Re: Community Infrastructure Levy - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

We are in the process of putting together a Infrastructure Provision and Delivery SPD which , it is intended, will have at its core a CIL. The focus of these pooled contributions will be Transport, Education and Healthcare infrastructure at the strategic level with other more site specific contributions being dealt with at a lower level on a case by case basis. We have contribution calculation mechanisms for transport (cost per daily trip generated) and education (cost per school place / dwelling) The Tariff is based on costs per average dwelling (3 bed) and per square metre for non residential development. Hoping to get a draft out for consultation in the New Year, although this may slip slightly. The key is to try an balance the requirements of the three tests within Circular 05/2005 and the CIL Regs 2010 and trying to keep the tariff simple and easy to use - for developers, officers and Members! Not sure we have quite got there yet though!

In looking at our current Planning Obligations SPD, please see link below - (please input into your web browser), we already have formulas that are used to calculate the means by which we arrive at the amounts that we ask for when negotiating with developers. The problem is that it is just that - negotiable! While having a charging schedule does solve this problem, the cost involved in producing this also has to be factored in. It has to be independently assessed. This is not cheap. Again, in this current economic climate where budgets are constrained and staffing is being reduced, this is not a real priority. We are keeping a track of what the government is doing on this and making preparations on a small scale and, if the government do actually decide that this is a must then, we will have no choice but to do it. Now that CIL has put the tests on a legal basis and has made the testing more rigourous we have been more insistent that our departments have costed schemes, that are prepared in advance of development, so that developers can see exactly what their contributions are going to be spent on. This has been going well and progress has been made. In conclusion, we will not be preparing a charging schedule, unless it is absolutely necessary, due to the fact that we have something similar in place and the cost involved. We are taking steps to tighten up our system based on the changes implemented with regards to the three tests. I hope that this helps. http://www.sutton.gov.uk/index.aspxarticleid=1370

Bridget Thanks for this. The Planning Obligations SPD is thorough and interesting. Since it's 2007, has this been updated? Look forward to hearing from you.

It is currently being updated. My manager, Mark McLaughlin in the Strategic Planning team, is leading on this. We are currently consulting with all the relevant departments and it will be going to our Planning Advisory Group for their views. It should be completed hopefully at some point next year.

If any of you are struggling to find some way of estimating some of the costs that you might want to cover with a CIL, you might find an answer in the 'infrastructure costs ready reckoner' which is freely available from the 'links' section on my website www.regenerate.co.uk It also covered sources of funding but I haven't updated this following the Spending Review and pending more detail on departmental plans.

Michael Many thanks. Some useful stuff. Will attribute if used.

Thank you very much as well Michael. Very interesting. It may be useful for us in the future.

There is a CIL announcement today - See below: After careful consideration the Government has decided that this tariff-based approach provides the best framework to fund new infrastructure to unlock land for growth. However, retaining the levy means reforming it to ensure that more power is given to councils and communities on how it works and that the development industry benefits from a more flexible system. These changes will be achieved through amendments to CIL legislation and regulations. The full text of the announcement is at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/news/newsroom/1772640

Thank you very much for this Gilian. Extremely helpful. I have circulated the announcement internally and we will be looking at the implications of this. Looking forward to seeing the amendments as soon as they are available.

Further to yesterdays posting - This is just to let you know that the Community Infrastructure Levy page has been published to the DCLG website and can now be viewed at: http://www.communities.gov.uk/planningandbuilding/planningsystem/communityinfrastructurelevy/.

I'd like to get going on a CIL for our Authority but theres a few problems we can see if we do now. Our CS is in place since 2008 but it is likely that we will be embarking on a Core Strategy alteration in two years time to look at revising the housing targets (maybe considerably lower if Members get their wish). So the obvious difficulity is that if we undertake infrastructure planning work for CIL on current housing targets and by the time its in place we start a process of reviewing the housing targets it renders the work pretty pointless and a CIL out of sync with the level of development expected. Our IDP hasn't been through examination yet. From looking at the 'Charge Setting Procesdures' guidance document it seems one of the main aims is to identify a funding gap to show why a CIL is needed and then do significant viability work to set it a right level. It always going to come back to viability anyway because if the funding gap shows you should be charging £500/sq m well thats just not possible! So if we identify a funding gap and set the CIL at a sensible level regarding viability that wouldn'd be likely to fluctuate much whatever the housing targets, would it have any chance of standing up to examination? The other option is doing a CIL alongside the CS alteration but that may mean not having it in place before April 14 and struggling on with s106 for pooling for another 3-5 years!

Just an update on this.....we are proposing undertaking the background work based on different scenarios e.g. full CS build out; no greenfield; or constraint (limited build rate). This will give us time to get the evidence in place and shows flexibility on our CIL rates based on different growth scenarios. It will mean however having assumptions on what housing levels could be. Appreciate any thoughts on this or what approach other authorities are intending to take

On another part of the forum a local authority planner Scott Nicholas has posted a query and I thought this group may be able to help him: Regarding the CIL and liability: My understanding is that the demolition of a building would be deducted from the final levy liability (i.e. levy liability is a net calculation) - but is this only for demolished buildings that have recently been in use? What if the building to be demolished has not been in use for a number of months or even years? Would the floorspace of the demolished building still be deducted from the final levy liability? Is there some kind of threshold for determining this (e.g. only buildings that have been in use for the past 6 months are deducted)? Any light on this matter would be much appreciated!