I thought it might be useful to make the headlines of the Law Society's CIL response available. The headline points were:
1 There are no transitional provisions. As a result, developments which have already received planning permission can be subject t to CIL.
2 Regulation 94 and the suggested scaling back of section 106 hands a new weapon to objectors who will be able to scrutinise permissions to see if Reg 94 has been complied with and in cases of doubt commence judicial review proceedings. As lawyers this might well be in our interests; but we do not think it is an improvement to the planning system.
3 Nor will Reg 94 achieve the aim of stopping double recovery or double charging. There are many other ways apart from s.106 which local planning authorities could use to obtain planning benefits. It may not result in the observance of the policy tests either. If the Secretary of State wishes to enforce his policy he can do so by making it plain he will do so on appeal, and award costs.
4 Some infrastructure is needed to mitigate environmental effects under the EIA Directive. There is however not enough certainty in the case of CIL proposals to ensure that it is going to come forward at the appropriate time. This leads to the real risk that developers will end up paying twice – once in CIL and a second time if the infrastructure in question is late, or abandoned. This also leads to validity problems with the permission itself under the EIA regime.
5 The exemptions for charities are disallowed if development is commenced before determination of the claim for relief.
We'd be interested to know what others said. Do let us know using the comments below. Or perhaps you'd like to send us a copy of what went in from your organisation. If so, please send it to caroline.bywater@mills-reeve.com
David
Comments