Task Force to Accept BPF Recommendations on CIL

Estates Gazette

The government’s specially appointed task force is to call for a radical overhaul of the community infrastructure levy six years after it was introduced.

It will recommend a major policy U-turn, stripping CIL back to its original purpose by funding local infrastructure with a simple, national base tax on all new developments.

Section 106 charges would return for infrastructure requirements on large developments.

The changes are expected to be considered after parliament’s  summer recess. The recommendations come from the Department for Communities and Local Government’s CIL review panel, set up as an
independent working group chaired by former British Property Federation chief executive Liz Peace.

Changes are likely to need primary legislation and could be inserted into the Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

The rate is optional and set by individual local authorities, which can charge all at once or in phases Compulsory low-level tariff across all new developments
Rates can vary by geographic area or use or size S106 infrastructure payments reintroduced for large developments
S106 payments are only used for affordable housing provision and site-specific mitigations Local authorities to integrate CIL charging schedules into Local Plans

CIL was introduced in 2010 to create a “fairer, faster and more certain and transparent” levy than s106 payments, which can require lengthy negotiations.

However, the regulations have been amended every year, adding layers of complexity (see below).

Barratt Developments’ group land and planning director Philip Barnes said: “We were hoping that when CIL was introduced it would give us more clarity and certainty, but actually we are finding we often have to negotiate s106 on top of CIL. If these changes were introduced they would give developers greater flexibility, whichcould speed up the delivery of larger sites.”

Details yet to be determined include how the base tariff would be set, whether any types of development would be exempt, and howmedium-sized developments could avoid being hit by both CIL and s106 requirements.

CBRE’s chairman of UK planning Stuart Robinson said: “The key questions will be, who will set the tariff and on what basis? And how will does affordable housing fit in?”

Simon Ricketts, partner at law firm King & Wood Mallesons, said he would not want a lower CIL rate subsidised by higher s106 payments. He added: “If there is a shortfall between what is needed and a new, low CIL, that should not come from s106, which would add extra complexity.”

The recommendations are in line with those put forward by the BPF in response to the government’s consultation on proposed changes, which ended in January.

Chief executive Melanie Leech said: “The BPF has long been pushing for government to introduce a more flexible approach to CIL for complex, large-scale development sites and for the introduction of a simpler, lower charge for smaller developments so to see government take such recommendations forward would be very welcome.”

4 thoughts on “Task Force to Accept BPF Recommendations on CIL

  1. Isn’t this now the time to revisit the regularly missed opportunity to claw back some of the financial gain made by landowners, by the the simple action of gaining planning permission?
    Currently, developers are forced to negotiate with landowners on the basis of an unknown quantity of what the LPA might require in respect of s106, or other enhancements. Unfortunately, some landowners think they can hold out and leave the developer to foot the bill, or just hold out for a better deal at a later date, as the developer gets more and more desperate to stay in business.
    A nationally set rate of CIL, based on the local housing market, would allow all parties to understand the cost of development upfront. It could also help to avoid some of the uncertainty and frustration that currently occurs, due to the unrealistic expectations of some planning committee members when considering applications and either rejecting, or deferring them because they want to see more local benefit from it.

  2. Pingback: Community Infrastructure Levy rules likely to change as developers don’t like them | East Devon Watch

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s