New CIL Regs - Definition of Kr? - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
New CIL Regs - Definition of Kr?
Does anybody know what the effect is of the change to the definition of Kr in Regulation 40 (specifically point (ii))?
My confusion lies in the fact that if a use doesn't require planning permission how can it be part of the chargeable development? Regulation 9 states that chargeable development is the "the development for which planning permission is granted"
Charlene Jones, modified 10 Years ago.
New CIL Regs - Definition of Kr?
New Member Posts: 22 Join Date: 30/08/13 Recent PostsHi,
I've tried to work out diagrammatically the content of Section 2:3:12 ‘Can existing buildings be taken into account when calculating a new levy charge?’
The sentence I've found the most complicated is:
"Parts of the building that are to be retained as part of the development can still be taken into account, if the intended use matches a use that could have lawfully been carried out without requiring a new planning permission.”
I'd appreciate any feedback as to whether I've interpreted the Guidance and Regulations correctly.
Many thanks.
Thanks Charlene,
Your diagrams seem correct to me. However, with respect to fig.5 what I can't work out is how this sitiuation is any different under the new regulations. If something didn't require planning permission (e.g retained use) under the old regs it wouldn't be part of the chargeable development and therefore no CIL would be paid on it.
Is the actual difference between the old and the new regs that if a building that is not in-use changes to a use that doesn't require planning permission (although is still development, e.g. office to resi) then no CIL will have to be paid? You seem to suggest this in fig.6
Charlene Jones, modified 10 Years ago.
New CIL Regs - Definition of Kr?
New Member Posts: 22 Join Date: 30/08/13 Recent PostsHi,
I find one of the confusing elements of the Regs is that the equation (quite rightly) combines the effects of discounting existing buildings either for a change of use and/or a demolition and re-build.
The main difference between fig 5 and fig 6 would be relevant if the retained buildings are part of the new application.
(5) the retained buildings wouldn't be classed as 'in-use' under the Regs, however, as the application (if it's a redevelopment/change of use) wouldn't require a planning application on the retained part then a CIL charge wouldn't apply.
(6) the retained buildings wouldn't be classed as 'in-use' under the Regs, and it wouldn't be permitted development to the redevelopment/change of use, therefore the retained buildings would be classed as part of the chargeable development.
That's my understanding so far - the nuances between the 2013 Amendments and 2014 Amendments escape me at the moment tbh.
Thanks.
The intent of the 2014 amendments seems to be that a building that does not meet the "in use" test because it has not been in use for 6 months in the last three years is not liable for CIl if its use in the new development will be the same as its last use. Prior to the 2014 amendments CIL would have been payable on such a building.
See the bottom of page 13 of the Govt response document of Oct 2013 to the consultation on the proposed reforms for the expression of intent.
Tony,
If a not-in use building is in the same use following the development no development with respect to that buidling has taken place. Therefore even under the old regulations there would have been no CIL payable.
For example, if I submitted a planning application for an extension to a "not in-use" building the chargeable development would only relate to the extension as I wouldn't need planning permission for re-using the rest of the building for the same use. Similarly if a not in use building is to be retained in its same use as part of larger development scheme around it the planning permission would unlikely cover the retention of the existing building (as this would not require planning permission) and would only relate to the new buildings plus any changes of use.
I can't think of any scenraios where under the old regulations a not in use building being kept in its same lawful use would be liable for CIL.
I can only think that the intention is to cover a situation where a not "in use" buuilding is retained for the same use but is to be subsumed into a much larger new building that will be used for the same purpose as the original much smaller building. I can't think what else the amendment is intended to cover.
As with a lot of things in life now, the standard of legislative drafting is not what it used to be!!