When Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) came into force in April 2010, it was intended to be a simple-to-adopt, simple-to-understand, and transparent means of collecting contributions for infrastructure on new developments, derived from the uplift in land values created by planning permission.   It was to be levied on all development as contribution towards infrastructure provision.

Since its adoption, there have been annual changes to the CIL regulations, the latest of which came into force in February 2014.

The key changes are:

  • More transparency and rigour in the process of setting CIL.
  • Greater flexibility to set differential rates by reference to scale of development.
  • The end date for the use of 'pooled' planning obligations has been extended to April 2015.
  • Agreements under section 278 (highway agreements) cannot be used to fund infrastructure for which the levy is earmarked.
  • Charging authorities may accept payments in kind through the provision of infrastructure.
  • The date of calculation of CIL in relation to full permissions has been brought forward to the date on which permission is granted.
  • Authorities may now use their discretion to apply relief to 'discounted market sale' housing in their area.
  • Greater flexibility to apply exceptional circumstances relief, at the charging authority's discretion.
  • Extending the definition of an 'in-use' building to that which has been in use for 6 months of the previous 3 years, and,
  • There is now relief for self-build housing and residential annexes and extensions.

The 2014 Amendments are a welcome change for the development industry, providing a more rigorous means of setting (CIL). Local Authorities will need to have in place a carefully considered charging schedule, which is relevant for their area and the type of development, and critically, it must be underpinned by a thorough evidence base.

What is happening at Examination in Public?

Since the April 2013 Statutory Guidance for CIL was published (and possibly a few months beforehand), there has been a marked change in the approach examiners have been taking, requiring charging authorities to be more robust in the collation of their evidence base.

The government so far has been reluctant to offer guidance on how a charging authority might prepare its evidence base.   This has inevitably led to a wide range of approaches being adopted. Assessing what is a viable charge requires councils, according to the NPPF, to consider the competitive return to the landowner along with costs of requirements such as affordable housing and sustainability.

Key themes have begun to emerge at Examinations, as well as some inconsistencies.

Click here to read the article in full.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.