Stuart Robinson, head of UK planning at CBRE responds to the Government announcement of changes to the Community Infrastructure Levy and doesn't think the changes go far enough."Last week the Government announced changes to its contentious Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). Although welcome, these only deal with two of the many defects in a poorly drafted set of regulations which, leaving aside the principles of the system, are proving a nightmare to developers and advisers to implement.
There is, for example, still the problem on the rules for vacant buildings where the regulations fail to make allowance for the difficulties and timescales involved in site assembly. This increases developers risk and will make some schemes unworkable.
In addition and more fundamentally, many commentators think that the CIL charging schedules are being set at a level that significantly undermines viability. This is regarded by some as far greater an impediment to economic growth than any other planning issue - more significant than, for example, the problems which the recently published Growth and Infrastructure Bill purports to tackle.
CIL was conceived by the previous government in very different economic
circumstances. A tariff imposed by local authorities on new
development, it was designed to be the principle form of planning gain
and established to generate funds to help pay for infrastructure. The
theory was that s106 would become just a minor element.
However as it has emerged, CIL sits as the primary, one of three taxes exists on top of, rather than in place of, affordable housing and Section 106 contributions. Contrary to expectations, these latter elements remain and there is little evidence of local authorities pairing down their demands as they come to terms with the austerity era. So with 106 agreements still in play and the termination of housing grants, developers now have to deal with three sets of planning gain.
All of this has led the BPF to lobby Pickles to grant a delay in CIL's implementation, a plea which was rebuffed by Pickles at the Tory party conference the other week. But the question remains that if the Government is seeking more development, why tax it further? And why burden the sector with a mechanism which is overly complex and has embedded defects to boot?
CIL is too rigid and uncompromising and is proving to be a disincentive to development. It is really disappointing that Pickles has failed to heed the pleas of the industry and to press the pause button on what is a serious and substantial threat to the growth which his government is striving to secure."
However as it has emerged, CIL sits as the primary, one of three taxes exists on top of, rather than in place of, affordable housing and Section 106 contributions. Contrary to expectations, these latter elements remain and there is little evidence of local authorities pairing down their demands as they come to terms with the austerity era. So with 106 agreements still in play and the termination of housing grants, developers now have to deal with three sets of planning gain.
All of this has led the BPF to lobby Pickles to grant a delay in CIL's implementation, a plea which was rebuffed by Pickles at the Tory party conference the other week. But the question remains that if the Government is seeking more development, why tax it further? And why burden the sector with a mechanism which is overly complex and has embedded defects to boot?
CIL is too rigid and uncompromising and is proving to be a disincentive to development. It is really disappointing that Pickles has failed to heed the pleas of the industry and to press the pause button on what is a serious and substantial threat to the growth which his government is striving to secure."
| Tweet |
|
