CIL on Hold - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

I recall maybe Wolverhampton has decided not to.

Given that viability is the principal determinant of the level at which CIL charges are set, there is, generally speaking, going to be less scope to secure CIL the further away you get from London and the South-East. If you were to map CIL charges proposed to date you would see a broad but clear pattern emerging, with distance from London being broadly reflected in the charges proposed. The closer you are to London the higher the CIL charges and vice-versa. There will of course be anomalies. Personally, I would argue that CIL is a tax that benefits areas which are already relatively affluent. (Of course, not everyone in those areas is affluent). Arguably CIL is not a ‘fair’ tax in that sense. I doubt that it will help to address growth imbalances around the country, although that was probably not part of the intent? CIL is unlikely to provide places which really want growth with the resources they need to stimulate growth through infrastructure provision because viability is not there in those places in the way that it is in London and the South-East? Sorry for the philosophical response and for not directly answering your question David!

Regulation 14(1) of the 2010 Regs states that a charging authority must aim to strike what appears to it to be an appropriate balance between the desire to fund infrastructure from CIL and the imposition of CIL on viability. So if parking CIL is striking an appropriate balance for Scarborough, then you're perfectly entitled to do so. However, I suggest you should carry out sensitivity and/or uncertainty analysis or similar before arriving at this view. Indeed, I would suggest that all charging authorities should be doing this, yet so far I only see evidence of them having viability analysis carried our suggesting what CIL rates can be levied to make the pips squeak then, and usually very unscientifically, applying CIL at some lesser rates which I suppose authorities would argue is them achieving an appropriate balance.

I recall looking at the economics of development in Scarborough some years ago while supporting a Roger Tym viability study. They looked at best marginal especially given the nature of some of the allocated sites. Unless something has changed (and house prices haven't much) that is probably still the case on a 'broad view'. Some types of scheme will still make money but my bet is that just now the carrot isn't worth the effort. You might care to review any decision next year.

I think the answer for most Authorities is quite simple - if you are currently obtaining affordable housing and infrastructure contributions through planning obligations then CIL is viable. CIL does not emerge from some additional viability pot, it comes from the same 'additional profit' margin generated by the uplift in land value resulting from planning permission that currently funds affordable housing and section 106 contributions. CIL is really therefore really a choice of delivery mechanism for infrastructure contributions rather than an additional funding tool. It should be acknowkedged though that infrastructure contributions (whether by CIL or Sc 106) will directly complete wiith affordable housing delivery, particularly in areas with challenging economic circumstances. In our view, CIL should be seen as the first slice of development tax and therefore set at sensible, perhaps even conservative, rates with section 106 be used to top up infrastructure and affordable housing on a site by sirte basis dependent on specific viability considerations at planning application stage. CIL still has the advantage over section 106 in that it will capture contributions from all chargeable (ie viable) development - where the administrative burden of legal agreements has made section 106 impractical for small scale development. It has been particularly surprising at Newark, how much CIL has been generated from unexpected sources (eg housing extensions) . In view of the current debate over the legal interpretation of planning obligation restrictions in Reg 123, there may be very little option for any Authority wishing to obtain any significant infrastructure contributions after April 2014, other than to adopt CIL. Adrian Kerrison, Nationwide CIL Service

Hi Adrian. In the context of the new 'mitigation' role of S106 I wonder what the scope is for wider use for contributions secured that way. Again from dimming memory [retirement is a wonderful eraser] some of Scarborough's sites will need quite a bit of S106 just to solve physical development obstacles. David, have I lost the plot?

Hi Mick, I am sure your retirement is far from dim, - the issue I refer to is one of 'piece of infrastructure' vs 'type of infrastructure' for the purpose of interpretation of Reg 123. If 'type' of infrastructure effectively supersedes 'piece' then it may be that only five obligations could be used for whole categoroes of infrastructrure during a complete plan period (eg education infrastructure as a whole rather than 5 obligations per primary school for instance) . We await an answer from DCLG. Adrian Kerrison Nationwide CIL Service