Category: CIL

CIL: Kill Or Cure?

If anyone doesn’t think that the Community Infrastructure Levy urgently needs reform, do read this 1 March 2017 VOA ruling on one of many thorny issues that arise constantly in practice: how to calculate indexation (as well as how to calculate chargeable floorspace) in relation to section 73 permissions that amend pre-CIL permissions. The copy of the ruling in the link to the gov.uk website is redacted but I can tell you that around £3m turned on the decision relating to a development of 527 dwellings. The authority in question (I will preserve anonymity) has been interpreting the Regulations in a way which it asserts to be literal and correct, but which leads to unfairly onerous liability arising (which for some people arises completely out of the blue by way of revised liability notices being served). 
The VOA member considered that the authority’s approach “is wrong and undermines the purpose of regulation 128A” (the regulation that seeks to avoid double charging in the case of development pursuant to section 73 permissions). I understand that the issue may now reach the High Court by way of judicial review. As with any tax legislation, the dilemma is as to what room is there for a purposive interpretation, however unfair the consequences of a literal reading. After all, see R (Orbital Shopping Park Swindon) Limited v Swindon Borough Council (Patterson J, 3 March 2016):
“…not only would the defendant’s approach be contrary to the whole approach to the interpretation of planning permissions it would be contrary to constitutional principles. As was said in Vestey v Inland Revenue Commissioners [1980] AC 1148 by Lord Wilberforce:


”Taxes are imposed upon subjects by Parliament. A citizen cannot be taxed unless he is designated in clear terms by a taxing Act as a taxpayer and the amount of his liability is clearly defined. 
A proposition that whether a subject is to be taxed or not, or, if he is, the amount of his liability, is to be decided (even though within a limit) by an administrative body represents a radical departure from constitutional principle. It may be that the revenue could persuade Parliament to enact such a proposition in such terms that the courts would have to give effect to it: but, unless it has done so, the courts, acting on constitutional principles not only should not, but cannot, validate it.”
In that case a literal interpretation was to the benefit of the payer rather than the authority. Patterson J underlined “the importance of a close and clear analysis of what the statute actually requires“. 

The problem is that the 2010 Regulations are a hopeless mess; anything but clear to payer or authority alike – the antithesis of good tax legislation or indeed good planning legislation. The successive sets of amendments in 2011, 2012, 2013 and 2014 have resolved some problems, ignored others and created new ones. Due to ambiguities in the Regulations, CIL liability arising from a development is in many cases dependent on the approach being taken by individual collecting authorities, which is plainly contrary to the rule of law as well as wasteful of the time and money of all concerned. Planning consultants are having to act as tax accountants, with very large amounts of money at stake, dependent not just on an accurate reading of the legislation that accords with the collecting authority’s approach (unless there is to be an appeal to the VOA) but on service of the correct notices at the correct time – the process does not allow for any mercy on the part of the authority. 

Of course the planning system has from its outset wrestled with two core unresolved issues:
– The extent to which the system should have any land value capture role

– Apportionment of responsibilities between the state and developers/land owners for infrastructure delivery/funding. 

CIL is the latest attempt to square the circle but has proved hopelessly inefficient. 
For an excellent, detailed, analysis of the underlying issues, still nothing beats Tom Dobson’s 2012 paper to the Oxford Joint Planning Law Conference. 
Tom of course subsequently was one of the team, led by Liz Peace, appointed by the Government in November 2015 to:
“Assess the extent to which CIL does or can provide an effective mechanism for funding infrastructure, and to recommend changes that would improve its operation in support of the Government’s wider housing and growth objectives.” 

Whilst the political reverberations of Brexit have been an unwarranted distraction from things that might actually help to improve lives and provide homes, it is so disappointing that the review team’s report was only published in February 2017, alongside the Housing White Paper. (Why was it held up till then? There is no read-across to the white paper proposals). The report is dated October 2016 but its contents were an open secret as long ago as June last year (see my CIL BILL? 3.6.16 blog post). Not only that but the Government has indicated that it will not be responding to the report’s recommendations until this Autumn’s budget. This presumably means no substantial changes until April or October 2018 at the earliest. 

The review team considered four options:
– do nothing

– abolition

– minor reform

– more extensive reform

The report is a solid piece of work, well argued and rooted in experience. It identifies CIL’s failings (raising less money than anticipated, over-complicated, opaque) and firmly recommends extensive reform, particularly the replacement of the current system with a more standardised approach of Local Infrastructure Tariffs (LITs) and, in combined authority areas, Strategic Infrastructure Tariffs (SITs). LITs would supposedly be set at a low level calculated by reference to a proportion of the market value per square metre of an average three bedroom property in the local authority area, although the “example rates” in appendix 5 of the report are not particularly low given that there would be far fewer exemptions and reliefs and less opportunity to net off existing floorspace:
* £20 – £90 per m2 for Authorities in the North of England

* £30 – £90 per m2 for Authorities in the Midlands

* £30 – £220 per m2 for Authorities in the South and East of England

* £50 – £440 per m2 for London Boroughs

For developments of ten dwellings or more, there would be a return to the flexibility of section 106 for provision of site-specific infrastructure (netting off LIT liability) and of course abolition of the pooling restriction (come on government, if you do nothing else, remove the pooling restriction – even Donald Trump would be able to achieve that!). 

There would be transitional arrangements, with the review team speculating that these could take us to the end of this Parliament in 2020. Alas, with subsequent slippages even that now looks optimistic. 
What do we think the Government will do with the report? It is worrying that Gavin Barwell was talking at MIPIM of somehow including affordable housing in any revised system (see for instance Inside Housing’s article 24 March 2017). Keep it simple!
My personal guess is that significant change may well be too much for this government at this time. If so, ministers need to face that reality and it really is urgent that we at least push for Plan B: a further set of amending Regulations (preferably in the form of a consolidated version of the 2010 Regulations), putting right what we can, including abolition of the pooling restriction, alongside a clearer approach to indexation, to section 73 permissions and to payments in kind. The report called for interim measures but without setting them out in detail. 
Many of you remain in the “kill CIL” camp. I recognise that the CIL review team’s recommendations are radical but to go one step further and lose any levy or tariff mechanism would in my view be impractical. For bigger schemes, section 106 agreements definitely have advantages (as long as the negotiation process can be as streamlined as possible and the authority’s requirements signposted in policies) but for smaller projects a standardised approach should in theory leave everyone knowing where they stand – and another major lurch to a new system would inevitably have unanticipated outcomes. 
That June 2016 blog post was my first. And this is my 50th, with no real progress on CIL in the meantime. Gavin Barwell has rightly won many plaudits as planning minister but for many of us his real test will be to clear up quickly this CIL mess created by his predecessors (the coalition government in 2010 should have ditched it in the way that the Conservatives’ Open Source Planning manifesto document had suggested). As politicians love to say about most things, but true in the case of CIL, it’s broken. 
Simon Ricketts 25.3.17
Personal views, et cetera

From The White Paper Mountain, What Do We See?

After so long we have reached the top of the mountain: the white paper and accompanying documents have all been published today, 7 February 2017. However, now we see a series of further peaks on the horizon. 
A good way into the white paper itself, Fixing Our Broken Housing Market, is to start at the back end. From page 72 you have the detailed proposals listed, including a series of proposed changes to the NPPF and other policies which are now the subject of a consultation process from today until 2 May 2017. The consultation focuses on a series of 38 questions but some of the questions are potentially very wide-ranging. Further consultation is proposed on various matters, including 
– housing requirements of older people and the disabled

– Increasing local authorities’ flexibility to dispose of land at less than best consideration and related powers

– Potentially increasing fees for planning appeals (up to a maximum of £2,000 for the largest schemes, recoverable if the appeal is allowed)

– Changes to section 106 processes (with further consideration being given to dispute resolution “in the context of longer term reform”)

– Requiring housebuilders to provide aggregate information on build-out rates and, for large-scale sites, as to the relevance of the applicant’s track record of delivering similar schemes

– Encouragement of use of CPO powers to support the build out of stalled sites. 

There is a supplementary consultation paper on planning and affordable housing for build to rent  containing a further 26 questions, with a consultation deadline of 1 May 2017.
There are responses to previous consultation papers and reports:
– Summary of responses to the technical consultation on implementation of planning changes, consultation on upward extensions and Rural Planning Review Call for Evidence  (including a u-turn on the previous idea of an upwards extensions permitted development right in London, now to be addressed by policy). 
– Government response to the Communities and Local Government Select Committee inquiry into the report of the Local Plans Expert Group 
There is plenty to get to grips with, for example:
– the housing delivery test and new methodology for assessing objectively assessed need

– an understandable focus on whether the applicant will proceed to build out any permission and at what rate, although with a worrying reduction of the default time limit for permissions from three to two years

– Homes and Communities Agency to become “Homes England”. 

It is also reassuring to see the Government applying real focus to build to rent, reducing its emphasis on starter homes – and also reducing its reliance on permitted development rights. 

However, it is surprising how much still remains unresolved. We will apparently have a revised NPPF “later this year” but for much else the start date looks to be April 2018, for example a widened affordable housing definition including watered-down starter homes proposals (no longer a statutory requirement and with reference to a policy target of a minimum of 10% “affordable housing ownership units” rather than the requirement of 20% starter homes previously proposed) and a new methodology for assessing five year housing land supply. 

Liz Peace’s CIL review team’s review of CIL: “A new approach to developer contributions”  (October 2016 but only now published) remains untackled. The Government’s response will be announced at the time of the Autumn Budget 2017. 

Decision-makers will need to grapple very quickly with the question as to the weight they should give to the white paper as a material consideration, given the Government’s clear policy direction now on a range of issues. 


Simon Ricketts, 7.2.17
Personal views, et cetera

Back Yard Back Handers

The idea, set out in the prime minister’s announcement  in relation to the Shale Wealth Fund, of the planning system encompassing direct payouts to households affected by shale oil and gas proposals, is an eye-opener on various levels – particularly given the suggestions that this will not stop at shale.

I set out below some reasons why I believe it is a wrong move and/or will not work. 
However, the proposals don’t come entirely out of the blue. 
There has been a community engagement charter since June 2013 in relation to oil and gas from unconventional reservoirs  It includes commitments from the industry to:
“Provide benefits to local communities at the exploration/appraisal stage of £100,000 per well site where hydraulic fracturing takes place;

Provide a share of proceeds at production stage of 1% of revenues, allocated approximately 2/3rd to the local community and 1/3rd at the county level”
Community benefit packages like this are not new. There is also a non-statutory process in relation to on-shore wind. Community Benefits From On Shore Wind Developments  published by DECC (as it then was) in October 2014, describes a voluntary protocol agreed by the on shore wind industry. It commits developers of onshore wind projects above 5 MW in England to provide a community benefit package to the value of at least £5000 per MW of installed capacity per year, index-linked for the operational lifetime of the project. There are equivalent schemes in Wales and Scotland. The guidance stresses that payments should not be taken into account by decision-makers in determining applications. There is much focus on identifying appropriate community bodies and working through how benefits can most be effectively used by the community, with no suggestion of the monies being able to be shared out for personal gain. 
With fracking, the potential move to individual payouts was flagged in January 2014. As part of announcements that local authorities would in 100% of business rates from fracking,  it was announced that the industry would further consult about its community benefits packages, “with options including direct cash payments to people living near the site, plus the setting up of local funds directly managed by local communities”. 
For an industry paralysed by opposition to its proposals for exploratory wells, let alone extraction, this is presumably a fairly desperate attempt to turn the tide of local opinion. But the implications of such a scheme would go way beyond energy policy. Again, extending such ideas to housing is not new. Then deputy prime minister Nick Clegg was reported in August 2013 as promoting the idea of payments for those affected by garden city proposals.
These are seven obvious concerns:
1. It won’t reduce the opposition
Objections are not necessarily limited to the immediate environs of the project. People have strongly held concerns about (in the case of fracking) the potential effects of shale oil and gas extraction on the environment and on climate change more generally. Those non-local objectors will not be “bought off” by any direct payment. 
Nor will local objectors, whose concerns are, it is to be assumed, strongly held and not necessarily swayed by cash. Indeed a December 2014 research report on public engagement with shale gas and oil commissioned by the previous Government would appear to support that view.  Chapter 5 addresses mixed reactions to community benefits packages: 
“The financial aspect of the package was met with discomfort for many, because it was seen to monetise the risk taken on by the community, and was thus seen as a bribe by some. The fact that money was offered was also seen to indicate the activity was extremely high risk and dangerous, as participants were unaware of money being exchanged in other situations. “

2. Contamination of the planning process

Regulation 122(2) of the CIL Regulations 2010 provides that
“A planning obligation may only constitute a reason for granting planning permission for the development if the obligation is—

(a)necessary to make the development acceptable in planning terms;

(b)directly related to the development; and

(c)fairly and reasonably related in scale and kind to the development.”

It is of course a fundamental principle of the UK planning system that planning permissions cannot be bought or sold. However, let’s face it, our system is already influenced by financial considerations. For example:

– the Localism Act 2011 amended section 70 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 so as to require decision-makers to take into account in their decisions “any local finance considerations, so far as material to the application”

– local authorities are rewarded by Government for allowing homes to be built, by way of the new homes bonus and the business rates system increasingly encourages authorities that go for growth. 
– a proportion of CIL receipts is payable to parish councils, with little restriction in practice on what the monies can be spent on.
There is nothing necessarily wrong in my view with these interventions. Monies are directed to democratic bodies acting in the public interest. But we should be planning for the long term, for future generations rather than those who happen currently to live beside a major proposal. 
3. This is not about compensation for impacts
The VOA reported in August 2014   that there is no evidence that shale oil and gas exploration will affect house prices. I assume their view has not changed. 
The compulsory purchase compensation system provides protection for those whose land interests are taken or where, even if no land is taken, there is reduction in land value due to the physical effects arising from the operation of development projects. The common law of nuisance provides additional protections. 
4. It will be complicated
Who draws the boundary lines that determine who qualifies? What distinctions are there between home owners and tenants? Will there be minimum residency requirements? What about second home owners? What about clawback if people move out of the area within a short period of time, having accepted the payment? How will it be treated for tax purposes? All in all a lot of detail to be resolved and even the. There will inevitably be those who feel that they have been unfairly excluded. 
5. Slippery slope
Why not every form of development? This legitimises dialogue on planning being about how much should be paid to individuals affected, not what is in the public interest.
6. Dissipation of funds
The on-shore wind protocol contains good examples of how community benefits can deliver worthwhile projects, in the public interest. This opportunity is wholly lost with individual payouts.  

7. Whatever happened to localism?

The most depressing aspect of the announcement is that it appears to be a recognition or hunch that, for all the promotion of, initially, the Big Society, from 2010 and then neighbourhood planning, with the structures created by the Localism Act 2011, what drives behaviour is not community but me, myself, I. In order to persuade us each to allow development to proceed, apparently monies have to change hands, directed not to our parish council or other community group but directly into our bank accounts. 
Tell me if I have this wrong…

Simon Ricketts 8.8.16
Personal views, et cetera
 

. 

CIL BILL?

Pretty good CIL scoop by EGi, not yet denied by anyone.

Apparently two of the CIL working group’s recommendations are that:

– section 106 agreements rather than CIL should be the delivery mechanism for infrastructure in relation to large developments;

– there should be a nationally standard low level of CIL.

The recomendations may be included in the forthcoming Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill to the extent that primary legislation would be needed.

They certainly chime with the BPF’s own consultation response.

The cynical would point to CIL working group chair Liz Peace’s former role as chief executive of, er, the BPF. However, that would disregard the strength and independence of the group as a whole on CIL issues:  Gilian Macinnes (PAS), Steve Dennington (Croydon Council), Tom Dobson (Quod), Andrew Whitaker (Home Builders Federation), John Fuller (leader, South Norfolk District Council) and Michael Gallimore (Hogan Lovells). When the real report comes out, it will be worth reading and let’s hope that the Government don’t mangle whatever its recommendations turn out to be.  

But I’m excited already. Wouldn’t be great if we could move to a two tier model:

– for most developments, no section 106 agreements at all, replaced by a combination of (1) CIL and (2) wider use of standardised conditions than planning obligations to secure contributions and site-specific infrastructure. Authorities run scared from using conditions to secure contributions and affordable housing, sometimes without reason (Planning Practice Guidance: “where the six tests will be met, it may be possible use a negatively worded condition to prohibit development authorised by the planning permission until a specified action has been taken (for example, the entering into of a planning obligation requiring the payment of a financial contribution towards the provision of supporting infrastructure“)

– for major complex developments (eg opportunity area sites in London, urban extensions and new settlements), no CIL, replaced by section 106 agreements documenting the most efficient mechanism for delivering necessary infrastructure in a timely way? Not to reduce the financial burden for developers but rather to make their money work harder and go further with efficient timely infrastructure delivery. No more problems over regulations 122 or 123, no more uncertainty as to whether infrastructure will come forward hand in hand with development. 

Section 106 agreements aren’t going away any time soon though: given their forthcoming role as delivery mechanism for starter homes, and with no sign any time yet of any standardised drafting from the Government to discourage the inevitable goldplating and gaming that will arise.  Shame that. 

…

I fell off the L is for Localism blog a few years ago. Starting over. 

Simon Ricketts 3.6.16

Personal views et cetera