RE: CIL 2014 Infrastructure Payments - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
RE: CIL 2014 Infrastructure Payments
I'm struggling with 73A (7) in the new regs. The Clause (b) seems to imply that infrastructure (in lieu) has to be (i) on the 123 list and (ii) not necessary to make the development acceptable. Can anyone clarify if this is really the intended meaning or is there another "not" that i am not reading? I'm struggling to see why infrastructure not required by a development would beoffered/accepted or on the 123 list. If (ii) is intended to make sure you do not issue permission on the basis that infrastructure in lieu will be agreeded, the syntax seems to open unintended issues. Or maybe I'm missing something. Many thanks for insight!
The wording is correct to include the "not". Any infrastructure that is required to make the proposed development acceptable in planning terms should be secured through a site specific s.106 and not funded through CIL.
(7)(a)(ii) is included to make sure that the infrastructure being offered is actually capable of being delivered.
Hi,
Has anyone had any experience of applying R73a for payments in kind? An independent person must value the infrastructure being provided before commencement so that this value can then be taken off the CIL charge. But there seems to be no review mechanism to revalue the infrastructure at the end of the process. So the infrastructure could be valued at x and then a developer actually provide it at a much reduced y value. It seems if this were the case then we have no means to recover the difference....
Carol Gore, Addaswyd 7 Years yn ôl.
RE: CIL 2014 Infrastructure Payments
Enthusiast Postiadau: 42 Dyddiad Ymuno: 20/10/2011 Bostiadau diweddarHi Gerard,
We are currently going through our very first infrastructure in lieu of cash :-)
We have poured over the regs in respect of this, and have come to the conclusion that the value set at the start, is the value full stop.
I can actually see the sense of this.
In our case, we are accepting a mixture of cash and infrastructure. I, personally, would therefore find it frustrating to revalue the infrastructure at the end of the process, because there is also the risk it may have cost the developer MORE than agreed at the beginning, which they would then probably want taking off the CIL cash charge / crediting.
I suppose it means it could work both ways - sometimes the developer will win, sometimes it will work in the Councils favour.
Additionally, another question is, if they paid in cash instead, would it have cost the Council more to deliver deliver the infrastructure themselves? Them delivering the infrastructure may mean we save money on the identified project.
Carol Gore, Addaswyd 7 Years yn ôl.
RE: CIL 2014 Infrastructure Payments
Enthusiast Postiadau: 42 Dyddiad Ymuno: 20/10/2011 Bostiadau diweddarI'm not sure.
Maybe as part of the written agreement it could instead be set as a phased payment and calculation?
It would be easier if the planning permission itself was phased, because then the CIL value is calculated at each phase, so the infrstructure in lieu of cash would therefore be accepted and valued for each phase?
I suggest your Legal team need to give this a good looking over if you want a review of the value.