Community Infrastructure Levy - a few queries! - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi Nat, My understanding is that for social housing, the element of a scheme that is social housing will be exempt from the charge. However, the scheme in its totality will have to pay CIL, although reduced to account for the social housing element. I think this is why it is called relief. Although you are proposing 3 charging zones, there will only be one charging schedule and therefore all zones will be examined at once. Remember that differential zones can only be based upon economic viability and not the infrastructure needs of a given area. Check out the recently published guidance on CLGs website. Another question along the same theme.... How are authorities dealing with emerging and exisiting planning policies that require off-site S106 contributions where on-site infrastructure is not provided (for example open space policies)? From reading the Regs and the guidance it appears these types of policies will be unworkable post 2014 and I can't see how they can work under CIL where all development pays contributions toward infrastructure regardless of onsite provision

I think the key to continuing to use s106 alongside CIL charges is to try and pinpoint very specifically and commit to what items of infrastructure will be funded through CIL. The effect of Regulation 123 is that authorities should always have a definitive list published on thier website setting out intended CIL spending priorities. This leaves them free to seek s106 agreements for other items NOT on this list. If an authority does not publish a list, then it will be difficult to get a s106 for any infrastructure. As long as the off-site infrastructure can be shown to adhere to direct impact mitigation of the particular development (in accordance with the now statutory tests), and you are not otherwise committing to spending CIL monies on the same item, these can still be secured through s106 agreements. Bear in mind however that, ultimately, post-2014 the idea is that any standard charge approach towards capital infrastructure expenditure should be built into a CIL charge. s106 would be safer for provision in kind, or non-capital related contributions (e.g. for open space maintenance).

Hi I work for a small Local Authority in Leicestershire and we have scheduled to publish our Developer Contributions SPD over the course of the next 12 months, once our Core Strategy has been adopted. However, now the Community Infrastructure Levy has been enacted, we must consider how this may impact upon the preparation of the SPD and how this could influence our approach to developer contributions should we choose to introduce the Levy in the Borough. I have to admit, at this stage I am not entirely sure whether the one replaces the other or if there is indeed a need to still have an SPD as well as a CIL Charging Schedule. This is something, along with many other uncertainties around CIL that I must clarify very soon! Are you aware of any forthcoming RTPI / PAS / CLG events on how Local Planning Authorities can implement CIL or have you come across any other training opportunities that LPA's can attend in relation to this? If you haven't come across anything of this nature, not to worry. To all reading this thread - how are others in LPA's tackling CIL? Regards, Ed

From reading Regulation 123(3) again alongside the new Planning Obligations consultation, it seems quite clear to me that it will not be possible to fund infrastructure through S106 once a CIL is adopted or after 2014. The area of uncertainty is what constitutes infrastructure as S106 contributions will still be able to be collected for things that aren't determined as infrastructure. So I think that CIL will eventually replace SPDs that set out infrastructure tariffs. Is anyone else preparing or planning to prepare a CIL?

Sam At this stage, from our perspective, we will run with the SPD but with a view to needing to consider the need for CIL or SULT - whichever the Conservatives run with once things become a little more certain. I have just read a very interesting recent account of the situation on the following website. I think it provides a very good understanding of what the situation is and what the differences in CIL and SULT could be. http://www.tymconsult.com/newsitem_The-impact-of-Conservative-policy-on-infrastructure-planning_46.php Regards, Ed

We are thinking of using our IDP/LIP as a way of deciding what to do with a view to working on a charging schedule and economic viability assessment as those 2 elements are likely to be required for any kind of charge. By the time the IDP/LIP is finished, we should have more of a steer!