Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Welcome to Plan-it Law

  • Plan-it Law is written by planning and development lawyers from top 50 UK law firm, Mills & Reeve LLP. We write about the latest legal and policy developments relating to planning. Please send us an email or post a comment if you want to join in the discussions on Plan-it Law.

Other resources

Plan-it Disclaimer

  • The information on this blog is not intended to be legal advice. You should not rely on it and we don't accept liability in connection with it. Please read our full disclaimer and let us know if you would like us to advise on any legal issue. Specific advice should be sought for specific problems.

« Government amends planning enforcement regime in response to Law Society warning – but doesn’t go far enough | Main | Responses published on the Community Right to Buy – Assets of Community Value consultation »

Comments

Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Where the infrastructure is critical to the project can't the developer request that the LPA (and potentially other third parties) to sign a S106 which is non monetary but says we will build this scheme to this phasing if you build this infrastructure to this phasing?

What about step-in rights? I once had to do a deal with a highways authority to pay for delivery of a new road within a tight timescale to enable certin phases of a development to be opened. The HA was also in a hurry, for other reasons, and agreed to step-in rights for the developer if the works were not finished or had not reached a certain stage by an agreed date. They never needed to be invoked, I am glad to say, but it meant that we all knew what could happen if the road was not delivered.

The Institution of Civil Engineers (with others) has been making the case for protecting CIL for its original purpose - of providing new and upgraded infrastructure - and retaining the link between the evidence used to justify the charge, what is actually levied, and what the money is spent on.

In partnership with other organisations, and with the assistance of Lord Jenkin, we placed two amendments to the Bill during its passage through the House of Lords. This was followed up by a meeting with Earl Atlee and some civil servants (some of whom we'd met previously). We – and again others - have also written to the Secretary of State, expressing concern about the Bill’s ‘direction of travel’.

We'll have to see what emerges at the Report Stage of the Bill but the Government seems quite determined that - despite its original justification and source - CIL should not be restricted to new infrastructure spending (or even perhaps even infrastructure). It appears that it is becoming a tax on development, albeit one levied on a very small number of payers.

Finally, and specifically on your article, for infrastructure on which a development "depends", Section 106 will remain important, of course.

Duncan Neish
Policy Manager
Institution of Civil Engineers

Some interesting comments above - thanks for posting. It will be interesting to see how s106s could be used, bearing in mind Reg 122 and 123 restrictions (not to mention the restrictive nature of s106(1)itself), but also whether the relevant parties could be convinced to sign up to carry out works at specified times: a landowner is unlikely to want to do that, and a developer will want to be in control of its own programme. Could a planning authority actually covenant to carry out works? What if it did not collect in sufficient funds from other CIL development or a competing priority arose? Some of these issues will be easier to tackle than others, I'm sure.
CLG has also kindly pointed out that the charging schedule does not list any items of infrastructure - the draft schedule's evidence base, which must show a funding gap, may well refer to an indicative list of infrastructure, but the published schedule goes no further in relation to delivery of that infrastructure.

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been saved. Comments are moderated and will not appear until approved by the author. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment

Comments are moderated, and will not appear until the author has approved them.

Your Information

(Name and email address are required. Email address will not be displayed with the comment.)