CIL Chargeable Amount Formula - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
Open group
|
Started - July 2012
|
Last activity - Today
CIL Chargeable Amount Formula
A maths question for everyone… The CIL Regulations 2012 were amended to deal with the issue where changes of use and demolition occur on the same site. The problem was where a demolition took place of say 1000sqm took place and was replaced by a building of 1000sqm and on the same site as a change of use of 1000sqm took place there would be a liable CIL charge. However, if there had the building not been demolished and reused the liability would have been zero. The effect of the new formula seems to result in the area sometimes being a minus figure causing the rate to be a minus figure. Therefore the effect of the new formula seems to only remove the error where the rate of the change of use is greater or the same as the new build replacing the demolished building. For example, a site where there is a 1000sqm building that is to be demolished and rebuilt as residential at a rate of £50 per sqm. Providing the building was in lawful use this would result in zero liability. If on the same scheme there was a 1000sqm building that was converted from agricultural use to office use (charged at a rate of £10 per sqm) the liability for the whole scheme would work out at £20,000. If both buildings on the site had just converted to office and residential (1000sqm each) the liability would have been zero. Is this right? If so it seems perverse outcome if liability arises and there is no increase in floorspace and it doesn’t correct the error where there is different CIL rates on a site. Working out: Area for resi = 1000[Gr] - 0[Kr] - ((1000[Gr] x 1000[E])/2000[G]) Area for resi = 500 CIL for resi = £50 x 500 CIL for resi = £25,000 Area for office = 1000[Gr] – 1000[Kr] – ((1000[Gr] x 1000[E])/2000[G]) Area for office = -500 CIL for office = £10 x -500 CIL for office = -£5000 Total CIL = £20,000
I think you're right Sam. The new formula obviously doesn't povide for all eventualities, and in an effort to be positive rather than negative, I've spent the last hour or two trying to dream up a better one, however I must admit I've failed miserably. Unless clever people can come up with something foolproof and it be embodied in future Amendment Regs, I guess we'll just have to live with these anomalies.
Sam, based on my understanding of the regs and the formula, I think that your calculations are wrong. In you calculation for 'A' for the resi element, I think that the figure for 'G' should be 1000 not 2000. That is because changes of use are not chargeable and the figure should only therefore reflect the new build floor space. That change gives a figure of 0 for 'A'. In your calculation for 'A' for the office, again 'G' should be 1000 which again results in a figure of 0 for 'A'. My interpretation results for a nil liability for the whole proposal which is what I think we all think that it should be given that there is no increase in floor space.
I am not sureif changes of use are explicitly stated in the regulations as non chargeable development. I think the only way changes of use are excluded from CIL liability is through the operation of the formula and on single-use commercial sites through the 100sqm threshold of regulation 42. G = Gross internal area of 'chargeable development' . ‘Chargeable development’ is defined as the 'development' for which planning permission is granted. ‘development’ is defined in the Planning Act 2008 as: (a)anything done by way of or for the purpose of the creation of a new building, or (b)anything done to or in respect of an existing building. Therefore, changes of use could be chargeable development and as such G should include the floorspace of the area converted. Happy to be corrected otherwise.