Wembley retains the lion's share with other areas getting an equal share of the remainder but significantly more for the most part than they get now. This is Option 4 in the table below:
. Option 1 (Retain existing distribution). This would be unpopular in light of the review. A significant number of the focus groups and interviews saw the distribution of NCIL funds and concentration of money in Wembley as unfair. Wembley stakeholders were keen to retain a significant sum of NCIL as they are impacted the most by development in the area. However, based on current and future projections, the gap in NCIL funds available to Wembley and the remaining four ClL neighbourhoods is set to increase.
. Option 2 (No distribution). NCIL receipts could be used anywhere across the borough. Bidders could propose projects to access funds irrespective of where the funds were generated. This would be easiest method of distribution and would allow equal access to
. Option 2 could also help mitigate any impact felt by a different community beyond the NCIL boundary. However greater monitoring would still be required to ensure that one part of the borough was not disproportionately allocated funding. The disadvantages of this option are that the areas more greatly affected by development will lose out on the total value of NCIL receipts that would have been allocated if the existing distribution model were retained.
. Option 3 (Equal Distribution). NCIL receipts would be redistributed equally across the five CIL Neighbourhoods. This would be appealing to areas that do not currently attract significant development. However this approach may disadvantage communities that are impacted most by development.
. Option 4 (Wembley 50% cap – other areas equal). Wembley’s NCIL fund would be capped at 50% of the total NCIL receipts generated in the borough. The remaining 50% would be divided equally between the remaining four CIL Neighbourhoods. This option would ensure that a greater proportion of NCIL Funds is allocated to the Wembley Neighbourhood where the majority of development currently takes place but also ensure that wider impacts of development are addressed elsewhere.
. Option 5 (Wembley 50% cap – other areas proportional). Wembley’s NCIL fund would be capped at 50% of the total NCIL receipts generated. The value of NCIL available in the remaining four CIL Neighbourhoods is set proportionally based on the amount of NCIL raised in their area. Based on current NCIL receipts the proportion would be Harlesden 41.86%, Kilburn 21.05%, Kingsbury 20.63% and Willesden 16.46%. This option would ensure that a greater proportion of CIL Funds is allocated to the Wembley Neighbourhood, however in the future, areas where there is less development will receive fewer NCIL funds.
Other proposed changes are minor and subject to change when a decision is made on ward boundaries except for a proposal to enlarge the decision making group evaluating proposals to four (Option 4):