Showing posts with label Community Infrastructure Levy. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Community Infrastructure Levy. Show all posts

Saturday, 24 August 2024

Not so 'simplistic' after all! Cllr Butt takes up Lib Dem suggestion on CIL with the Labour Government

 

 

From the Brent Infrastructure Funding Statement that went to Brent Cabinet in December 2023

Despite having dismissed Liberal Democrat Leader Anton Georgiou's suggestion that Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) could be used to bridge the funding gap ahead of a new local government finance settlement as 'simplistic', Cllr Butt Labour Leader has written to the Government asking for the flexibility to do just that.

Butt had told Cllr Georgiou, 'To make a simplistic statement that we can use CIL is counter-productive to the conversation.'

He has had been asked straightforwardly, 'Would you support asking the Government  to change the way CIL can be spent?'

There was no direct answer but just over a month later Cllr Butt and Cllr Tatler have written to the Labour Government stating that diminishing budgets meant that councils were looking for innovate ways to raise income:
 

I am therefore writing today to put forward an additional case for flexibility to ease restrictions around the usage of Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) funds, devolving the decision making to local councils to decide how to invest in their local aras, as they see fit. It’s our responsibility, as a dual Labour administration, to get these funds to where they need to go.

 

Infrastructure projects alone cannot address the challenges which local areas and residents face. Greater flexibility in the use of CIL funds would mean that councils can address urgent non-infrastructure needs, allowing this council to pilot and pay for new projects that would meaningfully make a difference. Today, CIL funding cannot be utilised for investing in a new waste enforcement team, or community safety officers, for example. We therefore ought to expand the criteria if what we mean by infrastructure and impact mitigations, allowing for the recruitment and retention of additional staff to keep our borough safe and clean.

 

Easing restrictions does not mean abandoning fiscal responsibility, rather adapting to current realities and the challenges councils are facing. Councils can still practice sound financial management while using CIL more flexibly. Establishing clear guidelines and accountability for the use of CIL funds would ensure that the funds are used effectively and responsibly.

 

I urge the Government to implement these reasoned flexibilities and help us to unlock funding that is sorely needed today
 
This is not so very difference what Anton Georgiou had written earlier to Angela Rayner, Secretary of State for Housing, Councils and Local Government:

 

Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has the potential to deliver improved infrastructure within local areas but there is a long wait for this. The stringent criteria imposed on the use of CIL makes it far too difficult to use.

 

As a result in the case of the London Borough of Brent the Council in its 2024/25 budget estimates that it will have a staggering £250 million of unused CIL in its reserves at the end of its financial year on 31 March 2025.

 

For years Councils have been pleading with the Conservative Government to set longer term Local Government financial settlements to provide some element of certainty and the ability for Councils to plan ahead. This has fallen on deaf ears.

 

There will inevitably be appeals to the new Labour Government to address this and more importantly to provide more money for local Government. Judging from the statement from the Chancellor this week the financial outlook is tough and the chances of more money for local Government are very slim.

 

There is however something very simple and quick that you could do for Local Government without extra money from the Treasury at this time:

 

Give local councils greater freedom and greater flexibility on how to use CIL for essential services (Revenue and Capital) in their area.

 

Currently the use of main CIL is extremely restrictive and expenditure which is normal in the course of everyday Council business cannot be funded. Brent for example has a massive backlog of road and pavement repairs due to decades of past underspending. Why cannot part of the large CIL pot not be used to tackle this backlog? Who benefits with the money being unspent and simply accumulating and ever growing reserves? It makes no sense at all.

 

At present 15% of CIL is allocated to a Neighbourhood Pot for local residents to allocate. Why not change the rules so that say 42.5% of the remainder is allocated to the expected infrastructure projects and the other 42.5% freed up to be used on essential Revenue and Capital spending to meet the Council’s own priorities.

 

Brent is not the only borough with large amount of unspent CIL. I am convinced that across Local Government the unused CIL pot will amount to many £Billions.

 

So why not do something positive and quick to help Local Government from its current funding crises and at no cost to the Treasury.

 

My colleague Councillor Paul Lorber wrote on this same issue to Michael Gove a few months ago. You won’t be surprised to learn that he received a negative answer which failed to address the issue – which Mr Gove probably failed to grasp.

 

I am hopeful that you not only understand the point I am making but that you are more sympathetic to the plight of Local Government and therefore more determined to free up some of the CIL money and thus help local Council’s to start tackling the backlog of accumulating neglect in their areas.

 
Hopefully, this is a sign of new maturity on Cllr Butt's part. After some reflection and perhaps discussion with colleagues and officers he has recognised that there was merit in the Opposition's suggestion of 'reasoned flexibilities' in the use of CIL. 
 
 
Perhaps it is not too late for a bi-partisan approach to the challenges facing Brent Council and its residents.

Sunday, 18 December 2022

Brent Community Infrastructure Levy & Section 106: what it has been spent on and the amount remaining

 

Last week the Brent Cabinet approved the annual Infrastructure Funding Statement with little discussion. Millions of pounds is involved so it is worth looking at it in some detail. To help readers I have extracted some of the tables. The full Statement with detailed commentary can be read HERE,

Brent Council introduces the Statement (extracts):

The Council has been collecting the borough’s Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) since July 2013. CIL is a levy applied to most developments granted planning permission that commence, and is to help deliver the infrastructure needed to support the development of the area. CIL is also important in demonstrating to communities the benefits that new development can bring, including through key infrastructure projects, place-making and local improvements.



The borough CIL receipts can be broken down into three portions – the Strategic CIL, the Neighbourhood CIL and the Administration CIL. A Mayoral CIL of £60 per sqm is collected as well and passed on to TfL on a quarterly basis. The borough keeps 4% of this levy for administrative purposes. All London Boroughs are subject to this levy, with the money used to fund the Elizabeth Line and Crossrail 2



The Council also enters into Section 106 agreements with developers – a mechanism which makes a development proposal acceptable in planning terms. S106 agreements are focused on site-specific mitigation of the impact of development such as securing affordable housing or requiring improvements to an access road. CIL, on the other hand, is designed to raise funds for infrastructure needed generally as a result of an increase in development in an area, and is spent on community infrastructure projects across the borough.

 


Although the Council has had high CIL receipts compared to the majority of other London Boroughs, it is important to note that future years CIL receipts may not be as strong given the current financial and economic conditions in the UK which may affect the commencement of developments and subsequently, CIL receipts.

The  receipts from CIl and Section 106 and their use are one of the justifications that councillors use when challenged on the anount of development in the borough that is rapidly changing its face. Provision of housing during a housing crisis and the subsequent rise in Council Tax receipts are also quoted.

One of the controversial aspects is the amount of both Strategic CIL and Neighbourhood CIL that remains unspent or unallocated at the end of the financial year and is carried forward.

The actual amount spent in 2021-22 (rounded) was SCIL £7,058,222. NCIL £4,575,043 - TOTAL £11,635,265 of which CIL Admin was £681,441.

The amount collected in 2021-22 and the amount carried forward from previous years that has not been allocated (£60m) :

 STRATEGIC CIL

So what has the SCIL been spent on?:

South Kilburn

Wembley Park

There is a full description of the Olympic Way 'improvements' which follow the large expenditure on the replacement steps in previous years. The expenditure is justified in the Statement:

The improvements are a recognition that Wembley Park is an area of national and international importance. The high quality public realm supports the ongoing transformation of the area into a thriving, attractive environment where people want to live with access to shops and entertainment.

The North End Road/Bridge Road reconnection has yet to be signalised and buses are not yet using it avoid the stadium on event days to avoid delays and curtailment of services.


NEIGHBOURHOOD CIL

 

For the distribution of Neighbourhood CIL the borough is divided into NCIL areas including the two Neighbourhood Forums. Wembley continues to get a higher allocation on the basis that it is most impacted by new developments:

There is a description of many of the projects allocated funds in the Statement and a full list can be found HERE. I understand that not all projects progress to actually receiving the funds as there are various legal and financial hoops to get through.

 

SECTION 106 FUNDING

 

Section 106 is site specific and is funding that makes a development acceptable to Planning. It is sometimes a financial contribution but may also be an allocation of the housing approved as so-called 'affordable housing'. This returns to an argument familiar to readers about the precise meaning of affordable. As the Brent Poverty Commission said that only social housing was truly affordable to Brent residents, bear that in mind when looking at the figures for the housing contribution:

So just under 14% of the 'affordable' units (column 2)  are social rent and under 4% of the total units (column 3)  in the developments.

 Section 106 Financial Contributions


 What immediately struck me on looking at these figures was the amount, £3.5m,  spent on transportation  compared with the other areas.

Transportion includes: cycle parking, electric vehicle charging points, signage around Wembley Stadium, Roe Green/Kingsbury Road junction, hostile vehicle measures in Wembley Park around the stadium and 'Wembley Two Way Working'  including North End Road mentioned earlier under SCIL.

Full details of the projects funded can be found in the Statement.

 

 


 




 

Thursday, 4 March 2021

Post-review Brent Neighbourhood CIL bids open - read if you have a project to improve your area

 A new bidding window opened on Monday for groups and community organisations to bid for money from the Neighbourhood Community Infrastructure Levy for project to improve their area.  In previous years this money has been underspent.

The criteria have been reviewed and the theme for this round is 'Recovery' ..from the Pandemic.

Brent is divided into five ‘CIL Neighbourhoods’: Harlesden, Kilburn and Kensal, Kingsbury and Kenton, Wembley, and Willesden.  The total available is £2m with Wembley allocated £1m and the four other areas £250,000.  Already questions are being asked on social media as to why Wembley gets 4 times the amount allocated to other areas.  Previously the answer provided has been that the Wembley area's residents have been hit more by redevelopment.

Types of project

 




Help is offered for groups in preparing their bids and it is a good idea to contact your councillor to get backing for your project. APPLICATIONS CLOSE ON MAY 3rd.


 

 This is just a summary, full details and application forms are available on the Brent Council website  HERE 

 Below you can find a line of projects previously funded and completion details. Click bottom right corner for enlarged page.

 

Sunday, 29 November 2020

Where has all Brent's CIL and S106 money gone?

 In an aside at last week's Planning Committee when speaking against the proposed Wembley Park Station 'Five Tower', Cllr Kansagra, said that Brent Council had lots of unspent Community Infrastructure Levy and Section 106 money in its coffers and gave the figure of £126,000,000.

We will be able to check on that claim by looking at the first Brent Annual Infrastructure Funding Statement  for the year 2019-2020 that will go to Cabinet on Monday December 7th.  Given the controversy about the use of the funding that there is in the borough,  it would  help allay concern if the Statement was called in for Scrutiny.

You will find some extracts below which help give an overall view and further full details and explanations can be found in the very extensive report. 75% of CIL is labelled Strategic CIL (SCIL) and used for infrastructure projects, 5% for managing CIL and the rest for Neighbourhood CIL (NCIL) - used for local community led projects after a bidding and selection process.

£63m unallocated and therefore unspent

Note the difference between 'allocated' and 'spent'.

So at the end of the year 2019-20 there was £105m in the SCIL coffer and £14m in NCIL - £119m rounded

So about half of the NCIL collected in 2019-20  £2m) was spent on neighbourhood projects  but the amount retained, including from previous years, was £14m.

Barnhill and Preston wards are missing but may be covered by multi-wards. A lot depends on how organised councillors and community groups in their wards are in terms of putting in bids. Again this is 'allocated' not spent. Often there is underspend and in 2019-20 it would have beenimpacted by Covid restrictions at the end of year.

The individual projects allocated funds and the amount spent can be found in the full report (Table 6) it covers 7 pages.


 
£4.7m of Section 106  appears to have been carried forward and not allocated to any project.  Added to the £119m on SCIL and NCIL it amounts to £124m - not far off Cllr Kansangra's figure.



Affordable units in developments were secured as part of the Section 106 deal. A good use of S106.


Underspend probably the result of Covid lockdown.


 
Full report here include indications of future expenditure on infrastructure that would use up some of the retained funds. Click bottom right corner for full page version.

Thursday, 3 September 2020

Auditor: Brent better placed than most London councils to survive the financial challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic

The Audit Findings for the London Borough of Brent, to be considered by the Audit and Standards Committee on Tuesday September 8th are rather better than might be expected. LINK

The report by Grant Thornton  states:

 

.....To put this in further context, Brent Council could receive no RSG, council tax or business rates in 2020/21 and still balance the books using reserves. This is a much stronger position than virtually all other councils, however it must be noted that the reserves are earmarked to support strategic projects outlined in the Council’s capital programme and many of these reserves cannot be used to support revenue costs.

 

The report looks forward to 2020/21 and the impact of the Covid19 measures taken by the Council during lockdown and the impact on income.  Having had shaky reserves in the past the Council has been reluctant to eat into reserves but may have to as a consquence of a £29m funding gap, as well as reducing demand for services and 'efficiency'  cuts:

If there is a shortfall the Council has contingency plans to keep it on a sound financial footing. The Council will use the full range of options available, including (but not limited to) taking steps to reduce demand for services, implementing further efficiency savings, streamlining processes, and as a last resort re-diverting earmarked cash reserves as a one-off measure. The Council holds general reserves of £15.1m and £146m in earmarked reserves (excluding Community Infrastructure Levy funds and other ring-fenced reserves) which are held to meet specific identified purposes or future expenditure commitments, a large proportion of which are for financing the capital programme.

A review of the capital expenditure plan seems inevitable. Budget planning and consultation will take place soon.  One of the key issues will be what happens to Council Taxat a time when many residents will be strapped for cash as a result of unemployment resulting from the economic downturn.

 

EXTRACT FROM THE AUDITOR'S REPORT

2019/20 Financial Return

 

In a year where March saw the outbreak of the Covid-19 pandemic, the Council has performed well to achieve a breakeven position for its service area budgets. The Council responded to the pandemic situation quickly, making critical decisions in response to constantly moving government guidance. With only 2 weeks remaining of the 2019/20 financial year with the outbreak of the pandemic, impact on the financial outturn was minimised for 2019/20 but will be a larger impact on 2020/21.

 

The outturn for 2019/20 highlights the effective management action taken to address the pressures throughout the year. The £1.5m overspend in Children and Young Persons (CYP) (in part offset by contingency funds within CYP reserves) and £0.6m overspend in Community Well Being were offset by underspends within Regeneration and Environment.

 

The use of CYP earmarked reserves illustrates that the Council does have ongoing financial pressures which need to be addressed. However, this needs to be put in the context of income growth opportunities the Council’s reserves position. Brent has over £134.8m of usable reserves, excluding capital reserves, which can ultimately be deployed to address in-year shortfall. To put this in further context, Brent Council could receive no RSG, council tax or business rates in 2020/21 and still balance the books using reserves. This is a much stronger position than virtually all other councils, however it must be noted that the reserves are earmarked to support strategic projects outlined in the Council’s capital programme and many of these reserves cannot be used to support revenue costs. It is also worth noting that the Council is very clear about finding solutions in CYP going forwards.

 

The Council’s MTFS set in 2019/20 identified £11.4m savings required for 2020/21 and a best estimate budget gap of £20m for 2021/22-2022/23. In the November 2019 MTFS update a comprehensive review of technical budget assumptions took place, including a review of the 2020/21 savings plans and estimated savings of £4.28m to be delivered in 2021/22 and £1.77m to be delivered in 2022/23.

 

As a result of the pandemic it is expected that service departments will experience income and expenditure pressures in 2020/21. The magnitude of the pressures will depend on the severity and length of the pandemic. The Council has modelled the financial impact based on lockdown periods of 3 and 6 months and has a cost tracker to estimate and record the additional pressures relating to additional expenditure, loss of income, impact on savings and capital programmes, and treasury management issues. The Council estimates the 2019/20 impact to be £0.4m while for 2020/21, a 3-month lockdown period has an estimated lost income impact of £19.8m, with another £14.9m on top of that for a 6-month lockdown. The Council reports these figures to MHCLG fortnightly.

 

The net cost of Covid-19 to the Council is expected to be £47.6m (£42.7m of additional income and expenditure pressures and £4.9m of slippage in savings plans), which is far in excess of the £21.2m funding to be received from central government. The cost estimates are considerable, and the Council has been working to the assumption that costs will be fully reimbursed. Central government recently announced a new package of support which includes provision for some income losses to be reimbursed where losses are more than 5% of a council’s planned income from sales, fees and charges, with central government covering up to 75% of the remainder. Also, any deficits on council tax and business rates income will be allowed to be spread over 3 years rather than 1 year. Detailed workings of the scheme will be confirmed as central government drafts the statutory instrument that will effect the changes. This leaves the Council with an estimated gap of £26.4m before support for income losses is taken into account. If there is a shortfall the Council has contingency plans to keep it on a sound financial footing. The Council will use the full range of options available, including (but not limited to) taking steps to reduce demand for services, implementing further efficiency savings, streamlining processes, and as a last resort re-diverting earmarked cash reserves as a one-off measure. The Council holds general reserves of £15.1m and £146m in earmarked reserves (excluding Community Infrastructure Levy funds and other ring-fenced reserves) which are held to meet specific identified purposes or future expenditure commitments, a large proportion of which are for financing the capital programme.

 

The Council has modelled indicative forecasts of the council tax base and business rates income going forward. Modelling is challenging for the Council given that the Council receives c£50m (approx. 40% of net rates payable) of additional relief from central government to further discount the bills of businesses in retail, leisure and hospitality sectors, as well as small businesses:

• the Council received c£64m from central government to provide grants (between £10k-£25k) to support the above businesses; and

• all other business rate payers having difficulty in paying were offered payment deferrals in line with central government guidance.

Due to the above, the amount of NDR income collected to date compared to budget has changed significantly, and forecasting future collection is dependent on how long different business sectors take to recover, if at all. The Council has modelled business rates collection forecast for 2020/21 for the amounts collected and to be collected over a revised collection profile, against a reduced collectible debit, to support future business rates income projections. However, the amount of business rates the Council is allowed to retain is largely dependent on the future business rates regime and the amount of section 31 grant for certain business sectors. Also, the Council is part of the London business rates pool in 2020/21. London Councils will be modelling the potential impact of a deficit on the pool and individual boroughs and the results are expected later in the year. This exercise along with other intelligence and data gathering exercises on collection rates will be critical to better understand the potential impact on the 2020/21 budget and future budget assumptions for business rates income.

 

Over the past 2 years, the Council has been addressing historic overspends and undertook a comprehensive review of demographic pressures and other expenditure pressures, ensuring the Council could move to a more sustainable financial position. Following the Covid-19 outbreak the Council’s financial position has changed significantly. The impact of the loss of fees and charges, and emergency costs have had an immediate effect on all local authorities. In the longer term there is likely to be further squeeze on public spending, which could impact future funding settlement allocations.

 

The 2020/21 budget agreed in February 2020 included savings of £7.4m to deliver a balanced budget. Analysis shows that £0.3m of the planned savings are at risk of not being delivered at all, £2.5m of the planned savings have already been delivered, and £4.6m of the planned savings will not be delivered in 2020/21 (the Council will look to make these savings in 2021/22 instead). The 2020/21 budget also agreed business plans which included savings of £4.3m. Along with review and tracking of Covid-19 cost pressures, the savings position is being monitored daily and monthly monitoring reports and forecasts are reported to the Departmental Management Team. At this stage, all indications are that the 2021/22 savings (including the £4.6m of planned savings for 2019/20) will be achieved. Looking ahead, the savings forecasts will be reported quarterly and challenged and CMT and Cabinet, as well as the Resources and Public Realm Scrutiny Committee. As well as reporting progress of savings delivery the update reports will include mitigating actions or other interventions if there are delays in implementation or risk of delivery.

 

Proposed budget setting for 2021/22

 

Based on information available to date, the Council estimates that ongoing and recurring pressures will be in the region of £11m to £29m from 2021/22 across all service areas and council tax collection. At this stage, the estimates excludes future losses on business rates whilst further modelling is undertaken. Therefore, without additional funding or relives from central government the budget gap is likely to increase further. The Council’s estimates will be refined over the summer and are a major factor in the construction of the 2021/22 budget. Robust and credible plans will need to be developed and agreed in February 2021 to deliver a legally required balanced budget. At this stage, it is not clear when the Spending Review will be announced, or what the LG Finance Settlement for Brent in 2021/22 will be. The lack of clarity means that the Council will need to continue to plan with little or no funding certainty over the medium term. The Council expects to need to take difficult decisions about which services to prioritise and protect, and which to reduce in order to continue to deliver affordable and sustainable budgets.

 

To close a gap of this magnitude and in a relatively short space of time there are 3 main options:

 

• Further savings – options are limited given the current savings programme already includes a significant number of efficiencies and new income generation options are likely to be limited.

• Reduce growth assumptions – the current MTFS includes £13m of annual growth but there is a risk that reducing growth assumptions will store up pressures in future years.

• Scale back the capital programme – pausing or stopping specific capital schemes funded by borrowing would free up corporate revenue budgets set aside to provide capital financing.

 

A further consideration is if central government introduces new interventions specifically for long term Covid-19 related pressures, such as a multi-year minimum funding guarantee to compensate local authorities for income losses beyond their control. Another option may be to allow the capitalisation of losses, which would ultimately be funded by increased borrowing. The options will be further examined to ensure their consequences are properly understood and set out for members and the outcome of the review will be presented to Cabinet as part of the draft 2021/22 budget in October 2020.

 

The Council continues to maintain reserve levels much above those of its peers, but it is recognised that of the £398.4m total usable reserves and capital receipts reserve, £249.3m relates to reserves built up to help to finance the Council’s £1bn capital expenditure plans. 

 

Excluding the capital reserves, HRA and schools’ reserves leaves general fund reserves of £134.8m, which is close to the average level of reserves for London boroughs. However, the Council must carefully consider the use of its reserves to support revenue shortfalls as it is a non-recurrent source of funding, and use of reserves on a large-scale risks creating structural overspends if the Council’s finances do not recover quickly and income is reduced long term. 

 

From an audit point of view, the Council has managed its revenue reserves in a way that makes it better placed than most London councils to survive the challenges of the Covid-19 pandemic from a financial perspective. This prudent approach to reserves must be continued to address the risk of future pandemics, recessions and other issues or events that may impact on the Council’s financial sustainability.

 

 

Thursday, 23 January 2020

Brent clarifies confusing Neighbourhood CIL consultation survey


Brent Council has clarified the Neighbourhood  Community Infrastructure Levy consultation survey. The drop-down menu on each of the areas is labelled 1 to 9. Some people had thought 9 would be the highest priority as it is the highest number. In fact the highest priority is 1 and 9 is the lowest.

This afternoon the Counncil said:
Based on the data and comments received, we are able to confidently assume that most people used number 1 to rank their highest priority. However, just to be sure we will be emailing all respondents to this consultation to clarify the ranking order and they will be invited to submit a new response which will be counted separately.
The Council amended the relevant page thus:


The closing date for the consultation is confirmed as February 5th. Link to consultation HERE

In answer to a separate query on the Annual CIL report the Council said:
To clarify, the 'n/a' which appears in some of the tables means 'not applicable' rather than 'not available'. For the avoidance of doubt we have included a clarification point at the end of the document which has been republished online. In addition, the third table of the Report includes the name of the item of infrastructure that CIL was used to fund in 18/19 - Olympic Way Pedestrian Improvements - which is linked to footnote 3.
The Olympic Way Pedestrian Improvements expenditure in 2018-19 totalled  £4,632,929 in  addition to the £815,114 Wembley Neighbourhood CIL payments.

Tuesday, 21 January 2020

93% of Brent's Community Infrastructure Levy retained at end of 2018-19 financial year

Brent Council's  Annual Community Infrastructure Levy Report for the financial year 2018-2019 has just been published.  It shows that 93% of Brent CIL (£86,112,896.87) was retained at the end of the year.  The proportion of Strategic CIL retained was 94% (£74,026,947). £4,672,262 went towards Olympic Way works.

The Council has a long-term Infrastructure Delivery Plan 2020-2041, linked to the Brebt Local Plan, that can be seen HERE.

Cllr Muhammed Butt at the recent meeting on Street Trees, argued that Brent Council had no money for extensive tree and pavement works, so it is worth looking at the section of CIL that goes towards Neighbourhood CIL. The percentage retained was 89% overall (£12,085,948).

The borough is divided into six CIL neighbourhoods for the purposes of Neighbourhood CIL. These are the figures - the amount available includes the carry-forward from previous years.


CIL Neighbourhood
Amount available
Amount allocated
Percentage allocated
Amount retained
Harlesden
£1,130,675
£169,600
15%
£961,075
Kilburn & Kensal
£889,361
£319,360
36%
£570,000
Kingsbury & Kenton
£657,596
£116,888
18%
£540,709
Sudbury Town
£23,162
None
None
£23,162
Wembley
£10,187,294
£815,114
8%
£9,372,181
Willesden
£726,371
£107,552
15%
£618,819


At the Trees meeting Cllr Butt appeared to blame local groups for not putting forward bids for Neighbourhood CIL to fund enviromental project but in previous years Council departments, in various guises, have put forward their own bids on behalf of particular neighbourhoods.

I would suggest that the Scrutiny Task Group on trees policy could widen their brief to include the use of Neigbourhood CIL.

The full report LINK available below lists the projects that have been funded in each CIL neighbourhood.
(Click bottom right corner for full page view)