Issue - meetings

Matter for Decision:  

The purpose of the report was to update members on the work that was being undertaken to prepare a Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) for Cambridge and seek approval that a Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule is published for public consultation in March.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for Planning and Climate Change

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

         i.    Endorse the Cambridge CIL Viability Assessment (Appendix 2 of the Officer’s report) as background evidence to support the proposed Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule; and,

        ii.    Approve the publication of the Cambridge Preliminary Draft Charging Schedule (attached as Appendix 1 of the Officer’s report) for a six-week consultation period between 18 March 2013 and 29 April 2013.

 

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 and an associated presentation from the Senior Planning Policy Officer regarding the Draft Charging Schedule for the Community Infrastructure Levy. Councillor Herbert stated that his group would respond formally to the consultation.

 

The Chair introduced consultants, Richard Dixon and Rob Searle of Dixon-Searle LLP who were present to answer questions regarding the presentation and the report.

 

In response to questions from the committee the following points were clarified.

 

         i.    Variable charging rates for large or small retail units and across different wards within the City would add to a degree of complication to the process and would raise the admin costs.

        ii.    Keeping the process simple, and directing the CIL charges to the most relevant development types, was suggested as the best course of action for the initial period to avoid unintended consequences.

       iii.    Setting residential rates at too high a level could have an impact on viability of development and so the proposed rates were pitched at the mid-range.

      iv.    There would need to be a robust evidence base to support any move to variable business CIL rates.

       v.    In response to questions, the consultants offered to provide information from authorities that had already introduced CIL for comparison purposes.

      vi.    Concerns were raised that some developments had a greater impact on the local community than others. The consultants confirmed that S106 agreements could still be used on a site-specific basis in mitigation.

     vii.    The impact of an inflexible, flat rate on the delivery of affordable housing was questioned. The consultants stated that providing affordable housing had a greater impact on scheme viability than CIL. The level of affordable housing required would need to be set to reflect this.

   viii.    The charitable status, and associated mandatory exemption, of Universities from CIL was raised as a concern which could result in an imbalance in the provision of student accommodation.

      ix.    It was confirmed that there would be a transition period from S106 to CIL and modelling work was on-going to establish the impact on receipts received.

       x.    The governance of CIL funds was discussed, and the governance arrangements used by Huntingdonshire District Council were held up as an example. The Head of Planning pointed out that governance was an area on which work was underway. This would be the subject of a report to members at a later date.

      xi.    The zero rate applied to hotels was justified as many hotel sites were currently developed on marginal viability.

     xii.    Fringe sites and cross boundary developments would need to be kept under consideration in relation to the emerging Local Plan growth requirements.

 

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.