CIL and New/Additional Reserved Matter

Planning Advisory Service (PAS)

Open group | Started - July 2012 | Last activity - Yesterday

Mark Mann, modified 1 Year ago.

CIL and New/Additional Reserved Matter

New Member Posts: 8 Join Date: 19/06/14 Recent Posts

I wonder if anyone can help me. I work for an SME housebuilder and after 16 months we have eventually got a reserved matters approval for 70 units, including two apartment blocks. We want to start asap as we are way behind on our build programme.

However, we no longer think the apartment blocks are viable so want to implement part of the reserved matters with the houses now and then put in a revised reserved matters application covering that part of the site with the apartment blocks on it.

I wanted to modify an existing phasing plan via s96a but both the case officer and CIL officer were adamant that this approach is unlawful/not acceptable even though, at the moment, we have not started or accepted liability, and that back in April they agreed to add a phasing plan using s96a to enable the access works to proceed (not a reserved matter) without triggering CIL. In respect of the latter they now think that was a mistake!

I think they have misinterpreted case law they have quoted at me (Oval) but we cannot afford to wait any longer to start on site and I will be accepting liability and claiming social housing relief this week to enable us to start later this month.

I have asked them what happens if we start work now (after completing all the CIL forms) and then went on to get approval for a new (additional) reserved matters approval covering part of the site, but obviously with much less chargeable floors space etc. Will they for example issue a new liability notice? Their response is that we should seek our own legal advice as to what they will do in such an event.

I assume there is something in the CIL Regs that allows for this but if anyone in the group has first hand experience of a similar scenario I would appreciate your views on my current situation.

Thanks

Mark Mann, modified 8 Months ago.

RE: CIL and New/Additional Reserved Matter

New Member Posts: 8 Join Date: 19/06/14 Recent Posts

Since I posted my original query things have moved on and we have commenced development on the original ARM and building out that part of the approde plans that we think we can sell. Obvioulsy we are paying CIL for the whole scheme and have made several payments already.

In addition we submitted an altenative ARM applicaion covering just part of the site covered by the original ARM and outline consent. This has been approved, so in essence we now have two approvals covering part of the site and two laibility notices.

The intention is that we build out the original ARM apart from the area covered by the revised/additonal ARM. Overall as we have replaced an apartment block with six semi detached properties there will be a nett loss of dwellings (70 to 61) and obvioulsyl floorspace.

Because of the continuing concerns about viability of the project, we also ran a viability argument and it looks like we will agree a reduction in the overall level of affordable housing on site.

So we have two liability notices which require us to in effect pay twice for development and the social housing relief we claimed for the original ARM is now obsolete and will need to be amended.

Having multiple ARM approvals for the same site is not unusal in my experience but the CIL regulations do not seem to acknowledge this possibility or am I wrong in thinking this?

We want to start on implementing the new ARM as we are getting close to finisihung off the parts we want to of the original ARM, but the Council are advising us not to.

Any thoughs or ideas how best we can sort this out to avoid losing the social housing relief and avoid paying CIL twice? Do I just complete a whole set of forms based upon the combined scheme, but that I assume will require the Council to issue a revised Liability Notice based upon the scheme wqe want to implement, i.e. a combination of the two ARM approvals? Note both ARMs are under the same outline consent.

It is a shame that the Council did not accept, again, the submission of a phasing plan under s96a as I originally suggested as we could have avoided this. But having said that surely the CIL Regulations must have taken on board the planning legislation that allows for multiple ARMs, or am I just being naive?

Hopefully someone will have some advice on this matter.

Regards

Mark