Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision:  

The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) powers came into force in April 2010. Essentially it allowed local authorities to levy a charge on new development in their area. The money could be used to fund a wide range of infrastructure that was needed as a result of the development. This includes new or safer road schemes, flood defences, schools, hospitals and other health facilities, park improvements, green spaces, etc.

 

It was agreed at Development Plan Scrutiny Sub Committee on 22/03/2011, that the Council’s CIL approach would be prepared and taken forward in parallel with the Local Plan review, with the intention of adopting a CIL Charging Schedule by April 2014. The purpose of this report is to inform the Committee of the project plan and timetable for the production of a CIL.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Sustainable Transport:

Agreed the CIL Project Plan as set out in paragraphs 3.13 to 3.18 and Table 1 and 2 of the Officer’s report.

 

 

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 Senior Planning Policy Officer regarding Community Infrastructure Levy for Cambridge.

 

Members asked for clarity on a number of points and the Senior Planning Policy Officer and the Head of Planning confirmed the following:

 

              i.      Post 2014 the use of S106 arrangements to raise funds would be more limited.

            ii.      Money raised using CIL would not have an expiry date.

          iii.      A list of local infrastructure priorities would be drawn up.

         iv.      Money from different schemes could be pooled to resource larger projects.

           v.      Services provided by other bodies, such as education, would also have access to the funds raised.

         vi.      It was expected that the amount raised would be more than was currently generated by S106. However, as this varied from area to area there was no projection available.

       vii.      The CIL charge would be levied according to the area of internal floor space.

     viii.      The County Council would have funding agreements with each of the districts.

 

Members discussed fringe sites and how charges would be set for cross boundary developments. Councillor Ward stated that the joint bodies currently set S106 arrangements for such sites and he expected that a similar process would be agreed for CIL’s. Lessons learn in other authorities would be applied.

 

Members discussed the position of social housing and CIL. At the moment this was proposed to remain outside the CIL regime and would be dealt with by s. 106. A decision on whether this would fall within the CIL  regime in future was expected in October. Members were concerned that the definition of social housing was unclear. Would this include housing Co-ops and Colleges which were classed as charities? Experiences from elsewhere suggested that student accommodation did not count as a charitable activity.

 

The Committee resolved by 4 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendation.

 

Conflicts of interest declared by the Executive Councillor (and any dispensations granted)

Not applicable.