Note prepared by Graham Jones, Convenor of the Society CIL & Infrastructure Planning Topic Forum
This DCLG document replaced the earlier guidance of March 2010. It follows representations and concerns from the private sector in particular about the robustness of the charging schedule process and the relationship between CIL and S106.
The main changes from 2010 are:
- Establishing a clearer link between the CIL, the local plan for the area and the NPPF. Charging Authorities (CAs) will need to 'show and explain' (para 8) how the CIL will contribute to the implementation of their plan and support development. Implementing the CIL should comply with the NPPF requirement not to threaten the viable development of sites or the scale of development set out in the plan. The CIL and changes to the CIL should be worked up and tested together with the local plan where practical.
- A clear link between the infrastructure planning underlying the plan and the evidence supporting the CIL charge, which will demonstrate a 'funding gap'. A draft Reg 123 list indicating the CA's CIL spending priorities should be available at examination as supporting evidence (but not to be examined), together with an indication of what is to continue to be required through S106.
- The need to provide background evidence on S106 performance 'in recent years' (para 22)
- The need for CAs to show why they consider their rate(s) set an appropriate balance between funding infrastructure and viability. (para 23)
- The need to 'sample directly' a range of sites to supplement existing data, focussing on strategic sites which are critical to the local plan strategy and sites where impact on viability may be significant. Differential rates will probably need more data to support categories or zonal differences (para 27).
- Charges should take into account other planning and regulatory requirements eg affordable housing, code levels, as well as any proposed exemptions or reliefs. (para 29)
- The option of treating major strategic sites as differential charging zones where there is viability evidence to support so doing (para 34)
- Confirmation that differentiation by use is not tied to the Use Classes Order (para 35)
- Importance of consultation with County Councils in 2 tier areas in setting rates and developing spending priorities (para 48)
- Consultation on preliminary draft charging schedules should be at least 6 weeks (para 50)
- Greater emphasis on developers engaging early in consultation and collaboration between CAs and developers on infrastructure requirements and their funding to avoid 'double dipping' (para 85)
- CAs to demonstrate how they will scale back S106 on the implementation of CIL and publish S106 policy and guidance (including pooling provisions) when the charging schedule is implemented. (para 87)
- S106 contributions for specific items should not normally be sought where the Reg 123 list includes a generic item covering the particular category. (para 88)
- The need for consultation and justification on revisions to the Reg 123 list (para 90)
Graham Jones, January 2013