related to particular projects.

Mr T Burton responded and ad vised that the funding streams originated from the original CIL arrangement and the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) which identified all the infrastructure projects that were required along with their costings.  Further details were given within the report and the IDP could be found on the website under: https://www.tauntondeane.gov.uk/planning-policy/community-infrastructure-levy

Mrs J Calcroft spoke about the CIL payments and queried the statement on the website that ‘the money generated from CIL was used to fund improvements and new infrastructure which development put pressure on’.  She asked the following questions:-

1)    When would the CIL financial report covering the period April 1 2017 – 31 March 2018 be published?

2)    Why had no improvements or infrastructure measures been put into place over this period of time?

3)    As known, the permitted 3 years’ administrative costs had already been taken out by The Council.  Apart from administering the Parish and District Council’s allocations surely the majority of administration costs would come when allocating and overseeing actual relevant projects. Could The Council please produce a breakdown of actual  administrative costs over this period and what had been done with any surplus?

4)    Table 1 in the report showed 3 areas for CIL allocation for the period 2019/20 – cycle and pedestrian improvements were allocated £1million, education provision were allocated £4million and public transport improvements a further £1million.  A total of £6million in a period where the Council’s forecast was to realise just been arrived at given a possible £2million shortfall?

5)    Table 1 allocations only showed an overall budget allowance.  There was no indication as to how and where this money was to be spent.    Where could one access the actual breakdown costs of the details of these improvements?

A letter from Mike O’Dowd-Jones, Strategic Commissioning Manger, Somerset County Council was read out to the Committee and asked the following questions:-

1)    Were the CIL charges set at an appropriate level to provide sufficient

infrastructure to support the proposed development in the area?

2)    Was the geographic coverage sufficient to enable infrastructure provision across the whole District, particularly considering the current exclusion of Wellington from the charging regime?

3)    Did the inclusion of education infrastructure within the regulation 123 list actually make it more difficult for development to fund the associated schools that were required in new development areas; and was there a case to exclude education from the CIL process to enable site specific agreements?

4)    Did your proposed principles place unnecessary restrictions on the ability of CIL to fund essential infrastructure, particularly in relation to the principle of a maximum allocation of £3.5m to any one project and no more than 50% of the total cost. As an example, a school required to support a large development might cost in the region of £17m and your proposed restrictions precluded any opportunity for CIL to make a reasonable contribution to such a project.

5)    Was the inclusion of major development areas or urban extensions in the CIL charging regime still the right thing to do when it was increasingly apparent across the Country that this type of development was better suited to specific funding agreements such as section 106 agreements to ensure essential infrastructure needed for such developments could be secured.

A written response would also be issued out to the public.