Issue - meetings

The report was introduced by the Cabinet Member for Climate Action and Environment.

The report referred to the results of a six-week public consultation from 16 February 2026 to 29 March 2026 on the Council’s draft Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) charging schedule. This had been conducted alongside a similar consultation by South Cambridgeshire District Council, with stakeholders invited to submit representations on both proposals.

The proposed Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire CIL aimed to generate additional funding from new development to help address the shortfall in funding for strategic transport infrastructure.

In response to questions from Cabinet Members and those Councillors present, the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development said the following:

      i.         CIL charges were index-linked and updated annually to reflect inflation.

    ii.         A key issue raised through th consultation responses was whether the proposed rates represented the maximum contribution that could reasonably be secured from developers.

   iii.         Some of the charges, compared to other areas were higher, noting this was specifically linked to the strategic transport infrastructure. In contrast, in other parts of Cambridgeshire some areas applied higher overall charges, but these supported all infrastructure, including education, open space, etc.

  iv.         The proposed rates were also comparable with the levels of contribution already secured through agreements relating to strategic development sites, examples of which had been set out in the report.

    v.         Representations from the development industry generally supported lower charges, although some respondents recognised the benefits of a clear and consistent approach to securing infrastructure contributions. Conversely, some community responses argued that the charges should be higher.

  vi.         Officers confirmed that all consultation responses had been considered and that the viability evidence had been reviewed with the Council's specialist viability consultant in light of submissions from developers.

 vii.         The Council's view was that the proposed rates strike an appropriate balance between ensuring development remained viable and secured sufficient contributions towards strategic transport infrastructure.

viii.         Whether this balance has been achieved would be considered through the independent examination process. The examiner's recommendations would be reported back to the Council in due course.

  ix.         There were many areas, particularly in metropolitan authorities, where there were no parish councils. A range of arrangements had been used by borough and city councils to distribute the local contribution was which community fixed as a proportion of the CIL receipts to local areas.

    x.         There was no immediate solution for the distribution of neighbourhood CIL because of the uncertainty associated with Local Government Reorganisation (LGR) and the governance arrangements that may emerge from that process. It was important that decisions about how local communities participate in spending decisions were addressed as part of the wider governance discussions linked to LGR.

  xi.         Emphasised that local community groups would not be disadvantaged by this approach. If the proposed CIL charging schedule was approved, expected to come into effect in the early part of the following year. The levy would only apply to planning permissions granted after the charging schedule took effect, and there would typically be a further period before development commenced and any CIL liability became payable. It was anticipated that any funds collected before the new governance arrangements were agreed would be relatively limited.

 xii.         Considered it to be appropriate to address the issue through a comprehensive governance review as part of the LGR process, rather than introducing interim arrangements. Any CIL funds collected would not be allocated or spent for any other purposes until appropriate governance arrangements had been established.

Cabinet unanimously resolved to:

      i.         Authorise the submission of the draft charging schedule, an amended draft instalment policy, and associated evidence for independent examination