Agenda item

The Committee gave consideration to a report presented by the Head of Policy and Strategy, seeking approval to spend the Building Safety Levy New Burdens Funding to develop and implement a compliant administration system. It was explained that the Building Safety Levy (BSL) was introduced by Section 58 of the Building Safety Act 2022, which amended the Building Act 1984 to give the Secretary of State powers to impose the charge. The BSL was a key component of the government's response to the Grenfell Tower tragedy in 2017.

Members heard that the government aimed to raise funding from applicable developments across the country to support the remedial works required to make a number of high-rise buildings safe for residents. The Council was required to have arrangements in place to calculate charges, apply exemptions, issue notices, collect payments, and provide accurate reporting and audit information to central government.

The Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government (MHCLG) confirmed on 27 January 2026 Building Safety Levy – New Burdens funding of £132,900, payable in 2026/2027. It was explained that the revenue costs of developing the system would be met through the BSL New Burdens funding. Members were presented with a selection of options, however, it was highlighted that by approving option two, that being to utilise Microsoft Power Platform and Dataverse, it was unlikely there would be any additional revenue costs usually associated with a new commercial system, as this would be covered under an existing professional services agreement with the Council.

The Committee heard that any additional costs, including licence fees, would be covered by the BSL administration fee which was calculated on a cost recovery basis and included officer time, software subscriptions and any other activities associated with the processing and administering of the BSL. The initial expenditure was classified as revenue spend as the system was cloud based and a SAAS (software as a service) agreement. This meant, as with other cloud based systems, the Council would not retain ownership of the software and it was therefore not possible to capitalise the expenditure.

The Head of Policy and Strategy reiterated the request for approval to spend the Building Safety Levy New Burdens Funding to develop and implement a compliant administration system, and offered to answer questions from the Committee.

Members expressed their views on the introduction of the levy, whilst recognising there was a requirement on the Council for implementation. Concerns were raised regarding how the levy may impact the speed and extent of new developments in the district, and for ensuring cross-authority working partnerships were effective in the provision of housing.

In response, the Head of Policy and Strategy explained that in setting policy and whole plan viability for the Central Lincolnshire Local Plan (CLLP), a buffer was included for costs over which authorities had no control of which this was a prime example. Members heard that the broader mitigation was the desire to review the CLLP, with the levy having been implemented, for the wider impact to be reviewed. Additionally, the Greater Lincolnshire Combined County Authority was to develop a special policy for housing and development across the Greater Lincolnshire area, in which district and county partners were heavily involved.

Further comments from Members of the Committee reiterated Councillors’ displeasure with the introduction of the levy, the use of a national framework rather than local to set charges, and asserting the opinion that it was seen as a retrograde step. The risk of losing small developers was seen as a real concern, with Members expressing the assumption that large scale developers would be able to absorb the increased costs whereas small developers would not be able to.

In response to a question regarding the costing of the different options contained within the report, it was explained that one option was to repeat the process used for CIL and S106 contributions, however that did not use a corporate system and relied on individual officer knowledge and expertise. An alternative option of specialist software would have limited options available, given the speed of the levy being introduced, and was considered impractical in the lead up to Local Government Reorganisation.   

With concluding comments recognising the need to balance concerns raised with the reality of introducing the levy, as well as the necessity of avoiding any future events like the Grenfell fire, the paper was duly moved, seconded, and voted upon. It was

RESOLVED that the spending of £90,871 from the ring-fenced £132,900 New Burdens Funding Building Safety Levy be approved to implement a compliant administration system using Microsoft Power Platform and Dataverse.