Issue - decisions

Matter for Decision

The report considered how the S106 priority-setting process (with devolved decision-making to area committees over the use of some types of developer contributions) had operated over the last two years.

 

The report proposed the continuation of S106 priority-setting, but to fine-tune the principles behind S106 devolved decision-making. In addition, it proposed that the next (third) round on S106 priority-setting this autumn should be confined to projects that can be grant-funded.

 

Decision of Executive Councillor for City Centre and Public Places

 

The Executive Councillor resolved to:

 

     i.        re-focus devolved decision-making to area committees within future S106 priority-setting rounds on developer contributions for community facilities, informal open space, outdoor sports provision (incorporating formal open space) and play provision for children and teenagers [see paragraph 4.1 of the Officer’s report];

 

    ii.        continue to include developer contributions for indoor sports provision, public art and public realm in future S106 priority-setting grounds, but return the decision-making for these contribution types to the relevant Executive Councillor [paragraph 4.2 of the Officer’s report];

 

   iii.        adapt the method for devolved S106 funding to areas to reflect the fact that area committees no longer make planning decisions: this will be based on 100% of S106 contributions from ‘minor’/’other’ categories of planning applications from the area and 50% of S106 contributions from the ‘major’ category planning applications from the area [see paragraphs 4.3 of the Officer’s report];

 

  iv.        adapt the method for assigning S106 funding to strategic funds (for use of projects benefitting more than one area of Cambridge, or the city as a whole): this will be based on the other 50% of S106 contributions from the ‘major’ category of planning applications;

 

 

   v.        confirm that the 50:50 split (devolved:strategic) of S106 contributions from major planning applications can continue to be        varied on a case-by-case basis, following officer discussions with the relevant Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes;

 

  vi.        agree that the next (third) S106 priority-setting round, scheduled for November 2014-February 2015, should be focussed on prioritising schemes suitable for S106 grant-funding [see Section 5 of the officer’s report];

 

 vii.        agree that a fourth S106 priority-setting round, currently proposed to take place between June 2015-January 2016) should focus on the wider range of S106 contribution types, including proposals for projects which would involve project management and/or delivery by the city council; and

 

Although not a formal recommendation, the Committee noted the discussion in Appendix E about the issues relating to the S106 funding for the Rouse Ball Pavilion project on Jesus Green.

 

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 regarding S106 priority-setting and devolved decision making.

 

The Committee made the following comments in response to the report:

     i.        Welcomed the proposal to prioritise grant funded projects

    ii.        Concerns were expressed regarding the Rouse Ball Pavilion project and the Urban Growth Project Manager undertook to meet Members outside the meeting for a briefing.

   iii.        Concerns were expressed regarding how the 50:50 split (devolved/strategic) case by case decision of the Executive Councillor would be scrutinised.

  iv.        Some members expressed concerns that Public Art projects might not be delivered in future.

 

The Urban Growth Project Manager stated that previously, Public Art funding had been spread thinly and unevenly across the City. A centralised pot would deliver better projects. In future Public Art projects proposals would be highlighted to the Executive Councillor for decision. The Executive Councillor responded and stated that she recognised the need for transparency and would seek input from Area Committees.

 

The Committee resolved that recommendation e) of the Officer’s report, be amended as follows (additional working underlined and in italics): 

 

e)  confirm that the 50:50 split (devolved:strategic) of S106

      contributions from major planning applications can continue to be varied on a case-by-case basis, following officer discussions with the relevant Executive Councillor, Chair and Spokes.

 

Councillor Reid requested that the vote on the recommendations be spilt, A and B followed by C to G.

 

The Committee resolved by 5 votes to 0 to endorse the recommendations A and B.

 

The Committee resolved unanimously to endorse the amended recommendations C to G.

 

The Executive Councillor approved the recommendations.