Issue details

On 10 February Cabinet authorised a public consultation on the draft CIL charging schedule and associated documentation.

The Council undertook a 6-week consultation between Monday 16 February 2026 and Sunday 29 March 2026. A consultation was undertaken at the same time for the South Cambridgeshire District Council draft CIL charging schedule and representations were invited in relation to both.

The purpose of the Cambridge City and South Cambridgeshire CIL is to secure more money from developments to help address the funding deficit for strategic transport infrastructure. Section 106 planning obligations will still be used to fund localised infrastructure including (but not limited to) schools, surgeries, community centres, and sports facilities.

The consultation sought views from developers and our communities on the following CIL rates:

•£35psm for industrial buildings and data centres

•£50psm for shops, restaurants, financial and professional services, and hotels

•£60psm for houses and flats, retirement homes, residential institutions, and student accommodation

•£175psm for offices and R&D buildings

The Councils received 630 comments from 139 respondents. Officers have produced a Consultation Statement to summarise the broad theme of all representations and the Councils response to these. This statement is appended to the Cabinet report along with appendices containing representations received through the consultation platform and representations received by letter which have been summarised.

Broadly speaking there was support for the adoption of CIL because there was recognition that all developments should contribute towards infrastructure and the sense that developers were “wriggling out” of negotiated s106 contributions. This support was predicated on the Councils being confident that the introduction of CIL would not create an adverse impact on growth or other planning policy objectives. Some who objected were opposed to any new taxation.

Details relating to the infrastructure funding gap the Councils were relying on attracted many comments. Objectors stated that the infrastructure evidence is out of date, that there is no gap, that the gap is smaller than that being reported, that the gap is larger than being reported, and that the mismanagement of funds is the reason for any gap.

A significant number of representations focussed on the rates and the evidence that had been prepared for the Councils by independent viability experts. Many respondents submitted information relating to (for example) sales value, costs, profit, and fees. Other respondents sought to have specific sites (including strategic sites) exempted from CIL. Some respondents considered the Councils should be charging developers more to develop in the area.

No one objecting to the proposed rates offered alternative rates.

Broadly speaking most respondents understood how the Councils will use CIL alongside s106 contributions although some required a little more clarity.

Whilst there was broad support for the draft instalment policy there were some suggestions relating to having further instalments for larger payments and where payment is made over a longer period.

In terms of other comments some respondents considered that the regulatory requirements had not been met because of the lack of reference to how CIL Reg 43 Mandatory Charitable exemption and CIL Reg 44 discretionary charitable exemptions applied.

Having considered representations and examined carefully the submissions made on viability, Officers and the Councils viability consultants remain satisfied that the Council has struck an appropriate balance between additional investment to support development and the potential effect on the viability of developments and that regulatory requirements have been met. This report recommends that the Council submits the draft charging schedule and associated evidence for independent examination.

Adopting a CIL ensures that the Councils follow through on their City Deal commitments to generate an adequate local contribution to fund the infrastructure necessary for the Local Plans. It also ensures that all eligible development contribute towards the infrastructure that they benefit from and that planning permissions can be issued quicker. The consultation has demonstrated broad support for the proposed rates. Viability evidence has been re-evaluated following representations received from developers. This has confirmed support for the rates whilst recognising that the position for offices and research and development space is more challenging that when the viability assessments were carried out and the evidence available at that time