CIL Section 73 - Reg 128 - Public forum - Planning Advisory Service (PAS)
CIL Section 73 - Reg 128
Claire Burton, modified 9 Years ago.
CIL Section 73 - Reg 128
New Member Posts: 20 Join Date: 12/08/13 Recent PostsI see there has been a discussion in the past about Reg 128 but previously linked to S106. My query is how to calculate CIL requirement for a S73 (approved post CIL) in relation to an outline application (approved pre CIL). How do you work out the CIL contribution if the calculation cannot be undertaken as you do not have details for the outline?
Rebecca Randall, modified 9 Years ago.
RE: CIL Section 73 - Reg 128
Enthusiast Posts: 60 Join Date: 06/05/14 Recent PostsHi
Can I just check for my own peace of mind - an outline permission does not count as a planning permission granted unless the last reserved matters has been granted for the purposes of Reg 128A? My take on it was that it would count??
Claire's specific example would appear to fall under Reg 128A(2) - where there is a subsequent S73 approval, if this changes the amount of CIL liable development then this must be included for under any S73 approval. To work this out you would use the calculation in Reg 128(3).
If I have got this wrong please can someone shout so that I can improve my understanding before we adopt next year! Thank you, Rebecca.
PS This is actually in response to Tony Beckett's comments on Nicholas Wardle's thread on the same topic...
Regulation 128A doesn't work in a case where an O/L PP was issued before CIL was adopted and where reserved matters have not been approved which would enable the floor areas to be calculated as the first Reg. 40 calculation (for Y in Reg.128A) can't be carried out. In addition Reg. 40 speaks in terms of the CIL rates applying at the time at which PP "first permits the chargeable development" and that phrase is defined by Reg. 8 in relation to OL PPs in the way that I mentioned in my post in reply to the other thread.
This appaers to be another case where the CIL Regs. do not cover every possible set of circumstances!
Has anyone got a contrary view?