Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

RE: CIL self build and Unilateral undertakings

2026-03-16T09:35:19Z

So long as the Self Builder has submitted CIL Form 2 and CIL Form 7 Part 1, and you have granted Self-Build, it matters not if they own the plot at that time. They have accepted liability. (much like a person on any development an accept liability without being the owner).

The only time ownership comes into play is when CIL Form 7 Part 2 is required.

There is nothing in the regulations requiring a self builder to own the plot they request self-build on at the beginning. Reg54B:

Exemption for self-build housing: procedure
54B.—(1) A person who wishes to benefit from the exemption for self-build housing must submit a claim to
the collecting authority in accordance with this regulation.
(2) The claim must—
(a) be made by a person who—
(i) intends to build, or commission the building of, a new dwelling, and intends to
occupy the dwelling as their sole or main residence for the duration of the
clawback period, and
(ii) has assumed liability to pay CIL in respect of the new dwelling, whether or not
they have also assumed liability to pay CIL in respect of other development;
(b) subject to paragraph (3A), be received by the collecting authority before commencement
of the chargeable development;
(c) be submitted to the collecting authority in writing on a form published by the Secretary of
State (or a form substantially to the same effect);
(d) include the particulars specified or referred to in the form; and
(e) where more than one person has assumed liability to pay CIL in respect of the chargeable
development, clearly identify the part of the development that the claim relates to.

Ergo, even if it is not phased, they need to submit CIL Form 6 when the development itself commences in order to avoid the mandatory surcharge, but other than that, so long as they own the plot at the time CIL Form 7 Part 2 falls due, and live in the property and comply with CIL Form 7 Part 2 document submission requirements, then they are eligible for that relief.

RE: S106 Monitoring fee - what do you charge and how do you arrive at the s

2024-06-10T08:15:07Z

Hi Mike, Not quite.

The amendment to the ability to charge monitoring fees was introduced in the insertion of Paragraph 2A in Regulation 122..

It is not in relation to 'going beyind' normal monitoring, it is that the monitoring fee must be a fair estimate in essence.

“(2A) Paragraph (2) does not apply in relation to a planning obligation which requires a sum to be paid to a local planning authority in respect of the cost of monitoring (including reporting under these Regulations) in relation to the delivery of planning obligations in the authority’s area, provided—

(a) the sum to be paid fairly and reasonably relates in scale and kind to the development; and

(b) the sum to be paid to the authority does not exceed the authority’s estimate of its cost of monitoring the development over the lifetime of the planning obligations which relate to that development.”

RE: Social housing relief - bin/cycle stores

2024-03-05T08:40:09Z

I would use apportionment to determine their share of communal space across all the apartments. Any communal space in apartments in theoretically available for all the apartments to use, so they should be allocated an equal share of the communal space in my view. I have not had to do this, so cannot show a worked example, as our CIL rate for apatrments for £0 per square meter. So developers are unconcerned about the floorspace and the social housing relief in those instances here. However, just as we apportion demolished in use floorspace across a development (or phase etc) then I think the logical conclusion is to take the same approach for communal areas in apartments.

Social Housing Relief and Commuted Sum conundrum [Reg53(3)]

2018-10-12T07:12:15Z

Hi All,

Query. If a developer was granted Social Housing Relief from CIL on 6 units on their site, but then applies for permission to sell them as market dwellings and pay a commuted sum to us instead under a Deed of Variation to their S106, does that mean that they are NOT subject to withdrawal of their Social Housing Relief under Regulation 53(3)?

1) The commuted sum agreed is MORE than the value of the CIL Relief.

2) They would be paying us the Commuted Sum.

3) We do not deliver Social Housing ourselves, but we do work with local RPs and any commuted sums we receive for affordable housing are only spent on affordable housing in our area.

Thoughts anyone? Could Regulation 53(3)(a) be considered as appropriate in this instance?

Agricultural Workers Dwelling - Self Build Exemption?

2017-10-09T11:18:47Z

We have an application for an agricultural workers dwelling on a farm within the greenbelt.

The agent has ticked that they wish to claim self-build exemption. I do not believe that I can grant this, as obviously they have applied for an agricultural workers dwelling, because a residential dwelling would not be allowed.

The dwelling is being built for the farm owners daughter and son-in-law. The son-in-law is the farm manager apparently.

Thoughts anyone?

RE: Impact of S73 on CIL - Desperate

2017-03-16T16:24:39Z

Hi Tino,

Regulation 40 would determine whether or not there is a change, and therefore whether or not it would fall under Reg.9(6) or (7).

As per Reg.9(8) The "liability to CIL under regulation 40 should be calculated in relation to an application made under section 73 of TCPA 1990 as if the date on which the planning permission granted under that application first permits development was the same as that for the application for planning permission to which the application under section 73 of TCPA 1990 relates"

So, i may have confused you earlier by not using the correct terminolgy. I mentioned uplift in floorspace because that is generally the only way the chargeable amount could change, because Reg.9(8) stipulates the CIL charageable amount must be calculated as though the S73 was approved on the date the orignial planning permission was approved. Therefore the charge per sqm cannot change, nor can the indexation applied be changed, so the only way the chargeable amount can change is if there is an uplift in floorspace - or, for that matter - reduced.

That is how the S73 is defined as falling under Reg.9(6) or (7).

Hope that helps?

RE: Beginner in CIL

2017-03-16T12:02:34Z

Ah - we are still waiting for Exacom, so life is all administration and spreadsheets here !!

RE: Impact of S73 on CIL - Desperate

2017-03-16T11:28:02Z

Hi Tino,

If there is no uplift in floorspace under the S73, then there is no CIL Liability to be issued. The Liability Notice issued on the original permission stays as the relevant Liability Notice (Reg.9(6)).

The regulations are water tight in the case of the fact that they are the regulations. I think reading through your comments, there is confusion between the application of Regulation 9; 'Meaning of Chargeable Development', and Regulation 128A "Transitional Provision: section 73 of the TCPA 1990 applications". Regulation 128A only relates to S73 applications during the transitional phase of CIL implementation. Regulation 9 specifically deals with S73 applications in general.

For ease of reference, the specific Regulation I quoted earlier is as follows:

9.—(1) The chargeable development is the development for which planning permission is granted.

(2) Paragraph (1) is subject to the following provisions of this regulation.

(3) Where planning permission is granted by way of a general consent, the chargeable development is the development identified in a notice of chargeable development submitted to the collecting authority in accordance with regulation 64.

(4) In the case of a grant of outline planning permission which permits development to be implemented in phases, each phase of the development is a separate chargeable development.

5) In Wales, where the effect of a planning permission granted under section 73 of TCPA 1990(1) is only to change a condition subject to which a previous planning permission was granted by extending the time within which development must be commenced, the chargeable development is the development for which permission was granted by the previous permission as if that development was commenced.

(6) Where the effect of a planning permission granted under section 73 of TCPA 1990 is to change a condition subject to which a previous planning permission was granted so that the amount of CIL payable calculated under regulation 40 (as modified by paragraph (8)) would not change, the chargeable development is the development for which planning permission was granted by the previous permission as if that development was commenced.

(7) Where the effect of the planning permission granted under section 73 of TCPA 1990 is to change a condition subject to which a previous planning permission was granted so that the amount of CIL payable under regulation 40 (as modified by paragraph (8)) would change, the chargeable development is the most recently commenced or re-commenced chargeable development.

(8) For the purposes of paragraphs (6) and (7), the liability to CIL under regulation 40 should be calculated in relation to an application made under section 73 of TCPA 1990 as if the date on which the planning permission granted under that application first permits development was the same as that for the application for planning permission to which the application under section 73 of TCPA 1990 relates.

(9) For the purposes of paragraph (7), chargeable development is re-commenced where—

(a) the chargeable development (“the earlier development”) was commenced;

(b) work on the earlier development was halted and a different chargeable development (“the later development”) that was granted planning permission under section 73 of TCPA 1990 was commenced on the relevant land; and

RE: Beginner in CIL

2017-03-16T08:55:41Z

I think it depends on your systems and processes.

We have decided to complete all CIL Liable applications on a tracking sheet, with values.

The LCC team use that to create the CON29, not the Liability Notices. This is because our tracking form is updated at all times, and we just tick if any forms (such as Form 1, 6, 7 part 1 etc) have been recieved, so the LCC stay up to date.

For those without a Liability Notice, it is still recorded on the LCC, but as a £0 charge.

RE: Beginner in CIL

2017-03-16T08:22:01Z

Hi Brenda,

I would agree with Helen.

The only thing we don't do is send out a Liability Notice when it is liable, but not chargeable. As it is £0 because of an offset for existing floorspace, we send out an email stating that it is liable, but not chargeable, and ask them if they want a liability notice to confirm that fact.

Obviously, this is different if the £0 is because of relief / exemptions, as there would be a clawback attached to it, so a Liability notice is sent out in those instances.

RE: Impact of S73 on CIL - Desperate

2017-03-15T08:52:46Z

Hi Tino,

From my humble opinion, i interpret the Regs as follows:

Scenario 1

Planning permission A has no CIL liability as demolition area exceeds new build area and B2 unit passed lawful test (in use for 6 months in 3 years from date of planning permission A)

Before A is commenced, if a S73 permission to A is approved for a minor change like moving the porch or including a bay window, and if this S73 is to be commenced/implemented rather than A - what is the CIL impact? Please note that by the time S73 permission comes through, the B2 unit has failed lawful test. In this scenario, will CIL be calculated across entire floor area or just for the bay window for example?

There is no breach of original planning permission at all as A has not even commenced and therefore B2 unit still stands at the time of S73 permission.

If there is no uplift in floorspace, then the CIL Liability Notice served on the original planning permission stands. If there is an uplift in floorspace under the S73, then the CIL Liability is calculated as if the date on which the S73 was granted, was actually the date the original planning permission was granted. Ergo, the floorspace can still be deduted - Reg.9(6)(7)&(8).

Scenario 2

Planning permission A has no CIL liability as demolition area exceeds new build area and B2 unit passed lawful test (in use for 6 months in 3 years from date of planning permission A)

After A is lawfully commenced, for some reason A is paused and S73 permission to A is pursued for a minor change like moving the porch or including a bay window. If this S73 is to be commenced/implemented rather than A - what is the CIL impact? Please note that by the time S73 permission comes through, the B2 unit has failed lawful test. In this scenario, will the CIL be calculated across entire floor area or just for the bay window for example?

There is no breach of original planning permission at all as A has lawfully commenced. B2 unit has been demolished for A to commence and hence will not be standing by the time S73 permission comes through.

Again, If there is no uplift in floorspace, then the CIL Liability remains with the original permission.

And, again, if there is an uplift in floorspace, and the S73 is approved AFTER the original permission has commenced (including demolition of a relevant building), then the CIL is still calculated as though the relevant building to be demolished exists, because the CIL Liability is calculated under Reg.40 as if the date on which the S73 was granted, was actually the date the original planning permission was granted. Ergo, the floorspace can still be deduted - Reg.9(6)(7)&(8).

So, those are my reasonings - I am sure others may interpret the Regs differently - they wouldn't be regulations if they weren't subjective!!!! :-)

RE: CIL 2014 Infrastructure Payments

2017-03-10T10:15:25Z

I'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.

RE: CIL 2014 Infrastructure Payments

2017-03-10T10:03:09Z

Hi 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.

RE: Grand Designer lives in unfinished house

2017-03-03T14:07:21Z

As far as I'm concerned, the CIL sits on the LLC in perpetuity, until the three year claw-back period is finally triggered.

I can't find anything timescale wise that says they must not live in it until they get the completion certificate? Nor does there seem to be an alternative to the trigger under 54C(2) "Within six months of the date of the completion certificate"

I'm afraid this probably means that they can indeed live there for years without needing to send in the supporting documents.

And they have the added bonus of knowing that they can account for the CIL in the sale price if they finally decide to sell without fully completing.

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

2017-03-02T10:36:05Z

Hi Simon, that would indeed be the case if no information was held by the Council.

However, I must admit, i just assumed they had sufficient information, as Patricia just stated "It has been used as an appartment for the last six months and previous to that it was in use as an office".

In our humble opinion, the applicant doesn't actually need to provide evidence, as the regs only call for the collecting authority to have sufficient information, or information of sufficient quality.

To be honest, in these instances, we would just ask the business rates department. As a Council we would hold most of the information, just not in Planning lol!

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

2017-03-01T15:35:54Z

Hi Rebecca,

I think this one could be highly subjective. We poured over one similar to this last year. We came up with the following interpretation:

The definition only states that a relevant building is "a building which is situated on the land on the day planning permissiom first permits the chargeable development."

Whilst converted from an office to a flat, it is still a building. It doesn't say it has to be a particular class use.

And whilst they converted it six months ago, we believe on a retrospective application they still meet the criteria for in-use building, because where it states in the regs. that in-use means it "contains a part that has been in lawful use for a continous period of at least six months within the period of three years ending on the day the planning permission first permits development" then if indeed it had been used as an office up to date of actual conversion to flat, then it was in lawful use as an office up to six months ago, which was within the required three year period.

I'm not saying its right, just that that was our interpretation :-)

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

2017-03-01T14:58:18Z

Hi Patricia,

I agree, it is CIL liable as commencement for a retrospective application is date of approval.

However, if the office had been in use for six consecutive months within the period of three years ending on the day the planning permission first permits development (in other words, if it was consistenly in use as an office prior to the six months it has been used as a flat, it is still within this timeline requirement), then I believe that under Regulation 40 it may be CIL Liable, but it may not be CIL Chargeable.

RE: Failure to Pay CIL

2017-01-20T10:44:35Z

To be fair, they do go hand in hand.

I lead on the S106 agreements too.

RE: Failure to Pay CIL

2017-01-20T08:15:57Z

Hi Tim,

I am afraid that your finance team may be right.

We raise invoices purely as a way to track and monitor payments (and make sure that they go to the right cost code!).

Under the CIL regulations, payment and enforcement of payment, including surcharges, are dealt with through the CIL regulations, not exchequer debt recovery.

The debt cannot be recovered via the usual debt collection processes as CIL details it own recovery processes (surcharges, stop notices, etc - Part 9 CIL Regs)

I am the lead CIL Officer here, but I don't liaise with finance to get the debt paid, I chase the debtor, and impose surcharges etc.

Maybe you could enquire about getting an admin assistant to help out who could at least assist with raising the invoices, reminding the developers of payment due dates etc? Then informing planning when payment fails to be made so you can take enforcement action?

When payment isnt made, and the developer is clearly not going to pay, who would then enforce a CIL Stop Notice in your team? Maybe they could lead on chasing payments?

The only change we have made here is that invoices can be raised under a 'CIL' recovery option. As our invoices are sent out by the system, it recognises the CIL recovery option, and sends a reminder notice 30 days later as a nudge that the payment will be due in another 30 days. If they have instalements, a auto reminder is sent out after every instalment. That helps with ensuring payments are made, as sometimes developers quite simply forget when they have a 60 day payment gap!

RE: CIL Software

2017-01-04T14:29:32Z

I am assuming that these are in instances where development has completed?

We have never got to the Magistrates Court via Reg. 97 (liability order).

We find that in the few instances of persistent non-payment, serving a warning notice (Reg.89) has the desired effect. We never had to follow up with a CIL Stop Notice (Reg.90) as the Warning Notice was enough to gee up the Developer to pay once they realised we could serve a Notice stopping construction until payment was received (although one did leave it until the day before his deadline issued on the Warning Notice!).