Community Infrastructure Levy
| Author | William Webster |
| Pages | 217-224 |
Chapter 10
Community Infrastructure Levy
INTRODUCTION (AND THE PROSPECT OF REFORM)
10.1 The future of the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is in doubt. The Government’s CIL review group (CRG) reported to the Government in October 2016
10.2 Under the proposal all developments, almost without exception, would be subject to LIT. Larger developments, which require direct mitigation to make them acceptable in planning terms or very specific major infrastructure on or close by the development, including infrastructure delivered up front, would be subject to an additional contribution under section 106 (strictly in accordance with tests under regulation 122 of the Community Infrastructure Levy Regulations 2010 (CILR). To the extent that the obligations cover financial contributions, these
218 Planning Law: A Practitioner’s Handbook
would continue to be collected by the relevant local authority and, where appropriate, passed to the body that provides the relevant infrastructure.
10.3 In light of the fact that CIL reform is on the cards, it has been reported that the ensuing uncertainty has brought work on introducing the levy almost to a standstill.
10.4 The main complaints about CIL seem to be that very little of it has been spent on infrastructure. It has been reported in the press
10.5 In light of the above, CIL may not be delivering the infrastructure it was meant to, although others say that the retention of unspent levy is not in itself a sign of a problem. It is argued that the levy was designed to allow for the collection of CIL contributions from many developers over a number of years in order to fund infrastructure that was substantial enough to support large urban growth. In these circumstances, it is said that it should be no surprise that funds need to be accumulated before work on planned projects can be started. There is then a conflict between those who say that authorities should be using CIL as a mechanism to unlock development (perhaps by spending levy receipts within a deadline) and those who think that what is important is that, rather than being frittered away, CIL receipts should be safeguarded and utilised on the infrastructure that an independently audited process has confirmed is needed to support an authority’s growth. A persistent complaint, however, is that whereas local authorities have to hand back unspent section 106 receipts within an agreed number of years, this does not apply to CIL, where the regulations do not deal with what is to happen if CIL receipts are not spent on infrastructure within a
To continue reading
Request your trial