Council and democracy
Home > Council and Democracy > Decision register
To note Officer decision.
Decision Maker: Civic Affairs
Decision published: 13/06/2023
Effective from: 12/05/2023
Decision:
Record of Officer
Urgent Decision
Chief Officers Pay
Agreement 2023
Decision
taken: To implement the Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers of Local
Authorities Pay Award for 2023-24.
Decision
of: Chief Executive
Reference:
23/Officerdecision/Civ1
Date
of decision: 12 May 2023
Matter
for Decision: Decision delegated from Civic Affairs Committee
Any
alternative options considered and rejected: The pay award for the chief officer level posts
(Directors, Heads of Service and Assistant Directors) is determined by national
level collective bargaining between the national employers and trade
unions. Once agreed at a national level
the City Council implements the pay award in accordance with the terms of staff
contracts of employment.
Reason
for the decision including any background papers considered: To implement the nationally agreed pay
award for chief officers following receipt of notification by circular from the
Joint Negotiating Committee for Chief Officers of Local Authorities dated 5 May
2023. The award is for an increase of
3.50 per cent on each pay point with effect from 1 April 2023.
Conflict
of interest and dispensation granted by Chief Executive: The Chief Executive is exercising this
decision as the Head of Human Resources has a personal interest in this pay
award.
Comments: This decision is taken in accordance with the delegated authority
from Civic Affairs Committee to the Head of Human Resources, as follows:
To
implement any award of a joint negotiating body so far as it concerns rates of
salary, wages, car allowances or other allowances payable to officers and other
employees of the Council except where the terms thereof involve the exercise of
a discretion by the Council provided that when any action is taken in pursuance
of this paragraph members are advised by the Head of Human Resources and a
record of that advice be made available to the public..
Contact
for further information: Robert Pollock, Chief Executive
Lead officer: Deborah Simpson
To agree the response to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC) Technical Consultation on the Infrastructure Levy
Decision Maker: Executive Councillor for Planning, Building Control, and Infrastructure
Decision published: 13/06/2023
Effective from: 13/06/2023
Decision:
Matter for Decision: To agree the response to the Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC) Technical Consultation on the
Infrastructure Levy
Appendix 1
Response to Technical Consultation on the Infrastructure Levy -
Cambridge Council
Why the Decision had to be made (and any alternative options): The
purpose of this decision is to agree the joint response from both Cambridge
City and South Cambridgeshire councils to the Department for Levelling Up,
Housing & Communities’ Technical consultation on the proposed introduction
of an Infrastructure Levy that seeks to replace the current regime of developer
obligations (Section 106 Agreements and Community Infrastructure Levy).
The consultation is on technical aspects of the design of the Levy with
responses informing the preparation and contents of regulations as part of the
Levelling Up and Regeneration Bill.
The Government is seeking to amend the current
system of developer obligations from new development by introducing a new
Infrastructure Levy, which it intends to replace the Community Infrastructure
Levy and hopes it will replace the use of Section 106 Agreements for the vast
majority of new development proposals. Currently neither South Cambridgeshire
District Council nor Cambridge City Council have a Community Infrastructure
Levy but continue to mitigate the impacts of development through the use of Section
106 contributions from major developments.
The proposed response raises significant
concerns about the proposals regarding the practical and financial implications
that they could have for the Councils. The response highlights concern
regarding the timing of receipt of funding and the impact this could have on
Councils having to bear the cost of borrowing to fund early infrastructure
provision, and questions the realism of the approach proposed for strategic
spending plans (referred to as Infrastructure Delivery Strategies).
Beyond this, the proposed response highlights
the need for the levy to secure appropriate provision of affordable housing
alongside addressing infrastructure needs effectively so it is delivered when
it is needed. The response also seeks
local discretion on many issues, so that the levy reflects local circumstances.
The proposed consultation response
highlights:-
·
the need for a mutually beneficial approach which enables developers to
deliver new housing which is viable and maximises gross development value, and
enables councils to mitigate the impact of development through the creation of
sustainable new infrastructure at the appropriate time, which helps communities
to thrive.
·
That the details of the scheme need to be consistent with the stated
purposes of introducing a new Infrastructure Levy – That is that the Levy must
achieve the same or greater affordable housing provision; must ensure
sufficient funding can be secured to provide the necessary infrastructure
required to support sustainable growth; and that it retains the ability for
councils to seek satisfactory mitigation of site specific impacts.(Questions 1,
2, 5 of the Technical Consultation)
·
Being clear about the infrastructure that a developer should provide as
part of their development and that which is to be funded from the
Levy.(Questions 1 & 2 of the Technical Consultation)
· The need to recognise that land values and land uses will vary across an
authority area, and therefore applicable rates and the setting of thresholds
for particular forms of development are best determined using local
discretion.(Question 20 of the Technical Consultation)
· That the system must assist the delivery of infrastructure when it is
needed, including the ability of local authorities to seek earlier payment of
the Levy to facilitate this. (Question 18 –19 of the Technical Consultation)
· Whether it is reasonable to assume that local authorities would be
willing to borrow against future Levy receipts to forward fund infrastructure,
the risks with this approach, especially where district councils are not the
delivery body (i.e. for highways, schools, healthcare etc). (Questions 21-22 of
the Technical Consultation)
· Concerns that the system is overly complicated and would be difficult
for laypersons to understand, potentially undermining public confidence in the
transparency of the system. (Questions 3 ,8 12,13 & 14 of the Technical
Consultation)
· Whether the system would be open to potential abuse or manipulation to
reduce liabilities on developers. (Questions 3,6, 7, & 14 of the Technical
Consultation)
· Whether the Levy could be adapted to help address other concerns, such
as land value engineering and development delivery rates .(Questions 16 &
17 of the Technical Consultation)
· Drawing attention to other potential pitfalls of the proposed Levy
system and, where appropriate, offering up solutions that mutually beneficial
for all parties. (Questions 21 of the Technical Consultation
·
That councils are best placed to
determine potential exemptions to the Levy, or reduced rates, and what priority
is to be afforded to which infrastructure. (Questions
39,42 of the Technical Consultation)
·
The need to engage with county and
other relevant infrastructure providers, as well as the wider community, to
ensure all affected parties have a say what’s required and where to meet local
needs. (Question 28 of the Technical Consultation)
·
The need for ongoing
engagement with the councils to ensure the implementation of the Levy does not
undermine existing planned development and growth. Questions
44 & 45 of the Technical Consultation)
· The need to adequately resource councils to meet the significant
administrative burdens likely to arise in setting an Infrastructure Levy,
operating it, and monitoring its effectiveness. (Question 37 of the Technical
Consultation)
The alternative options are:
·
Agree
to submit the response in Appendix 1, with possible minor amendments
·
Agree
an alternative response
·
Agree
not to respond to the consultation
To not submit a consultation response, would miss an opportunity to put
forward the Council’s views to the Department for Levelling Up, Housing &
Communities about the councils concerns in relation to the Government’s
proposed Infrastructure levy.
The Executive Councillor’s decision: To confirm that the
consultation response set out in Appendix 1 of this decision should be made to
Department for Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC).
Appendix 1
Response to Technical Consultation on the Infrastructure Levy -
Cambridge Council
Delegated authority is
given to the Joint Director for Planning and Economic Development to agree any
minor amendments to the response in order to finalise the joint response.
Reason for the decision: To provide the views of Cambridge City Council to the Department for
Levelling Up, Housing & Communities (DLUHC) Technical Consultation on the
Infrastructure Levy
Scrutiny Consideration: The Chair and Spokesperson
of the Planning and Transport Scrutiny Committee were consulted prior to the
action being authorised.
Report: Appendix 1 – Cambridge City Council and South Cambridgeshire
District Council proposed joint response to the Department for Levelling Up,
Housing & Communities
Appendix 1 Response to Technical
Consultation on the Infrastructure Levy - Cambridge Council
Comments: Councillor Porrer made the following comments which were
addressed by the Planning Policy Manager.
·
Q13
(p9/10) It would be good to mention the risk of a developer going bankrupt and
local councils having to pick up the tab, as well as for delays in payments as
mentioned. This is alluded to in the answer to Q21 but could be more
explicit. We have already had experience in Greater Cambridge of
developers going out of business without completing the infrastructure I
believe.
·
p17
para 1 - elicit not illicit I think.
Wards affected: (All Wards);
Lead officer: Jonathan Dixon