Document

WORKSHOP AIMS

What evidence do we need for a CIL schedule?  CHECKLIST  Identify data implications of the operation of CIL:  optimal scale for decisions  treating risk  ensuring fairness  stakeholder acceptance…etc  Continuing the debate?

Friday, 17 October 2008

The Community Infrastructure Levy & Social Infrastructure Planning

Susan Batty University College London

Breaking News

Schools programme "behind schedule” Almost two-thirds of the early waves of the Government's flagship school rebuilding programme are behind schedule, official figures reveal.

Regen.Net 14 October 2008

Social Infrastructure: the statutory planning context

EASY

LSP

ONS

GLA… Source Data & modelling

CIL

S106 Community Involvement Social Infrastructure

SCI

Planning Frameworks

SIF

Capacity studies LDF

SCP

Funding Central

How agreements became fees

case by case few developments negotiated link to development ‘Planning Blackmail’ S 52 Infrastructure plan most developments fee regional -local Planning Gain Planning Obligation Affordable Housing S106 Tariff-based PGS CIL ?

Community Infrastructure Levy

• Introduced in the 2007 Planning Bill • Likely to start in Spring 2009 • Local Authorities are given the power to impose this levy on new development in their areas to support local infrastructure delivery • Local Authorities must have comprehensive social infrastructure policies in place before they can impose the levy • Runs alongside S106 agreements

Planning Obligations currently include Affordable Housing o p

CIL is intended to provide efficiency and speed in infrastructure delivery - and equal treatment for all developers BUT….

 S106 is working : 2005-6 Councils raised £4billion for affordable housing and infrastructure costs  57% rise from 2003-4 (Tony Crook Sheffield University: Planning 8th August 2008)  The burden is unbalanced: 93% of the burden of costs is imposed on 7% of developments… but CIL is not mandatory.

Can CIL fairly reflect the spatial balance of costs and benefits?

 Can CIL be fairer than Planning Obligations? Can it be robust enough as density and diversity increase?

 Can CIL work in an era of market risk and uncertainty? Will policy risk inevitably be spread over larger areas so losing fine scale responsiveness?  Can CIL be understood and accepted by the local community? What are the implications for local political acceptance?

Can CIL be fairer than Planning Obligations? Can it be robust enough as density and diversity increase?

Targeting the most needy often means fine-scale decisions.

Can CIL work in an era of market risk and uncertainty? Will policy risk inevitably be spread over larger areas so losing fine scale detail?

“… planning bodies need to develop robust evidence-bases to underpin their decisions, and … adopt a ﬂexible and responsive approach which provides sufﬁcient employment land and makes better use of market information to inform their plans and decision making…’ PPS4 Draft Guidance (Planning for Sustainable Economic Development)

BUT…

 CIL may operate even where there is no increase in land value  CIL will operate in addition to negotiated agreements

Statement of Community Involvement (SCI) Can CIL be understood and accepted by the local community? What are the implications for local political acceptance?

•Statutory requirement since Planning and Compulsory Purchase Act (2004) •Statement of local authority’s proposals for involving the community

Local Strategic Partnerships (LSP)

•The partnership has a major role in setting out the local development framework •Brings together local agencies – health, local education, police, social services etc and including voluntary and residential stakeholders, to provide an overall view of and proposals for services in the local area

With thanks to Chris Horton of TGLP/ Tower Hamlets. All views expressed however remain the responsibility of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of Chris Horton,TGLP or Tower Hamlets.

Housing etc