Appendix B: CIL Applications – Assessment Criteria and Scoring

Criteria and considerations	Weighting
	Strategic CIL	Local CIL
Supporting growth Consideration of the extent to which the project supports development in the borough, including: - How the project helps mitigate the impact of additional development - The fit with policies or objectives in the Local Plan - The fit with known infrastructure needs identified in existing plans and strategies	30%	20%
Benefits to residents/community support - Scale of benefit - Clear evidence of local support - Evidence that the project corresponds with known priorities for the local community	20%	40%
Match funding Consideration of the proportional contribution of CIL to total project costs and the extent to which CIL funding would enable additional funding to be secured No funding from other sources – 0 1-20% funding from other sources – 1 21-40% funding from other sources – 2 41-60% funding from other sources – 3 61-80% funding from other sources – 4 81% + funding from other sources - 5	20%	10%
Value for money Consideration of: - CIL sought in relation to benefits to the local area - Suitability to be considered for CIL funding - Alternative funding sources available and considered	20%	20%
Deliverability Assessment of feasibility of scheme: - Stage of project development - Status of funding - Long term sustainability of project	10%	10%

Each criteria is scored from 0 (doesn’t meet criteria at all) to 5 (strongly meets criteria).

Explanation of different weightings

Supporting growth – strategic CIL projects are expected to be more focused on addressing Borough level (or wider) infrastructure needs e.g. health, education, that are increased through growth and development, and given a 30% weighting. Local CIL projects may reasonably have less scope to support growth, although it is still a consideration, so are afforded 20% weighting.

Benefits to residents/ community support– this is considered to be of greater importance for local CIL projects, for which benefits to local residents and the community are likely to be key to their purpose.

Match funding – while encouraged for both strategic and local CIL projects, smaller community groups and organisations may have less ability and leverage to bring in funding from alternative sources. Weighting is therefore lessened (to 10%) for local CIL applications.

Value for money and deliverability are considered equally pertinent for strategic and local CIL applications and are afforded the same rating.