Planned Practice for funding infrastructure such as schools through CIL... - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Wouldnt the practice of asking for provision of "complete school units" be dropped if an authority had adopted a Charge ? Otherwise I agree that there would frequently be double charging. And if that practice had been properly dropped, then the problem of "partial school units" would be avoided, which was originally the point of introducing CIL in the first place. I agree however that in large developments the physical space for the school would need to be reserved, which brings us to the question of whether the value of that site itself (with no school buildign on it) comes under 106 or under CIL. A purist would argue that it should be the school provider who purchases the site from the developer using funds stemming from main stream public funding (which is the main provider of school capital even in this spending round) and from CIL revenues, but I fear that that approach will tend to be sidestepped given shortage of funds.

I am still attempting to get my head around State Aid at the moment. In the event that State Aid is not an issue, double counting can be avoided through the careful wording of a Reg 123 List. Provided the Reg 123 list incorporates a reference to supporting e.g. Primary Education but caveats that specific schools are excluded. the excluded schools can then be delivered through S106, The drafting of the s106 will have to be clear and stipulate the location to overcome any breach of the 5 max 'pooling' issue on a project basis. The application of S106 can only continue to apply where the direct impact can be managed by a specific development e.g. a 2FE school is required and 2FE proposed for that development. It is my understanding (and I could be wrong) that where the school is required to deliver benefit from multiple sites this is more difficult, and this may need to be delivered through CIL. CIL can be used to purchase the land on the development where it needs to be located through the offset mechanism, but cannot be used to pay for the developer to deliver the facility itself. Therefore where you have multiple developments requiring a new school site within a large expansion area, the only option left may be to deliver that under CIL (but accepting that this may mean the developer will need to be paid for a portion of the land on which it stands). Finally, In the event that the LA proposes to introduce differential rates, and the school is capable of being delivered under s106, the cost of that school to the value of the total s106 package will need to be taken into account when viability testing that particular development to assist in setting the CIL rate for that area.

Although the world is constantly changing, at present as I understand it the LEA retains its responsibility as the strategic commissioner of school places so CIL/s106 goes through them. Sarah, I am not sure about your last para - in some ways it highlights the problem. S106 is site specific, CIL is not. So the logic of CIL suggests that if we provide schools through S106 the impact of that on viability needs to be taken into account across a much wider area than just the "site". If that is the case all the development across an "area" will have reduced CIL to take account of the "site" issues. Of course, as with so much else that is unclear about CIL , it may be possible to do exactly as you suggest and have site based CIL if you call it an area! There are significant pros and cons about either the S106 route or CIL. But given all the uncertainties, including the excact scale and type of provision that will end up being required, I think anywhere where there is significant growth over multiple potential sites it is safer to aim to deliver all expansion of education through CIL.