Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Logo
Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group | Started - July 2012 | Last activity - Yesterday

CIL, self build exemption and phased development

Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

CIL, self build exemption and phased development

Hi

has anyone had any experience of a multi-unit development where the developer proposes that some units will be 'self-build' and thereby entitled to exemption?  I know the Regs allow it but has anyone got practical experience of how it's done/pitfalls to be avoided, etc?  I haven't found any reference to this in the Forum so far, so apologies if I've missed it.

Thanks (and Merry Christmas!)

Paul

 

 

Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

RE: CIL, self build exemption and phased development

No experience as yet...so I will be very interested in replies ......but I have considered the issue as I am sure developers may think of this as a way to get around paying CIL.

I think my starting point would be that a developer cannot claim exemption.

It is the individual(s)  who will be commissioning the dwelling(s)  from the developer and  who will be occupying the dwelling(s) who have to assume part liability and each claim exemption filling in the relevant form and  getting the council's agreement prior to the development commencing  - identifying the part of the building/site that the claim  relates to. They will then have to fill in part 2 of the form and provide the required evidence of self build within the required timescale - otherwise the CIL liability will remain registered as a land charge.

Hopefully this will mean that only genuine self builds will benefit.

Alison

Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

RE: CIL, self build exemption and phased development

Thanks Alison.  I'm initially concerned with the way the application will be dealt with.  The guidance suggests that each potential 'self-build' plot should be dealt with as a 'phase' so that, should a disqualifying event occur, only the affected plot would lose relief.  Quite how to make that happen is not clear so any advice would be gratefully received.  This is not what I wanted for Christmas!
Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

RE: CIL, self build exemption and phased development

I think that a problem will arise over the assumption of liability if there is an attempt to treat each dwelling as a seperate phase. Reg 31(1) says that a person may asume liability "in respect of a chargeable development". It makes no provision for asuming liability for only part of a chargeable development e.g. one dwelling.

Reg 9 defines "chargeable development" as the development for which planning permission is granted i.e. all the dwellings. it does not say that, in the case of a phased development, each phase is a seperate chargeable development.

Reg 37 does not help as owners of individual plot will not be "joint owners of an interest in land".    

Former Member, modified 9 Years ago.

RE: CIL, self build exemption and phased development

Good point Tony.  The PAS guidance seems to suggest that self build exemption is anticipated and allowable for multi-unit schemes.  The extract below says that using a phased development, would allow each unit to be treated separately for CIL.

How does the self build exemption work for multi-unit schemes?

For multi-unit schemes (for example, where a builder sells serviced plots or a community group works with a developer), applicants should consider applying for a phased planning permission, to allow each plot to be a separate chargeable development. This will prevent the charge being triggered for all plots within the wider development as soon as development commences on the first dwelling. This will also ensure that if a disqualifying event occurs affecting one unit, it does not trigger a requirement for all to repay the exemption. Under the 2014 Regulations, schemes can be phased for levy purposes even if they do not benefit from outline planning permission.

This will lead developers to think that they can do multi-unit SBE schemes.  One wonders what the Government's thinking was on the AoL position, or if they even thought about it at all - I'd put money on it being the latter.  I think another email to DCLG is called for.