CIL Retrospective Application

Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Open group | Started - July 2012 | Last activity - Yesterday

patricia mccullagh, modified 7 Years ago.

CIL Retrospective Application

New Member Posts: 8 Join Date: 21/04/15 Recent Posts

Hi, we have a retrospective application for a change of use from office to an appartment. It has been used as an appartment for the last six months and previous to that it was in use as an office (for which it had permission). As this is a retrospective application, the development has already started before it has permission, therefore we think this means that it is liable for CIL, is this right?

Thanks

REBECCA STADDON, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

Advocate Posts: 103 Join Date: 05/09/13 Recent Posts

Patricia,

Yes, you are right.

The development was previously unlawful.

Regulation 8 covers off when planning permission first permits development and Regulation 7 covers off commencement of development.

In the case of retrospective applications the date they are granted permission is the date the development becomes lawful and the date they commenced.

CIL is payable and no relief can be claimed (as work has commenced).

I hope this helps.

Rebecca

Carol Gore, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

Enthusiast Posts: 42 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent Posts

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.

REBECCA STADDON, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

Advocate Posts: 103 Join Date: 05/09/13 Recent Posts

Carol,

I disagree.

Regulation 40 (11) states that the 'in-use' building ia a relevant buiding and a 'relevant building' means a building which is situated on the land on the day planning permissiom first permits the chargeable development.

As this is a retrospective application, on the day planning permission first permits the chargeable development, the building on the land is a dwelling, not an office. Therefore the existing floorsapce cannot be deducted from the proposed.

Rebecca

Carol Gore, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

Enthusiast Posts: 42 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent Posts

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 :-)

REBECCA STADDON, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

Advocate Posts: 103 Join Date: 05/09/13 Recent Posts

Interesting Carol.

Simon Anstey, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

Enthusiast Posts: 74 Join Date: 17/07/15 Recent Posts

In order to have existing buildings taken into account for CIL purposes, wouldn't the applicant have to provide the necessary evidence prior to the Commencement Date? Where the necessary information hasn't been provided (as appears to be the case here), regulation 40 (9) applies: " Where a collecting authority does not have sufficient information, or information of sufficient quality, to enable it to establish that a relevant building is an in-use building, it may deem it not to be an in-use building. "

Carol Gore, modified 7 Years ago.

RE: CIL Retrospective Application

Enthusiast Posts: 42 Join Date: 20/10/11 Recent Posts

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!