Issue - meetings

The Cabinet Member for Planning and Transport introduced the report.

The report referred to the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) which was a charge that could be levied by local authorities on new development in their area. This was a fixed, non‑negotiable charge that developers must account for from the outset of their projects. The funds could be pooled centrally and directed to areas of greatest need, rather than being restricted to specific development sites.

In response to questions from Cabinet Members and those Councillors present, the Cabinet Member for Planning and Transport responded with the following:

      i.         Section 106 (S106) agreements would remain in place. This was essential for securing site‑specific community and social infrastructure and would continue to be used where particular measures were required to support the needs of an individual development.

    ii.         When CIL was received, a process would be in place to determine how the money was allocated, including whether contributions should be pooled with those from other sites to support wider infrastructure improvements. There would also be an element of engagement and negotiation with local communities as part of this decision‑making process.

   iii.         CIL would apply to every development project. Unlike S106 agreements, which were typically negotiated on large and significant sites only, CIL would generate infrastructure funding from all developments covered by a proposed charging schedule.

  iv.         The charge had been set following professional advice to ensure it was proportionate and not onerous. Once implemented, a process would be established to determine how incoming CIL funds would be allocated. Funding would also be influenced by the area in which it was collected; where a parish council or neighbourhood forum existed, a proportion of CIL income would be allocated for spending in those communities, with local bodies deciding how it should be used. A citywide contribution would still be made from all projects.

    v.         Following a consultation in 2014, proposals had been developed to move to a CIL system. However, due to subsequent changes in planning legislation and emerging Government discussions on a future national infrastructure levy, the Planning Service decided not to proceed at that time but to remain prepared for potential new requirements.

  vi.         South Cambridgeshire District Council (SCDC) did not operate CIL but was aware that East Cambridgeshire District Council (ECDC) did; had experience of working with ECDC when working as an architect before becoming a Councillor and the CIL process had been simple and easy to understand.

 vii.         The Greater Cambridge Shared Planning Service believed the introduction of CIL as the right approach, it ensured all developers contributed to necessary infrastructure. This formed part of the Service’s ongoing engagement work with communities.

viii.         The Shared Planning Service Youth Engagement Service (YES) had been awarded the Thornton Education Trust (TET) Inspire Future Generations Award for Best Local Authority in Youth Engagement which recognised the work in engaging young people and bridging the gap between the built environment and younger communities. The Service believed that moving to CIL would further support engagement and investment in local areas.

  ix.         Noted that the Performance, Assets and Strategy Overview and Scrutiny Committee did not call this matter in for scrutiny as it was going to consultation but would remain on the Forward Plan.

    x.         Confirmed that CIL was liable on residential developments.

The Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.         The delay in implementing CIL was due to several regulatory changes and statements by Government(s) positions over recent years. The current Government confirmed last year that it did not intend to introduce a national levy, after which work begun to develop a CIL to address Greater Cambridge’s strategic transport needs.

    ii.         Strategic transport contributions were often avoided under the Section 106 process which required Cambridgeshire County Council and the Council to demonstrate that a development could not proceed without contributions towards that infrastructure. It was this widespread avoidance of strategic transport contributions through the S106 regime which had prompted the move toward CIL

   iii.         CIL included clear enforcement powers, allowing the Local Planning Authority to issue a stop notice on development where the levy was not paid at commencement.

  iv.         Stated that CIL had been criticised nationally for contributing to viability issues that were delaying developments. Over the last few months there had been a narrative in London regarding emergency provision setting aside CIL.

    v.         The proposed local CIL rates had been set carefully with viability consultants to ensure they remained affordable in the context of development values and in the context of S106 obligations including affordable housing that applied to those eligible developments.

  vi.         Expected that the consultation would generate a range of views, the outcome of the consultation would be reported back to Council.

The Cabinet Member for Finance and Resources thanked the Team Leader (Delivery) and the Officers for their considerable work on the CIL, noting that it represented vital funding for transport infrastructure across Greater Cambridge.

Cabinet unanimously resolved to:

      i.         Approve a public consultation on the draft CIL Charging Schedule and associated documentation