CIL: Evidence

CIL Evidence

The Evidence

Primary Evidence

1. Justification of infrastructure requirements

2. Justification of an infrastructure funding gap

3. Technical viability evidence that appraise the impact of CIL on the viability across the area as a whole

4. Proof of suitable consultation

Secondary Evidence

1. Past s106 performance

2. Future approach to s106 (probably a draft SPD)

3. Regulation 123 list

4. An adopted Plan??

Progressing CIL without a Plan

• In 2014 the Planning Inspectorate (at a CIL event in Newcastle)

gave the view: “it is not necessary to have an up to date adopted

plan, but that a charging authority would need up to date

evidence.”

• Planning Magazine has received the same view from PINs.

• A similar view has also been given by the DCLG CIL

• The Minister of State for Housing and Planning, Brandon Lewis,

has written to a local authority in the South East stating that it is

possible for a charging authority to adopt a levy in advance of its

local plan provided they have robust evidence.

• Several Authorities are proceeding with CIL without a Plan


• Concerned about the legality…– Risk of successful challenge or unsuccessful examination

– Direct cost

– Opportunity cost with re-allocation of resources

– Reputation

• To decide on your approach to this you need to work through the

relevant Acts and regulation and status of the guidance.


Section 205 of the 2008 Act (as amended by the Localism Act

2011) sets out the purpose but does not make the link to a Plan

...(2) In making the regulations the Secretary of State shall aim to

ensure that the overall purpose of CIL is to ensure that costs

incurred in supporting the development of an area can be funded

wholly or partly by owners or developers of land in a way that does

not make development of the area economically unviable.


There is nothing in the Localism Act 2011 insisting on having a

local or relevant plan, in terms of the evidence

(7B)CIL regulations may make provision about the application of

subsection (7A) including, in particular— .a. provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be appropriate,

b. provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be not appropriate,

c. provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be available,

d. provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be not available,

e. provision as to how evidence is, and as to how evidence is not, to be used,

f. provision as to evidence that is, and as to evidence that is not, to be used,

g. provision as to evidence that may, and as to evidence that need not, be used, and

h. provision as to how the use of evidence is to inform the preparation of a charging

schedule.”


In terms of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) there does

not appear to be anything that requires a local or relevant plan.


The link to a plan is more clear in the NPPF, but the use of the

word should in this paragraph denotes advice rather than a

statutory requirement.

“Charging schedules should be consistent with, and support the

implementation of, up-to-date relevant Plans.” But what is a ‘relevant Plan’?

• In relation to the levy, the relevant Plan is the Local Plan in England, Local

Development Plan in Wales, and the London Plan in London.

• Charging schedules are not formally part of the relevant Plan, but charging

schedules and relevant Plans should inform and be generally consistent

with each other.

• The National Planning Policy Framework in England (paragraph 175)

provides that, where practical, charging schedules should be worked up

and tested alongside the Local Plan.

• A charging authority may use a draft plan if they are proposing a joint

examination of their relevant Plan and their levy charging schedule.

How to set CIL rates

You will need to produce a ‘CIL Charging Schedule’ of rates

Your rate(s) must be justified in 2 respects:

1. You must prove that you need infrastructure to support development and that there is an infrastructure funding gap

2. You must prove that the charge is not set at a rate that will have a significantly negative impact on development viability (i.e. the developers can’t afford it)

Infrastructure Requirements

Viability of development

Market reaction to transition to CIL

Role of new infrastructure in

unlocking development

Residual Valuation (testing CIL &

Affordable Housing contributions)

Community facilities, open space

Education & Health

Transport Capacity

Total Cost Estimate

Total Available Funding

Total Funding Gap & CIL priorities

Infrastructure Schedule

Viability by Area

Viability by Intended Use

Establish Viability Parameters

Viability Sample Sites/Uses

Rate Setting Workshop: striking the

balance

INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING ECONOMIC VIABILITY

Tech

nical Evid

en

cegath

erin

g ph

aseStrate

gic Jud

gem

en

t p

hase

Delivery Strategy s106 v

CIL

Viability on strategic

sites

Schedule of Rates

Consultant Pre-briefing for

decision-makers based on best

practice

Weigh up technical

evidence with other local

priorities:

Desire for simplicity

Premium placed on

funding infrastructure

RATE SETTING PROCESS

Infrastructure evidence

What have we learnt so far?

1. Still relatively minor component of examinations

2. All councils have an infrastructure funding gap

3. Greater emphasis on CIL vs S106 and ‘double dipping’

Infrastructure Funding Gap

• total cost of infrastructure

• funding from other sources

• aggregate funding gap

• projected CIL Income

• residual funding gapProjected

CIL

Income/

CIL Target

Oth

er

so

urc

es

Total Cost of

Infrastructure

Funding

Residual

Funding

Gap

Aggregat

e

Funding

Gap

Funding

Golden thread

• Drawn from infrastructure

evidence that underpins the

plan

• Total cost of infrastructure for

projects that are potential

candidates for CIL funding

• Regulation 123 list

• Need to understand

approach to S106 and S278

Relevant Plan Infrastructure

Evidence

CIL Infrastructure

Evidence

Regulation 123 List

Funding Gap Project List

Waltham Forest Case Study

Context

• Adopted Core Strategy in 2012

• CS supported by SIP produced 2009

• PDCS consultation based on SIP

• Council commissioned update to support DCS

consultation

Considerations

• Should additional infrastructure planning be undertaken

for CIL?

• How to align plan making process to delivery?

Waltham Forest Case Study

Approach

• additional infrastructure planning undertaken in 2013 to

align IDP to spending priorities

• work undertaken during a 12-week intense period.

• update to viability work undertaken concurrently

Outcomes

• Updated IDP that can inform capital programme

• Successful CIL examination in spring 2014.

Infrastructure Evidence - Questions

1. Have you identified the total cost of infrastructure they wish to

fund wholly or partly through the levy?

2. In identifying your CIL target, have you considered what

additional infrastructure is needed in your area to support

development and what other funding sources are available?

3. Is your information on infrastructure need directly related to the

infrastructure assessment that underpins your plan?

The counties role

1. Active engagement and input in the production of the

Infrastructure Delivery Plans

2. Active engagement and input on identifying the infrastructure

requirements for strategic sites

3. Facilitating cross border discussions on strategic infrastructure

that straddles boundaries

Approaches

1. Production and maintenance of county wide infrastructure plan

2. Active participation in discussions on specific strategic sites

including approach on S106

Viability evidence

20

£0

£200,000

£400,000

£600,000

£800,000

£1,000,000

£1,200,000

£1,400,000

£1,600,000

Scheme value Costs

FinancialContribution

S106

Site value incurrent use

Interest

Fees

Developer'sprofit

Build

Maximum amount available for CIL

Viability Analysis

Viability Evidence - Questions

1. Does the viability evidence cover the whole area

2. It the evidence appropriate & available (does it follow the

Harmon report technique?)

3. Does it undertake fine grain analysis (development sites upon

which the Plan relies?)

4. Does it focus on key viability issues for the area?

5. Have stakeholders been engaged (including developer and

landowners)

6. Is the evidence set out in a report and has it been made public?

The counties role

1. Understanding link between s106 on strategic sites and viability

for CIL.

Approaches

1. Active participation in discussions on specific strategic sites

including approach on S106

2. County wide viability studies

Government & Nonprofit

CIL: Evidence