Decision Details

1. That the Infrastructure Funding Statement be approved for publication.

2. That the amendments to Section 8 of the CIL Spending Strategy be approved.

3. That the additional sentence to Section 9 of the CIL Spending Strategy to allow for the implementation of “in principle” recommendations by the CIL Spending Working Group and decisions by Cabinet be approved.

4. That the CIL bid for funding for expansion of and enhancements to Little St John’s Street GP Surgery in Woodbridge be approved.

Ben Woolnough BSc MSc MRTPI 

Major Sites and Infrastructure Manager

ben.woolnough@eastsuffolk.gov.uk

01394 444593 

1. That the Infrastructure Funding Statement be approved for publication.

2. That the amendments to Section 8 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Spending Strategy be approved.

3. That the additional sentence to Section 9 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Spending Strategy to allow for the implementation of “in principle” recommendations by the Community Infrastructure Spending Working Group and decisions by Cabinet be approved.

4. That the Community Infrastructure Levy bid for funding for expansion of and enhancements to Little St John’s Street GP Surgery in Woodbridge be approved.

1. To comply with legislation

2. To provide transparency in reporting on the receipt and use of all developer contributions

3. To address the urgent primary healthcare infrastructure needs for the Woodbridge Area which are influenced by housing growth in the area and should be funded through CIL. 

1. The Infrastructure Funding Statement is a statutory requirement and its content is prescribed in legislation, there is no alternative option if the Council is to comply with the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended).

2. The CIL Spending Strategy could have been left as it stood but would have then been out of alignment as a result of the Covid-19 pause and information supporting these phases may not have been readily available or if available it may not have been useful in supporting discussions or decisions on funding infrastructure.  

3. Failure to approve funding for infrastructure that is critical or essential to support delivery of the local plans would have resulted in unsustainable development and created unacceptable risks to the delivery of statutory services and the support of healthy communities.  No other options were considered.