Community Infrastructure Levy (in relation to s106)

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

As a follow-on from this thread:

 

http://arbtalk.co.uk/forum/tree-health-care/108787-please-someone-water-me.html

 

Is anyone looking closely at the implications of the potential role out of Community Infrastructure Levy in their area?

 

I started looking at the issues in Cornwall and found some areas of potential concern. I then had a brief look at how other UK LA areas are dealing with the subject, or not as the case may be.

 

The situation varies widely across the UK with some LA's (e.g. York) going so far as to suggest, in written briefing notes, that CIL will replace s106 whereas, at the other end of the spectrum, some (Redcar-Cleveland) choosing not to implement CIL at all.

 

For Cornwall, the Duchy has been divvied up into charging zones 1-5 (1 being where the highest levy charge will apply, and 5 levied at £0 (for domestic developments - commercial / industrial are treated slightly differently)

 

The charging zones (for convenience of Cornwall council) are mapped against the average house price index so as to avoid duplication of effort in creating another metric (map below for interest.)

 

Without going too far into the background and details, it seems to me that CIL was introduced to (a) reduce the inefficiencies and the problems of establishing, agreeing, administering and collecting s106 monies and (b) to provide a clearly defined schedule of charges that developers can see and understand prior to development feasibility stage. There's a bit more to it obviously but that detail is all out there if you have trouble sleeping!

 

Why should we be interested?

 

s106, warts and all, can provide for infrastructure enhancement and uplift where appropriate - schools, roads, open green space etc.

 

CIL can do similar - it's meant to be easier to establish, understand, administer and collect monies.

 

But here's the rub (for Cornwall at least) - the consultation over charging zones took place Jan/Feb 17 and it seems that the charging zone element of the CIL consultation (which is still ongoing) is closed.

 

I've brought this to the attention of the parish council who were surprisingly supportive of the CIL concept since they saw it as a means to secure ring-fenced money for the parish (not possible with s106) and that a higher % of money paid into CIL would be transfer from LA to PC since they have a NDP.

 

They had blissfully missed the detail which places my (and many other) parishes in charging zone 5 (£0) for domestic developments.

 

A higher % of 0 is STILL 0 which they have now come to understand!

 

In all likelihood, in my jaundiced view of public services, if 2 systems exist in parallel (s106 and CIL) the course of least resistance will, ultimately lead to the demise of the other i.e. s106 will wither and die to be replaced by CIL.

 

Failure to pay attention to the detail of CIL roll-out may lead to the loss of s106 as time goes by.

 

(Probably quite a limited audience of interested parties for this Mrs Eggs might be interested though!!)

[fagus]

"A review the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has said that the levy is 'not providing a huge amount of funding for infrastructure' and has failed to provide a 'faster, simpler, more transparent system' than section 106."

 

"We don’t actually think it’s providing a huge amount of funding for infrastructure, and it most certainly hasn’t provided a faster, simpler, more transparent system, " Peace. (Chairperson) also told delegates that the panel which issued a call for said evidence last November had to approach its task with “an incredibly open mind” with “all options on the table”.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't modified, however with the Gvt business as it is that is unlikely for sometime.

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

"A review the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has said that the levy is 'not providing a huge amount of funding for infrastructure' and has failed to provide a 'faster, simpler, more transparent system' than section 106."

 

"We don’t actually think it’s providing a huge amount of funding for infrastructure, and it most certainly hasn’t provided a faster, simpler, more transparent system, " Peace. (Chairperson) also told delegates that the panel which issued a call for said evidence last November had to approach its task with “an incredibly open mind” with “all options on the table”.

I wouldn't be surprised if it wasn't modified, however with the Gvt business as it is that is unlikely for sometime.

 

 

Whose review is that quote from fagus??

[fagus]

The Gvt undertook the review, no doubt appointing a panel. Lots on Google.

I have been unable to find the above exact quote again, I recall that was delivered by the Chairperson Liz Pearce at some conference. The report goes into detail and it appears there is call already in Planning circles to call time on CIL.

[Peasgood]

Whose review is that quote from fagus??

 

The Gvt undertook the review, no doubt appointing a panel. Lots on Google.

I have been unable to find the above exact quote again, I recall that was delivered by the Chairperson Liz Pearce at some conference. The report goes into detail and it appears there is call already in Planning circles to call time on CIL.

 

http://www.landmarkchambers.co.uk/userfiles/documents/resources/SFM%20CIL%20RTPI%20Oct16.pdf

 

last page

[NoRush]

Newark and sherwood dc and Nottinghamshire cc charge both. I understood one of them couldn't be ring fenced and must be spent within the community it came from and within 5 years or it returns to the builders. Our local pc are spending more time talking about it most of it will go back to the builders

[donnk]

As a builder we see this new build house tax now and again. Currently your only penalised if you build in the countryside, towns are zero rated.

 

Just goes on the bottom line for the poor sap buying the house to pay more. And we wonder why houses are so expensive.

 

Of course the councils dont spend it on useful things like schools and doctors surgeries, they blow it on crap no one really needs or would be willing to pay for themselves.

 

I suspect if the first time buyer had a choice of giving £40/m2 to the local council to waste or save it so they could afford a sofa we all know the answer!

[mr kipling]

£40 a meter I wish £50 in the town centre and £200 a meter in rural outskirts

[kevinjohnsonmbe]

£40 a meter I wish £50 in the town centre and £200 a meter in rural outskirts

 

I'm guessing (whilst awaiting an authoritative response) that different LAs are applying differing costing scales in different areas.

 

It's certainly not a clear cut £/m difference between rural and urban in Cornwall but rather mapped to average house value (as per the map in post 1) which seems rather an odd methodology to me. It would appear that it would incentivise building in the lower average house price areas and de-incentivise in higher average house price areas, as well as potentially depriving the lower zoned areas of potential financial support to infrastructure enhancements / uplifts.