Community Infrastrcuture Levy Reforms - CIL- consultation - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Gilian, I note in the consultation it states the following: 28. It has never been the Government’s intention to restrict charging authorities to only be able to spend the levy on items included in their list, and we are not proposing to remove this important flexibility now. I thought this was the purpose of the list? If they're saying we can spend the levy on other items not included in the list then what is the point in having a list? A little confused by this one.

I'm not sure I understand Question 1. Under Reg 14 CAs must currently aim to strike a balance between funding infrastructure from CIL and economic viability. As the question reads, the only difference would appear to be removal of the words 'aim to' thus meaning that they shall actually strike a balance, not strike what they think is a balance, and thus putting the emphasis on the examiner making pretty damn sure they have struck a balance. Am I reading this correctly? Assuming I am, and assuming this proposed change is well supported, I would guess that by the time further amendment Regs are promulgated putting an amendment into effect, many CAs will have set their CIL rates without recourse to the more rigorous evidence-based testing referred to in para 19. In respect of these early starter CAs, isn't this a case of shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted?

Nick, the sole purpose of the Reg.123 list is in relation to the future use of s.106 planning obligations. It does not represent a commitment buy an authority to spend CIL receipts on the items on the list, nor is it an exhaustive list of what CIL receipts will be spent on.

Tony, Does that mean it is theoretically possible then to 'double'charge' for an infrastructure item which is not on the R123 list and which a s106 contribution is sought, but which then benefits from some additional CIL funding at a later date (perhaps because of a funding shortfall or unanticipated cost)? I tend to agree with Nick...surely this is the only way curently available of avoiding 'double-charging'? Surely it isn't just about 'future use of s106' but also about what can continue to be sought through s106? Am I making any sense?

Simon, The issue of double dipping was precisely my concern. That is why I was a little suprised by the wording of the paragraph.

Simon/Nick, The Reg 123 list is a (non-mandatory) list of infrastructure that a CA intends that it may, wholly or in part, fund through CIL receipts. S.106 agreements can't be used to secure contributions towards any of the infrastructure items that appear on the list. Any s.106 agreements that are completed after the prblication of the R.123 list are subject to the 'pooling' restriction. CA's are not limited to spending CIL receipts on the infrastructure items that appear on the Reg123 list. It is therefore entirely possible for infrastructure projects that are not on the R.123 list to be funded through both s.106 contributions (up to 5) and CIL receipts. That's the way the system works. If that was not the case how could a project be funded if 5 s.106 contributions did not produce enough money?

It seems to me that R123 is trying to do too many things...none of them very well... I am still at a loss as to how double-charging can be shown not to have occurred; unless: each and every single pound collected through CIL is traceable to the point where it is spent and it can be demonstrated that an individual developer has not paid twice (i.e. through S106 and CIL for the same infrastructure item/project)? Otherwise, surely a developer could legitimately claim he/she is being double-charged? Tony, what do you mean by 'non-mandatory' in your previous post please? My understanding is that one cannot spend CIL on an item unless it's on this R123 list (mandatory)? Any s106 agreements agreed after 6 April 2010 are subject to pooling restrictions aren't they? Regards, Simon

Simon, Have a look at para 28 of the current Govt. consultation on further proposed changes to the CIL Regs.

Hi Tony I have read it...and i still can't see how a non-definitive list (the R123 List) will give greater (any) clarity about what infrastructure will not be funded through s106?