Re: CIL and self-builds? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

The way the CIL regs and legislation are written - it is essentially a tax and any residential unit is liable to pay the relevant rate for the area. Local authorities if they decide to have a CIL will not have a choice about charging it - they will have to.

If a changing authority itself owned land it proposed to sell off over time to self builders (and I've seen it done, although longer ago), it could legitimately zone that land at a zero CIL rate within its CIL charging schedule.

How could it be selective - under the legislation - any differentiation should be based soley on viability not on any policy or selective preference - that would be contrary to the regs and state aid ?

<< How could it be selective All square metres are NOT created equal. A sq metre of a glitzy luxury home with marble floors etc is not the same as a sq meter of a small basic self build home. Based on a quick scan of the regs, I suppose a hard up applicant who couldn't proceed due the the costs could request a special case CIL exemption.

<< How could it be selective Oops - posted too quickly there - I see your point, Gilian. The LPA can indeed have different rates but based ONLY on viability. I suppose that does mean that a class of CIL for low-cost self-builds could be set up by an LPA. I wonder if the viability aspect would require means-testing of applicants?

Richard, Most LPAs currently have some form of S.106 contribution requirements for all residentail development regardless of size and including self builds. Given that CIL will replace such "blanket" s.106 requirements what makes you think that CIL will put a greater burden on self builds?

Not even as simple as that. There are seven different self-build delivery options identified on the recent portal (http://www.selfbuildportal.org.uk/), all of which have different business models and therefore viability drivers. Reading the Mid Devon article in last Planning backs up the suggestion that differential rates can be used, with the evidence, but which charging schedule is going to benefit from the evidence analysis to ensure the right self-build options are not inadvertantly disadvantaged by CIL?

CIL rates can only be set with an eye to viability, but the viability relates to types of development and not to who may be carrying it out. It would therefore not be within the Regs (in my view) to set a lower or nil CIL rate for residental development being carried out on a self build basis. If the imposition of CIL results in some self build schemes becoming unviable (but I don't believe that it will in most cases) then so be it as the Regs say that CIL can't be set at a level that puts overall development across an area at risk. It does not have to be set at a level that ensures that all development proposals remain viable. At the margins there are likely to be some cases where the CIL liability tips the balance into non-viability and some of those cases may be self-build schemes.

Richard - viability is tested at the point of setting the rate - not on the idividual application. Discretionary relief under reg 55 would only be available if there is a S106 which is greater than the CIL liablility - so not much help. Many (most?) self builds are actually built by small local builders on contract, so what is the difference from a CIL perspective to dwellings built for sale? How is a cheap self build a different use to a new "self build" country mansion? One way through this that I can see would require changes to the regs to class self builds as a form of affordable dwellings but this would need a very clear definition of what constitutes a self build and CIL liability would occur if the dwelling is subsequently sold during the clawback perio

I'm not so sure the last point is correct. The Regs refer to 'the potential effects (taken as a whole) of the imposition of CIL on the economic viability of development across its area". In this case, this could be interpreted as meaning that, as self-build is part of the 'whole', it should not be ignored but, if a charging authority considers it appropriate to safeguard self-build by setting a lower or nil CIL rate for it, then they have the freedom to do so. The only fly in the ointment then is, is self-build a different use from non-self build? As regarding different size retail developments as different uses seems to be established now despite the Regulations being silent on the matter, surely the same principle holds good for residential schemes too? (what's good for the goose etc). Thus it could be argued that a charging authority is able to charge a reduced or zero CIL rate on smaller residential schemes (which would include the majority of self-builds) if it considers their viability is threatened.

Thanks for the comments re CIL. The one case that I think might need some sort of CIL relief is the very small house built by someone for whom this is the only route to an affordable home. This however might need a later CIL clawback if/when the house was ever sold. All rather complex ....