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
Progressing 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.
Progressing CIL without a Plan
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.
Progressing CIL without a Plan
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.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
g.
h.
provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be appropriate,
provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be not appropriate,
provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be available,
provision as to evidence that is to be taken to be not available,
provision as to how evidence is, and as to how evidence is not, to be used,
provision as to evidence that is, and as to evidence that is not, to be used,
provision as to evidence that may, and as to evidence that need not, be used, and
provision as to how the use of evidence is to inform the preparation of a charging
schedule.”
Progressing CIL without a Plan
In terms of the CIL Regulations 2010 (as amended) there does
not appear to be anything that requires a local or relevant plan.
Progressing CIL without a 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
Transport Capacity
Residual Valuation
(testing CIL &
Affordable Housing
contributions)
Education & Health
Role of new
infrastructure in
unlocking development
Community facilities,
open space
Market reaction to
transition to CIL
ECONOMIC VIABILITY
INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING
Infrastructure
Schedule
Total Available
Funding
Delivery
Strategy s106 v
CIL
Viability on
strategic
sites
Viability by
Area
Consultant Prebriefing for
decision-makers
based on best
practice
Viability by
Intended Use
Technical Evidence
gathering phase
Total Cost
Estimate
Viability Sample
Sites/Uses
RATE SETTING PROCESS
Establish Viability
Parameters
Total Funding Gap
& CIL priorities
Rate Setting
Workshop:
striking the
balance
Schedule of Rates
Strategic Judgement
phase
Weigh up technical
evidence with other local
priorities:
Desire for simplicity
Premium placed on
funding infrastructure
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
Aggregat
e
Funding
Gap
Residual
Funding
Gap
Projected
CIL
Income/
CIL Target
Other
sources
• residual funding gap
Total Cost of
Infrastructure
Funding
Funding
Golden thread
• Drawn from infrastructure
evidence that underpins the
plan
Relevant Plan
Infrastructure
Evidence
CIL
Infrastructure
Evidence
• Total cost of infrastructure for
projects that are potential
Funding Gap
Project List
candidates for CIL funding
• Regulation 123 list
• Need to understand
approach to S106 and S278
Regulation
123 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
Viability Analysis
Maximum amount
available for CIL
£1,600,000
£1,400,000
Financial
Contribution
£1,200,000
S106
£1,000,000
Site value in
current use
£800,000
Interest
£600,000
Fees
£400,000
Developer's
profit
£200,000
Build
£0
Scheme value
Costs
20
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