Agenda item

Cabinet received a report which sought its approval for the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule Update 2014, and to recommend the Peterborough Community Infrastructure (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule to Council for approval.

Councillor Hiller introduced the item, explaining that continued growth and development in Peterborough required continued infrastructure to support it. The Peterborough Infrastructure Delivery Schedule (IDS) identified infrastructure needs and, as a live document, would be updated each year. The CIL was be a new, simpler and non-negotiable scheme introduced by the Government. It was further advised that the rate charges for new business within the scheme would be nil.

Comments from Members and responses to questions included:

·         The increased allocation of funding going to education was appreciated;

·         CIL was applicable to the land. As such, all charges were passed on if the land was sold; and

·         The scheme had to go live on 1 April 2015, as the Peterborough Planning Obligations Implementation Scheme SPD (POIS) would become illegal on this date.

Cabinet considered the report and RESOLVED to:

1.    Recommend the Peterborough Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Draft Charging Schedule to Council for approval for the purposes of public consultation and Submission of Draft Charging Schedule and associated material to Planning Inspectorate for Examination in Public; and

2.    Approve the Infrastructure Delivery Schedule Update 2014.

REASONS FOR THE DECISION

Government had introduced changes to the way developer contributions could be collected and spent. Charging Authorities had the option of adopting a CIL. From April 2015, the use of our existing methodology for collecting and pooling developer contributions (POIS) would become unlawful and so unless a CIL is adopted, the collection and use of developer contributions would be severely limited from that date. Adopting a CIL would introduce a recognised system that was used by other authorities; provide a fairer system for ensuring developer contributions were made by small and large developments alike in a proportionate manner; and a simpler more direct way of directly passing back contributions to the communities within which the development had taken place.

          .

ALTERNATIVE OPTIONS CONSIDERED

The option to not adopt a CIL had been considered and rejected. This option may have been acceptable if, for example, Peterborough was only expecting very minimal growth over the plan period and the majority of that growth could be dealt with through the limited pooling of contributions for strategic infrastructure. This would have made the adoption of a CIL superfluous. Since Peterborough would continue to deliver a significant number of homes and jobs over the plan period this option was rejected.

The option of alternative Levy rates had been rejected, as the ones proposed were based on robust evidence.