3. CIL – political & intended purpose
• The purpose of the Community Infrastructure Levy (“CIL”) is to support
infrastructure delivery.
• It is intended that the CIL will establish “a better way to increase
investment in vital infrastructure” (and note that the CIL Final Impact
Assessment, CLG, February 2010 revealed that only 6% of planning
permissions involved S106 contributions).
Previous and (in places) ongoing mechanism – S106 Town and Country Planning Act
1990 Agreements.
Latest of many attempts to deal with the difficulties the development industry
encounters (seemingly) with the negotiation by and approach of local planning
authorities (LPAs) to planning agreements.
Baroness Andrews stated during the Planning Bill’s passage through the Lords that “the
CIL is a generalised charge ... Unlike planning obligations under Section 106, CIL
loosens the relationship between an individual development and the size of its
contribution to fund infrastructure, because it is an averaged cost distributed evenly
across a number of developments. The amount of CIL to be paid in a specific case
would not be calculated on the basis of the specific need for infrastructure.”
4. CIL - The basics
• The Planning Act 2008 (ss 205–225) introduced CIL.
• The CIL Regulations 2010 (2010/948) took effect in April
2010.
• Subsequent CIL (Amendment) Regulations in 2011
(2011/987), 2012 (2012/2975) and 2013 (2013/982).
• CIL Reforms Consultation April 2013 – outcome
announced.
• The Mayor of London’s CIL applies to developments
granted planning permission from April 2012.
5. CIL – the basics (continued)
• Every charging authority (in essence, the LPA or the
London Mayor) must prepare a charging schedule. CIL is
only payable if planning permission for a scheme is given
after the relevant authority has implemented the CIL
regime by adopting its charging schedule. If the planning
permission is not implemented, no CIL will be payable.
Redbridge Council’s estimation is that one fifth of the
permissions it gives are not implemented.
6. CIL - the basics (continued)
• Liability arises on construction of new building or extension of an
existing one. Is a “tax” on net increase in floor space of new
developments – but floor space in existing buildings may be caught if
they have not been used for some time.
• Imposition of CIL is not limited to circumstances where a S106
obligation would otherwise be required.
• Non – negotiable (so development industry now realising it has a role in
collaborating in and scrutinizing the CIL setting process).
• If an outline permission permits development to be implemented in
phases, every phase will be treated as a separate chargeable
development.
7. Charging Schedules
• 21 authorities now have charging schedules in force
• Jury is out on benefits, in terms of the regime being fairer, clearer and
more predictable.
• Many authorities have adopted charging schedules, but a wide variety of
approaches is emerging – flat rates (Redbridge Council) versus a range
(Poole Council), for example. Some authorities have different rates
depending on the use (e.g. residential or commercial - Southampton
Council).
• Front runners have shown the need for vigilance. Examiner at Newark
and Sherwood Council CIL examination rejected differential rates for
“large” and “small” retail units without a very clear viability justification
about such rates (otherwise one retail type is favoured over another).
8. Charging schedules and the
“appropriate balance”
• CIL allows development gain to be captured and applied
locally
• However, the appropriate balance creates a difficulty – CIL
set too high may create viability and/or landbanking issues.
A CIL set too low will not assist in bringing schemes
forward as they will be constrained by the lack of funding
for essential local infrastructure
9. Flexibility of CIL operation for
infrastructure funding
• raised within one area but paid to bodies outside of it
• restrictions on projects identified in charging schedules?
• pooled contributions
• administratively self-financing
10. CIL - Areas of concern
• Overlap with S106 Agreements – legal issues re
Regulation 122 and the Town and Country Planning Act
1990 section 70
• Interested parties – eg: Arts Council April 2012 - The
Community Infrastructure Levy: advice note for culture,
arts and planning professionals
“This note explains how the needs for cultural and arts
infrastructure in association with new development can be
established and fed into the Community Infrastructure Levy
process.”
11. CIL - Areas of concern (cont.)
• Describing infrastructure as direct site infrastructure to
enhance development scheme – promote it through S106
Agreement to avoid Regulation 122 difficulties?
• S106 Agreements therefore survive – authorities creating
clear policy justification for site specific mitigation and nonCIL contributions (eg: for employment and training)
12. Areas of concern (cont.)
• Grampian conditions imposed which do not match
authority’s infrastructure delivery programme timetable.
• Where is the comfort that the infrastructure will actually be
delivered?
13. CIL - Mayor of London
• Mayor of London CIL in effect for London planning
permissions issued on or after 1 April 2012
• It is intended to raise £300 million towards the delivery
of Crossrail
• Charges are based on the size and type of the new
development and individual London Councils fall within
particular charging zone bands
• Viability – Inspector concluded that marginal schemes
may be at risk but London’s CIL only a “very small part”
of overall cost of development
