Skip to main content

Agenda item

Infrastructure Funding Statement

Purpose:

a)    To note the Cotswold District Council Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2024/2025

b)    Agree to publish the Cotswold District Council Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2024/2025

 

Recommendation(s):

That Cabinet resolves to:

1.    Note the content of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) attached at Annex A,

2.    Endorse the document being published on the Council’s website by 31 December 2025 in accordance with legislative requirements.

Decision:

The purpose of the report was to inform Members of the Cotswold District Council Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2024/2025 and to seek Cabinet approval for its publication.

 

The Director of Communities and Place, Helen Martin introduced the report, which informed Members of the statutory requirement to publish the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2024/2025, summarising developer contributions secured, received, spent and held during the year. It presented the IFS for Cabinet to note and sought Cabinet approval for its publication by the statutory deadline of 31 December 2025.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy  and seconded by Councillor Patrick Coleman.

 

RESOLVED that Cabinet:

1.    Noted the content of the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) attached at Annex A,

2.    Endorsed the document to be published on the Council’s website by 31 December 2025 in accordance with legislative requirements.  

 

Voting Record:

7 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions.

 

Minutes:

The purpose of the report was to inform Members of the Cotswold District Council Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2024/2025 and to seek Cabinet approval for its publication.

 

The Director of Communities and Place, Helen Martin introduced the report, which informed Members of the statutory requirement to publish the Infrastructure Funding Statement (IFS) for 2024/2025, summarising developer contributions secured, received, spent and held during the year.  The report also identified forthcoming infrastructure requirements that were expected to be financed through CIL and Section 106 funding.

 

Members’ attention was drawn to the fact that, although the Council collected the funding, it was not always the delivery agent. Significant sums were routinely transferred to external partners—such as the County Council and the Integrated Care Board—who were responsible for delivering specific projects. It was further noted that 15% or 25% of neighbourhood CIL funding—depending on whether a parish had an adopted neighbourhood plan—was transferred to town and parish councils twice yearly. Although the council did not direct how these funds were spent, parishes were required to report annually on their use. The report provided a summary of all CIL and Section 106 obligations, with the full statement offering a detailed breakdown of contributions, expenditure, and balances held.

 

Cabinet Members welcomed the report and highlighted the value that CIL and Section 106 funding brought to local communities. It was noted that the Infrastructure Funding Statement clearly demonstrated the financial benefits of development for communities, particularly as the Council prepared a Local Plan consultation. It was noted that neighbourhoods had received approximately £305,000 in CIL during the previous year and more than £962,000 had been spent on Section 106 projects, along with £90,000 of direct CIL expenditure. These investments represented improvements that did not require additional local taxation.

 

Cabinet sought clarification on clawback periods, asking whether CIL was subject to the same five-year spending deadline typically applied to Section 106 funds. Cabinet noted the importance of keeping parish and town councils informed, particularly where staff turnover might lead to a loss of understanding about spending requirements.

Officers confirmed that the council monitored unspent neighbourhood allocations, including small remaining sums, and that a more proactive support programme was being developed. This included helping parishes identify potential infrastructure projects, encouraging collaboration across boundaries, and ensuring councils remained aware of spending deadlines and opportunities to make the best use of CIL and Section 106 funding.

 

Cabinet noted:

  • the practical benefits of CIL, with reference to a CIL-funded feasibility study for a major cycle route connecting local settlements to a railway station.
  • that some parishes were now receiving unusually large sums due to high levels of housing development. It was suggested that additional officer support would help smaller councils plan and manage this funding effectively.
  • That investment in affordable housing was welcome.
  • CIL funding could only be used for capital projects and not for revenue purposes, meaning it could not be used to subsidise bus services, which remained the responsibility of the County Council.
  • Several transport schemes were being considered for CIL funding. Some previously approved schemes had not yet received transfers because the County Council had not requested the funds, but they were included in the Infrastructure Funding Statement.
  • in the current financial year, the Council had received multiple bids for transport-related funding and had begun working more closely with the County Council on future schemes.
  • An infrastructure list had been developed, informed by evidence-based documents such as the county’s Local Cycling and Walking Implementation Plan, to identify potential projects and match them with available CIL funding.
  • that Councillors were invited to share any infrastructure schemes they felt should be considered, which would be included in an infrastructure tracker—a live, evolving document—to support the development of the Council’s Infrastructure Delivery Plan and help ensure that transport schemes aligned with local priorities.

 

Cabinet expressed strong support for the positive impact that CIL and Section 106 funding was having across the district, while also calling for continued clarity and communication to ensure communities maximised these financial opportunities.

 

The recommendations were proposed by Councillor Mike Evemy  and seconded by Councillor Patrick Coleman.

The proposal was put to the vote and agreed by Cabinet.

 

Voting Record:

7 For, 0 Against, 0 Abstentions.

 

Supporting documents:

 

Related Pages