Skip to content

CIL – feedback needed on changes to additional information form

by on January 13, 2012

The introduction of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) means that local planning authorities (LPAs) which have chosen to charge need additional information to determine whether a charge is due and to calculate the amount.

A CIL additional information form was published on the Planning Portal to be submitted alongside planning applications.

However, many LPAs have told us that the form does not capture all the information they need to understand whether there would be any liability.

Working with several CIL front-runner LPAs and the Department for Communities and Local Government we have developed a CIL additional information form for LPAs to use without needing to develop their own local form.

The CIL additional information form is available here and we would welcome feedback from LPAs by email to Planning Portal Communications by Tuesday 24 January 2012.

Once feedback has been reviewed we are planning to publish the revised form in early February 2012.

Further information on CIL can be found on the Planning Portal.

Please note: The form as drafted takes account of a proposed change to Regulation 40 which will be included in the 2012 Regulation amendments. The proposed change will have the effect of taking account of any existing floorspace which is going to be retained in the new development by proportioning it across the proposed development in a similar way to the treatment of floorspace which is being demolished. The result of this change will be that you do not need to know the use/charging rate of the floorspace which is being retained.

6 Comments
  1. Barry Tierney permalink

    Yet another charge, this is another example of stealth tax funding of LGA by forcing the propser of the development be taxed directly for approvals.
    The way to reduce building development is simplyto make it unaffordable well done Local Government.

  2. Spot on Barry Tierney. London Borough of Enfield have already adopted these proposals and incorporated them into S106 until CIL comes in.

    The formulae are totally unrealistic, resulting in months wasted in negotiation with consultants used by LPA, who have no local knowledge of values, in trying to agree a payment that doesn’t render the scheme unviable.

    The result so far is that development has fallen hugely, as owners of land have no incentive to sell for development, because the extortion money demanded by the LPA has to come off the price the developer can pay for land, often removing all development value for the householder(s).

    Anecdotally, I am aware of at least two national developers who simply won’t look at land in Enfield,

  3. Brian Davidge permalink

    I fully agree with the comments of Andrew Nicholas.
    This additional tax on development will simply push the up front costs to a level that most developers are not willing to meet. The brain dead in Westminster will need to see the total collapse of the housing industry before they accept that they have made yet more mistakes.
    Perhaps the grand scheme is to bankrupt the english housing industry as so many other industries that went before and buy plastic houses from Japan and China.

  4. Tom permalink

    I think the above posters miss the point of CIL.

    When planning permission is granted it vastly increases the value of the land. That increase in value is as a result of the public (through the LPA) granting permission, and yet the profit all goes to the land owner. The costs of the development in terms of impact on infrastructure is met by the tax payer not the land owner.

    CIL makes sure a proportion of that increase in value goes to the tax payer to ensure that the development’s impact on infrastructure are paid for by that development. Its not a new costs, for decades its been paid, but its been paid by the general tax payer, effectively a subsidy to developers. I don’t think its unreasonable for some of the profits to the land owner should be used to offset the impacts of the development.

    CIL also has the advantage of simplifiying charges. You can’t ask for a financial contribution for open space for example if its part of the CIL payement. CIL is a set contribution (determined by the LPA) so can be factored into land purchase price, but financial contributions are subject to negotiation and therefore cause uncertainty and expense in determining an appropriate level.

    CIL is not the big bad some other posters seam to imply.

    • I fundamentally disagree with your premise. If the State seeks to put stringent controls on private property, thereby forcing demand to always exceed supply, it continually increases the value of existing homes, effectively giving an unearned windfall to every homeowner. It is therefore perfectly reasonable that every homeowner bears the costs of added infrastructure. Land owners and developers are not responsible for the increase in the population, which is putting unreasonable pressure on the services which the taxpayer provides.

      If the State wishes to control the freedom of the individual to deal as he sees fit with his own property, the State must bear the costs (in this instance, as always, via the taxpayer).

      Even if your premise were valid;

      1. All CIL is doing is reducing the supply of new property. If CIL has to be factored into the purchase price of land, it reduces any incentive for a house owner to sell for development if his property is thus worth little more as a developmednt site than as a residence.

      2. Secondly if it has to exist let it be easily transparent. If it was fixed at, say, a reasonable percentage of gross profit, or percentage of the sales price it would be manageable. I cited the specific example of London Borough of Enfield who have introduced this as a S106 requirement in advance of CIL, with a formula that results in such enormous payments that development is often unviable.

      I know that in theory a matrix such as the 3 Dragons can be used to justify lack of viability, but this is imprecise, and extremely time consuming, especially if the LPA insists on charging the applicant for the services of a consultant to the LPA, who has no knowledge of local costs and values and no understanding of the fact that in the real world time costs money.

      The Coalition government claims to want to stimulate economic growth and employment via the housing market, but what with CIL and the crazy requirements of the Mayor’s London Housing Design Guide, it has never been harder and slower to navigate the minefield of the planning process.

  5. Brian Davidge permalink

    I have read Tom’s comments.
    I do not know what part of the world Tom lives but as a retired property developer with thousands of house approvals and constructions completed I have NEVER been allowed to build any property without paying for road works, drainage costs, water costs, electricity costs, B.T. costs, planning costs and building regulation costs to which can be added any costs that Local Authorities deem neccessary such as bin emptying and open space allowance.
    When buying land all the above costs have to be calculated when considering the purchase price before the landowner even knows what level of value exists. NO TAXPAYER FUNDING is involved and therefore a further Cil cost is an additional burden on a housing industry struggling to survive.
    Cil costs will not provide additional revenue it will simply help price development land off the market
    which is the last thing needed at the moment.
    Developers are becoming a rare commodity at risk of extinction and that equates to zero housing and economic disaster.

Please leave a comment below but be aware of a few house rules: keep it polite, please don’t criticise any named individual or organisation (either private or public). However, you can say what you like about the Planning Portal as I’ll be happy to respond directly. Please note, all comments will be moderated before being published.

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 890 other followers

%d bloggers like this: