REGULATION 128 - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
REGULATION 128
REBECCA STADDON, modified 10 Years ago.
REGULATION 128
Advocate Posts: 103 Join Date: 05/09/13 Recent PostsHi everyone,
TDBC goes live with CIL tomorrow - please wish me luck!
However, as with everything in life I have got a complicated case first off that I am hoping some of you can help me with?
We have an approved outline application (pre-CIL) for a large development of houses with an attached signed S106 Agreement securing contributions towards Education etc.
We have now received a S73 application to amend materials and slightly increase the floor area of this development. We will not be in a position to make a decision on this S73 application by the end of today so it will therefore become a CIL liable application from tomorrow.
Regulation 128 seems to state that only the difference in floor area will be CIL liable and as this is the OA that will be implemented it cannot have both CIL and a S106 requesting the same contributions as before.
This does not seem to make financial sense because only the additional floor area will have to pay CIL and this will be nowhere near the level of contributions that would have been made under the old S106 Agreement – am I missing something here??
Thanks
Rebecca
Hi Rebecca,
You have highlighted a problem with the way the Regs are worded! It does give LPAs what I am sure is an unintended problem.
I assume that the s.106 specifically linked itself to the original permission. That being the case, you could seek a deed of variation of the s.106 to make its provisions applicable to the s.73 permission as well. CIL would in any event be payable in accordance with Reg.128A on the difference bewteen the two CIL calculations.
Good luck with going live!
REBECCA STADDON, modified 10 Years ago.
REGULATION 128
Advocate Posts: 103 Join Date: 05/09/13 Recent PostsThanks Tony,
I am still a little confused.
If we have a S106 Agreement reworded to the S73 application and we charge CIL on the difference aren't we double dipping?
e.g. the S106 Agreement asking for education contributions and our Reg 123 List stating education?
Rebecca
Hi Rebecca, I wasn't suggesting that the contribution figures in the s.106 be changed to reflect the bigger floor area. Just keep all the content of the s.106 the same but amend it by way of a D of V so that it is triggered by/applies to, the new application. Your legal staff will understand what I am suggesting.
In that way, there will not be a new s.106 after the adoption of your CIL CS but rather an old one wil be varied and there will be no double dipping as only the extra floor area of teh s.73 application will pay CIL.
Don't forget that under Reg 128A you must do two complete CIL calculations and then take one result from the other. If you try to just multiply the extra floor area by the relevant CIL rate you will get the wrong answer if there demolished/retained buildings on the site.
REBECCA STADDON, modified 10 Years ago.
REGULATION 128
Advocate Posts: 103 Join Date: 05/09/13 Recent PostsThanks Tony,
I will speak to our legal eagles.
Rebecca