Time to stop tinkering with Community Infrastructure Levy, say planning officers

The Community Infrastructure Levy should now be left alone to bed in “without further ad hoc changes”, the Planning Officers Society said this week following the Government’s latest consultation.

In its initial response to the proposed reforms, the Society said: “POS believes that the levy was introduced as a simple straightforward approach to levying a charge on development to support the provision of infrastructure.

“Since its introduction regular Government tinkering has had the dual effects of making it considerably more complicated to understand and administer and reducing the likely resources available for infrastructure provision.”

The Society acknowledged that the latest set of proposed amendments included useful changes, such as extending the time limit for pooling Section 106 contributions.

But it warned that they also followed on from the 2012 guidance in making the introduction of CIL “more onerous and resource intensive for charging authorities” and opening up options for the development industry to contest and reduce CIL liability.

Graham Jones, Convenor for the POS CIL & Infrastructure Planning Topic Forum, said: “We accept and commend that CIL charges should be set at a reasonable and balanced level which doesn't have a serious adverse impact on viability across the area, but the basic principles of having a non-negotiable standard charge applicable to all development to fund infrastructure are being increasingly compromised."

Malcolm Sharp, POS President, added: "Whilst there is some useful clarification there is likely to be additional work for hard pressed charging authorities in getting CIL in place and in operating the system, for example additional consultation.

“The proposed regulations will also lead to a further reduction in CIL receipts coming on top of the 'meaningful proportion' and therefore will prejudice the provision of essential infrastructure to enable growth."

Sharp also suggested that charging authorities and infrastructure providers needed certainty in order to plan and deliver schemes supporting growth including upfront provision supported by anticipated CIL receipts.

The Society added that it had a number of concerns relating to the proposals, including the requirement for charging authorities to demonstrate an appropriate balance has been struck between the provision of infrastructure and the effect on viability across their whole area.

“Whilst setting out their approach is reasonable, it would be unfortunate if examinations were diverted to long debate and examination on a site by site basis which would be disproportionate,” the POS said.

On the proposal to expanding the circumstances for exceptional relief, the Society warned that this “could be a slippery slope” when the principles have been set in the viability testing across a whole area.

It added: “A modest change to allow relief in exceptional circumstances when there is a section 106 in place (even when it is less than the CIL amount) may strike a reasonable balance.

“Similarly there seems to be no justification for making self build immune from CIL when every property adds to pressure on infrastructure.”