Issue - meetings

Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) - Approval Following Consultation

Meeting: 03/03/2020 - Council (Item 97)

Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) - Approval Following Consultation,

The material relevant to this item is the report on pages 27 to 31 of the Cabinet agenda for 4 February 2020 and pages 119 to 143 of the Cabinet appendices for 4 February 2020.

 

The following recommendations were made to Council:

 

1.    That the proposed responses to the representations received and subsequent modifications to the Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) as set out in Appendix 1 be approved; and

2.    The amended IBP including CIL Spending Plan attached as Appendix 2 be approved.

Minutes:

The Chairman invited Mrs Taylor to introduce the item and drew attention to the report which could be found on pages 27 to 31 of the Cabinet agenda for 4 February 2020. She confirmed that there were two recommendations to Council detailed on the agenda front sheet.

 

Mrs Taylor explained that the Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) is updated each year. The IBP prioritises the strategic infrastructure projects from the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) necessary to deliver the growth identified in the Chichester Local Plan, particularly within the five year period 2020-2025. It includes updates and new projects put forward by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and the key infrastructure commissioners. The IBP sets out the methodology for selecting which infrastructure projects have been prioritised for funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) during the five year period from 2020 to 2025 which will be funded from S106/S278 agreements and which infrastructure projects are or would need to be, funded from other sources.

 

Mrs Taylor confirmed that the IBP was subject to six weeks consultation from

7 October to 18 November 2019 with the city, town and parish councils, WSCC, Neighbouring Planning Authorities including the South Downs National Park Authority and key infrastructure delivery commissioners.

Mrs Taylor then drew attention to appendix 1 and appendix 2 which details the views of the Chichester Growth Board which met on 9 January 2020 and the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) which met on 16 January 2020 to consider the proposed responses to the representations received as a result of the consultation. Mrs Taylor explained that since the implementation of the CIL on 1 February 2016 at total of £9,828,007 had been collected to date (4 December 2019). At the end of October 2019 the total amount handed over to parishes was £1,666,648.

 

Mrs Taylor then outlined two new transport projects requested by WSCC:

 

·           IBP/840 - (College Lane/Spitalfields Road Junction improvements) to make it suitable for shared use in years 2021/22 (cost estimate £60,000 to be fully funded from CIL)

·           IBP/841 - (Chidham Sustainable Transport Improvements) to widen the existing footways to accommodate shared use to start 2022/23 (requesting £500,000 from CIL together with S106 from new developments at total cost estimate of £1.8 – 2 million)

 

Mrs Taylor explained that WSCC also sought a number of amendments.

With regard to IBP/349 - A286 Birdham Road/B2201 (Selsey Tram Roundabout) junction WSCC is currently undertaking feasibility work. The project is currently included in the CIL Spending Plan for £111,000 however the costs have increased and the CIL request is now for £440,000. Mrs Taylor explained that the increase is due to a change in the options under consideration which are different from the scheme envisaged at the time planning permission was granted.

 

With regard to IBP/353 (Sustainable transport corridor, City Centre to Westhampnett) Mrs Taylor explained that the project had been moved back from 2019/20 to 2020/21.

 

With regard to IBP/659 (school access improvements – drop off and pick up arrangements at expanded primary  ...  view the full minutes text for item 97


Meeting: 04/02/2020 - Cabinet (Item 103)

103 Consideration of consultation responses and modifications to the District Council's Infrastructure Business Plan 2020-2025 pdf icon PDF 91 KB

The Cabinet is requested to consider the agenda report and its appendices and make the following recommendations to Council as set out below:

 

The Cabinet recommends to the Council that it:

 

1.    Approves the proposed responses to the representations received and subsequent modifications to the Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) as set out in Appendix 1; and

 

2.    Approves the amended IBP including CIL Spending Plan attached as Appendix 2.

 

Please note that full version of appendix 2 is available online only.

Additional documents:

Decision:

*RECOMMENDED TO COUNCIL

 

1.    That the proposed responses to the representations received and subsequent modifications to the Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) as set out in Appendix 1 be approved; and

2.    The amended IBP including CIL Spending Plan attached as Appendix 2 be approved.

Minutes:

Mrs Taylor introduced the report. She confirmed that the Infrastructure Business Plan (IBP) is updated each year. The IBP prioritises the strategic infrastructure projects from the Infrastructure Delivery Plan (IDP) necessary to deliver the growth identified in the Chichester Local Plan, particularly within the five year period 2020-2025. It includes updates and new projects put forward by West Sussex County Council (WSCC) and the key infrastructure commissioners. The IBP sets out the methodology for selecting which infrastructure projects have been prioritised for funding from the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) during the five year period from 2020 to 2025, which will be funded from S106/S278 agreements and which infrastructure projects are or would need to be, funded from other sources.

 

Mrs Taylor confirmed that the IBP was subject to six weeks consultation from 7 October to 18 November 2019 with the city, town and parish councils, WSCC, Neighbouring Planning Authorities including the South Downs National Park Authority and key infrastructure delivery commissioners.

 

Mrs Taylor then drew attention to appendix 1 and appendix 2 which details the views of the Chichester Growth Board which met on 9 January 2020 and the Development Plan and Infrastructure Panel (DPIP) which met on 16 January 2020 to consider the proposed responses to the representations received as a result of the consultation.

 

Mrs Taylor explained that since the implementation of the CIL on 1 February 2016 at total of £9,828,007 had been collected to date (4 December 2019). At the end of October 2019 the total amount handed over to parishes was £1,666,648.

 

Mrs Taylor then outlined two new transport projects requested by WSCC:

 

·           IBP/840 - (College Lane/Spitalfields Road Junction improvements) to make it suitable for shared use in years 2021/22 (cost estimate £60,000 to be fully funded from CIL)

·           IBP/841 - (Chidham Sustainable Transport Improvements) to widen the existing footways to accommodate shared use to start 2022/23 (requesting £500,000 from CIL together with S106 from new developments at total cost estimate of £1.8 – 2 million)

 

Mrs Taylor explained that WSCC also sought a number of amendments.

 

With regard to IBP/349 - A286 Birdham Road/B2201 (Selsey Tram Roundabout) junction WSCC is currently undertaking feasibility work. The project is currently included in the CIL Spending Plan for £111,000 however the costs have increased and the CIL request is now for £440,000. Mrs Taylor explained that the increase is due to a change in the options under consideration which are different from the scheme envisaged at the time planning permission was granted.

 

With regard to IBP/353 (Sustainable transport corridor, City Centre to Westhampnett) Mrs Taylor explained that the project had been moved back from 2019/20 to 2020/21.

 

With regard to IBP/659 (school access improvements – drop off and pick up arrangements at expanded primary schools – Manhood Peninsula) Mrs Taylor confirmed that the project had been moved back from 2020/21 to 2021/22.

 

Mrs Taylor then explained that IBP/665, 655 and 654 had been amalgamated into two projects and the costs equally divided resulting  ...  view the full minutes text for item 103