Planning Advisory Service (PAS) Logo
Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Ouvert | En cours - juillet 2012 | Dernière modification - Aujourd'hui

Demolition and two or more CIL charging rates

Former Member, modifié il y a 11 années.

Demolition and two or more CIL charging rates

I am carrying out some CIL testing using actual cases. One case involves demolition of a pub and hotel and the erection of dwellings (including affordable units) and a residential care home. Our charging schedule has different rates for dwellings and care homes. How are other LPAs dividing the allowance for lost floorsapce between two different charging rates? Logically, if the footprints for the existing and proposed buildings neatly co-incide, you would allow the reduction accordingly. What should be done however if the existing floorspace will be lost to, for example, open space which is shared between two types of development with differing charging rates?
Former Member, modifié il y a 11 années.

Re: Demolition and two or more CIL charging rates

If the Regs are applied correctly, the allowance for lost floorspace (i.e. demolition) is applied automatically. The key to it is the formula in Reg 40(6) - Cr x (C - E) / C where Cr is the GIA of (in this case) the dwellings or the resi care home, C is the total GIA of the chargeable development, and E is the GIA of the pub and hotel being demolished. So this formula is run twice, once for the dwellings and again for the resi care home, to arrive at the deemed net area A (Reg 40(5)) on which CIL is chargeable at the chargeable rate R for each, prior to adjusting for the affordable units which does not appear to be the issue here. Re the last sentence, this only becomes an issue if the GIA of the pub and hotel being demolished is greater than the GIA of the chargeable development, in which case no CIL is due.
Former Member, modifié il y a 11 années.

Re: Demolition and two or more CIL charging rates

Thanks Graham, what was a relatively simple formula in Reg 40(6) has now been replaced by a more complicated one as a result of the 2012 Amendment Regs. On Monday I will run the revised formula twice to see what the result is.