Issue - meetings

Report to follow

 

Matter for Decision

Developer contributions are payments received by the council from property owners or developers to help address the impact of greater demand for facilities arising from development in the city. Alongside the council’s approach to devolved decision-making for the local use of developer contributions, half the payments from major developments are assigned to a city-wide fund. This is for strategic projects to create or improve facilities that would benefit residents from more than one area of the city.

 

Following the first priority-setting round in late 2012/early 2013, the next round is now underway. This is planning ahead for the next set of projects to be taken forward once first round and on-going projects are completed.

 

The Officer’s report asked the Executive Councillor to identify second round strategic priorities for the contribution types in the Public Places portfolio (informal open space, play provision for children & teenagers, public art and public realm).

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Public Places

       i.          Allocated a further £27,000 of public art developer contributions from the city-wide fund to the ‘Cambridge Rules’ project on Parker’s Piece.

     ii.          Allocated £39,000 of public realm developer contributions from the citywide fund towards lighting for Parker’s Piece.

   iii.          Noted the consultation feedback and officer comments on other strategic project ideas for Public Places (Table 3 and Appendix C of the Officer’s report).

   iv.          Identified follow-up action needed to build on the progress so far in the second priority-setting round over the use of developer contributions, namely to return to North Area (for devolved decision-making) those informal open space contributions from North Area that had been assigned to the city-wide fund (in the region of £15,000-£25,000).

 

Reason for the Decision

As set out in the Officer’s report.

 

Any Alternative Options Considered and Rejected

Not applicable.

 

Scrutiny Considerations

The Committee received a report from the Urban Growth Project Manager.

 

He said the report contained a typographical error on page 21 where PP7 listed ‘Jesus Green’ instead of ‘Parker’s Piece’.

 

In response to the report, the Committee felt there should be the option to return contributions that had been assigned to the city-wide fund for strategic priorities back to area committees on case-by-case basis, if area projects were in a position to go ahead and strategic projects were not. The Committee noted this would deplete the city-wide fund and so the option should be used with caution as returning funds to areas could stop strategic citywide projects going ahead.

 

In response to Members’ questions the Director of Environment and Urban Growth Project Manager said the following:

 

       i.          The use of developer contributions needed to be consistent with the tests set out in official regulations (such as the CIL Regulations).

     ii.          Second round area committee short-listing reports have generated discussions about how to make best use of the devolved funding available. It has become clear that there is not enough funding to take forward all the suggestions and so priorities will have to be identified.

   iii.          Area Committee Chairs and others have asked whether further funding would be available from appropriate categories in the city-wide fund to support local priority projects. If the relevant Executive Councillors wished to take up this option, the most appropriate way of doing so would be to return to an area committee those contributions from that same area which previously accrued to the city-wide fund (as part of the 50:50 split of developer contributions from major developments permitted by the Planning Committee).

 

Councillors requested a change to recommendations in the Officer’s report. Councillor Kightley formally proposed to amend the following recommendation:

   iv.          Identified follow-up action needed to build on the progress so far in the second priority-setting round over the use of developer contributions, namely to return to North Area (for devolved decision-making) those informal open space contributions from North Area that had been assigned to the city-wide fund (in the region of £15,000-£25,000).

 

The Committee unanimously approved this amended recommendation.

 

The Chair decided that the recommendations highlighted in the Officer’s report and amended by (iv) above should be voted on and recorded separately:

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (i) by 4 votes to 3 with 1 abstention.

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (ii) unanimously.

 

The Committee endorsed recommendation (iii) unanimously.

 

The Committee unanimously endorsed recommendation (iv) as amended.

 

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations as amended.

 

Conflicts of Interest Declared by the Executive Councillor (and any Dispensations Granted)

No conflicts of interest were declared by the Executive Councillor.