Re: Traveller sites and CIL - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Ouvert
|
En cours - juillet 2012
|
Dernière modification - May
Re: Traveller sites and CIL
Can anyone advise on traveller sites and CIL? If permission has been granted for a traveller site, and caravan units are placed on the pitches that are intended to remain there on a permanent basis, is this classed as a new dwelling that would attract CIL? And does it apply to each individual unit? Many thanks
Our understanding is that CIL is only applicable to buildings. Section 209 of the Planning Act 2008 states that development (for the purposes of CIL is defined as: (a)anything done by way of or for the purpose of the creation of a new building, or . (b)anything done to or in respect of an existing building Caravans are not buildings therefore would not pay CIL. Be interested to know if others share this interpretation.
I would agree that a caravan is not CIL liable/chargeable as it is not a building rather it is a use of land. However there is a need to ensure that the proposal is actually a caravan (probably not an issue in this instance). The Caravan Sites and Control of Development Act 1960 is clear that amongst many factors, in order for a unit to be considered a caravan it must be capable of being moved in a maximum of two pieces. Therefore there is a clear distrinction between a caravan and say a log cabin.
I raised this question back in June:- "Hi All, for the purposes of CIL is a mobile home (either a single or twin unit) a "building" and therefore "development" for the purposes of s.206(1) of the Planning Act 2008? The definition of "building" in the T&CP Act 1990 includes "any structure or erection" and the Caravan Sites Act defines a "twin-unit caravan" as "A structure ....". However for other planning purposes e.g. enforcement, inspectors have held that a mobile home is not a building. I am aware of the dangers of using the definitions in one piece of legislation for purposes in connection with another. Is there a consensus view on this?" I think that Parliament's intention is that mobile homes should not be liable but is that equitable given the intended uses of CIL receipts?