CIL adoption timescales - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Hi,

Apologies if I've got the wrong end of the stick, but there are two pieces of advice on the PAS FAQs in relation to your query Dean, which I would like clarity on. It would seem that once you adopt CIL or April 2015, which ever occurs first, you can only pool five Section 106s. However, these go back to April 2010 - so it depends whether you're going to pool more than 5 from that date by April 2015.

On the other hand, if you've got a pool of 5 Section 106s, once you adopt CIL and it's on your Regulation 123 list, you can add CIL to the accumulated Section 106 pot for that item/type of infrastructure (depending on how quickly you have to spend the received S106).

Who said that CIL would be easier and more transparent than S106s? ;-)

Point 1) -

Deciding on whether to develop a charging schedule

Is it worth adopting CIL if a S106 tariff can raise more per residential unit?
To answer this, think about these points:

• You will get a CIL from most developments; even small amounts from each will add up.
• You will not be able to pool more than five S106 contributions after 6th April 2014
• Even now, due to the changes to the legislation contained in s122 of the CIL Regulations, a s106 obligation cannot be a reason for granting permission unless the three legal tests are met. There have been cases where tariffs have failed at appeal as they do not comply with these tests.

Point 2) -

When I introduce CIL will I still be able to pool up to five contributions for one infrastructure project?

Yes, for an item of infrastructure that is not intended to be funded by the levy. The limit of five applies as well to types of general infrastructure contributions, such as education and transport. In assessing whether five separate planning obligations have already been entered into for a specific infrastructure project or a type of infrastructure, local planning authorities must look back to all  agreements that have been entered into since 6 April 2010 and check that there is no more than five in total.

You might find this article of interest from Planning magazine/Planning Resource

http://www.planningresource.co.uk/article/1229119/cil-watch-pilot-council-puts-cil-hold

Planning is aware of four councils that have either taken the decision not to proceed with introducing the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) or are in the process of deciding whether to do so.

Among the authorities known to have shelved its CIL plans is Redcar & Cleveland Borough Council, which was one of 20 "front runner" councils picked by the government in 2011 to demonstrate the benefits of the levy.

The council's draft local plan, published last September, currently cites advice from consultants that it is "not appropriate" to adopt CIL to raise money for critical infrastructure as "it is not currently possible to demonstrate sufficient viability in both the residential and employment development sectors."

Others not proceeding are Wolverhampton City Council and North Hertfordshire District Council. Wolverhampton City Council decided not to pursue CIL in 2012 on the grounds of high implementation costs coupled with "low anticipated revenue", while North Hertfordshire Council opted not to implement CIL last July. Its cabinet was warned that "there would probably be less money to spend under CIL" than under section 106 (S106) arrangements, and that CIL would not guarantee that particular infrastructure deficiencies would be addressed.

Scarborough Borough Council's cabinet will consider a report next month recommending against the introduction of CIL on the grounds of "questionable" viability, potential damage to local housebuilding plans, and reduced affordable housing provision.

From April next year, local authorities' ability to seek financial contributions through the use of S106 agreements will be scaled back. From this date, the restrictions will mean that a council will be able to pool no more than five contributions from separate permissions for an item of infrastructure not funded by CIL.

Steve Woolley, a consultant to Peter Brett Associates, said councils' vulnerability to the changes would depend on the type of growth they were planning in the coming years.

"If they don't envisage much growth, they might not want to introduce CIL," he said. "Alternatively, they may see growth being concentrated on one, or just a few large sites, such that no more than five S106 agreements can cover what is required."

Meanwhile, a west London borough has hiked the rates it intends to charge developers of residential schemes through the levy by more than 15 per cent, citing strengthening market conditions as the reason behind its decision.

The Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea last week published its CIL draft charging schedule for public consultation.

The residential charges proposed in the document are higher than those put forward in the council's preliminary draft charging schedule, which was consulted on in January 2013.

The local authority's proposed residential charge for a zone covering Knightsbridge - already one of the highest charges in the country at £650 per square metre - is £750 per square metre. In a statement, the council said: "We feel the increase in rates is justified, as market conditions in this borough have strengthened and sales prices increased considerably over the last 12 months."

Melys Pritchett, associate director at property firm Savills, said that it is currently "not common" for councils to raise their proposed CIL charges.

Kieron Hodgson, a director at consultancy Iceni Projects, said there could now be a "storming push" to submit applications before the council's levy is adopted from developers seeking to avoid the charge.

  In terms of delaying adoption of CIL - I know of no requirement to do it within a particular timescale. I think it might be West Berkshire who were considering delaying as they obtain more money towards infrastructure from S106 - but you would need to check it out with them direct. The issue that might push you to adopt straight away is the indexing issue.