EXISTING DISTRIBUTION |
PROPOSED DISTRIBUTION |
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:
The report provides the following commentary on the options:
.
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):
Comments welcome.
They could give Qunitain 100% of it to get rid of all sloping surfaces and put steps in their place, that would solve it.
ReplyDelete