Don't state a 'base' BCIS All-in Tender Price Index on a CIL Charging Sched - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Ouvert
|
En cours - juillet 2012
|
Dernière modification - May
Don't state a 'base' BCIS All-in Tender Price Index on a CIL Charging Sched
Former Member, modifié il y a 12 années.
Don't state a 'base' BCIS All-in Tender Price Index on a CIL Charging Sched
0
Authorities would be advised not to state the 'base' BCIS All-in Tender Price Index on a CIL Charging Schedule for the following reasons: 1) there is no requirement to do so under Regulation 12 of the CIL Regs 2010 (format and content of charging schedules) 2) the index is referred to under Regulation 40 (calculation of a chargeable amount) so should only be established from the index as published at the date CIL is caculated, not from the index as published at the date the Charging Schedule takes effect 3) it is not common or good practice to establish a historical indici from the index as published at a historical point in time, and a current indici from the index as last published - both indices should be established from the index as published at the same point in time 4) if one were to establish the 'base' indici from the index as published at the date a CIL charging schedule took effect and state it on a charging schedule, for charging schedules that took effect in the first 6 months of the year, this would mean using an indici for the previous 4th quarter which would have 'Forecast' status, i.e. one that may, and I suggest probably would, change over the ensuing months, leading to a situation where an authority could be open to challenge on the 'base' index it was using to calculate CIL. Even for those authorities whose charging schedules take effect in the latter 6 months of the year and believe that the index has lost its 'Forecast' status and is now firm can be taken by surprise, and we aware that as late as December 2011, the supposedly firm index for 4Q 2010 changed from 220 to 221
Former Member, modifié il y a 12 années.
Re: Don't state a 'base' BCIS All-in Tender Price Index on a CIL Charging S
0
Not stating the 'base' BCIS All-in Tender Price Index on a CIL Charging Schedule might well be a viable in relation to Regulations 12 and 40. However, Regulation 65 is a far more difficult can of worms. Since 65(1) requires liability notices to be issued as soon as practicable, 65(4) requires revised liability notices to be issued if the chargeable amount changes and the All-in Tender Price Index is first published as forecasts and then as estimates (as increasing numbers of tenders are analysed) before finally settling to a firm figure (when all of the available tenders have been analysed), revised liability notices will have to be issued each time new figures are published. With regard to complexity and scale, the All-in Tender price index published for 1st November 2006 changed 5 times between October 2006 and July 2008 and decreased by 2.9% overall. As charging authorities, landowners and developers require certainty with regard to chargeable amounts of CIL, I have written to CLG’s CIL Team urging them to resolved this issue as soon as possible. Not stating the 'base' BCIS All-in Tender Price Index on a CIL Charging Schedule might well be a viable in relation to Regulations 12 and 40. However, Regulation 65 is a far more difficult can of worms. Since 65(1) requires liability notices to be issued as soon as practicable, 65(4) requires revised liability notices to be issued if the chargeable amount changes and the All-in Tender Price Index is first published as forecasts and then as estimates (as increasing numbers of tenders are analysed) before finally settling to a firm figure (when all of the available tenders have been analysed), revised liability notices will have to be issued each time new figures are published. With regard to complexity and scale, the All-in Tender price index published for 1st November 2006 changed 5 times between October 2006 and July 2008 and decreased by 2.9% overall. As charging authorities, landowners and developers require certainty with regard to calculating chargeable amounts of CIL, I have written to CLG’s CIL Team urging them to resolved this issue as soon as possible. N.B. The same concern also affects Draft Regulations 58A and 59A.
Former Member, modifié il y a 12 années.
Re: Don't state a 'base' BCIS All-in Tender Price Index on a CIL Charging S
0
Yes, it might have been better if Regulation 40 had based BCIS indices for a given year on the figure for (say) 1st May of the preceding year, rather than the figure for 1st November - at least that would have eliminated forecast indices from being used. However, even if this was amended, there would still be a problem if indices were to change once they've lost their forecast status on their way to becoming firm. With draft Regulations 58A and 59A the situation becomes even more curious because, although in draft Regulation 58A 'Ia' is defined as the index figure for the year in which CIL is passed to the local council, there is no definition here as to what index is applicable (e.g. BCIS, retail price index, or any other index) and Regulation 40(7) only defines the BCIS index for use within Regulation 40(5). Also, I would venture to suggest that draft Regulation 59A(4) can't possibly be correct as it refers to a sum per dwelling multiplied by 'Ia' and there is no attempt whatsoever to relate 'Ia' to any base index in the way 'Ip' and 'Ic' are related under Regulation 40.
Former Member, modifié il y a 11 années.
Re: Don't state a 'base' BCIS All-in Tender Price Index on a CIL Charging S
0
Hello all. I spoke with BCIS technical support and they pointed out the following: 1. The index figures change over time. But according to BCIS, we should use the index based on what was published or forecast on 1 November of a given year. 2. BCIS uses the calendar year. Therefore the November index has to be from Qtr 4. 3. The regulations state that the figure for a given year is the figure for 1st November of the preceding year.