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!!)