the broken housing market and the standard methodology · and our online extranet system can...

David Richardson

and Duncan Moors

The Broken Housing Market and

the Standard Methodology

•Ashfords is a national law firm with over 70 partners and 490 staff.

•Recognised as a leading provider of legal and related professional services, we

deliver responsive and commercial advice to our clients across a range of industry

sectors.

•We make it our business from the start to understand our clients’ needs and

objectives for both the long and short term and we work with clients to ensure that our

approach reflects their requirements and aims

•Our infrastructure means that we are ideally placed to assist our clients. All our

lawyers can access a client’s matters, irrespective of where they are in the world, and

our online extranet system can provide clients with immediate access to matters and

all applicable documentation.

Ashfords is a national law firm with over 70 partners and 490 staff.

Recognised as a leading provider of legal and related professional services, we

deliver responsive and commercial advice to our clients across a range of

industry sectors.

We make it our business from the start to understand our clients’ needs and

objectives for both the long and short term and we work with clients to ensure

that our approach reflects their requirements and aims

Our infrastructure means that we are ideally placed to assist our clients. All our

lawyers can access a client’s matters, irrespective of where they are in the world,

and our online extranet system can provide clients with immediate access to

matters and all applicable documentation.

Planning

Our Planning Team has gained an excellent

reputation for work on major urban

development and regeneration projects for

local authorities and developers.

• We help our clients to navigate it effectively and

make sure that planning issues do not stand in the

way of their objectives.

• We work primarily with developers and local planning

authorities as well as third parties wishing to

comment on or object to development proposals,

including issues around compulsory purchase and

compensation.

• We advise on the full range of planning, highways

and compulsory purchase issues, including Section

106 agreements, community infrastructure levy,

planning applications and appeals, compulsory

purchase orders and compensation issues,

enforcement of/challenges against planning

decisions, environmental impact assessments,

highways and drainage agreements.

Speakers

David Richardson

Partner

d.richardson@ashfords

.co.uk

David advises on a wide range of

planning issues, including planning

obligations and the community

infrastructure levy, judicial review and

statutory challenges, amendments to

planning permissions, and compulsory

purchase and compensation. David has

spent time seconded to a development

corporation advising on the regeneration

of key sites in its area and the

introduction of a s106 standard charge.

Duncan Moors

Legal Director

[email protected]

k

Duncan joined Ashfords in 2016,

having spent 17 years working for

Teignbridge District Council. The last

three years of which as the Solicitor to

the Council. He is experienced in a

broad range of local government

matters including governance,

licensing, housing, environmental

health, contracts and property.

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Introduction

• The standard method for calculating OAN – what do we know?

• What has come of the Housing White Paper to date? Consultation round up

• Key housing cases:

o St Modwen Developments Ltd v SoS CLG [2017] EWCA Civ 1643

o R. (on the application of Wet Finishing Works Ltd) v Taunton Deane BC [2017]

EWHC 1837 (Admin)

o Richborough Estates v SoS CLG [2018] EWHC 33

• Latest Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) Amendments

Standard Method of Assessing Housing Need – What do

we know?

Current position - Full Objectively Assessed Need (FOAN)

NPPF - Para 47

To boost significantly the supply of housing, local planning authorities should:

• use their evidence base to ensure that their Local Plan meets the full, objectively assessed needs for

market and affordable housing in the housing market area…..

Para 17

“every effort should be made objectively to identify and then meet the housing … needs of an area”.

Summary of approach –

“Para 47 of the Framework requires the local plan to meet “the full objectively assessed needs for market

and affordable housing,” that is the figure determined by the SHMA required by paragraph 159 of the

Framework for the purpose of identifying the FOAN. That process, guided by the PPG, seeks to meet

household and population projections (taking account of migration and demographic change), and to

address the need for types of housing including affordable housing.”

Standard Method of Assessing Housing Need

NPPG

The NPPG’s section on Housing and economic development needs assessments

deals with housing in three sub-sections:

1. The approach to assessing need

2. Scope of assessments

3. Methodology: assessing housing need.


NPPG‘Establishing future need for housing is not an exact science. No single

approach will provide a definitive answer.’

‘Household projections published by the Department for Communities and

Local Government should provide the starting point estimate of overall

housing need.’

‘..household projections are trend based……. They do not attempt to predict

the impact that future government policies, changing economic

circumstances or other factors might have on demographic behaviour.’

The household projections may require adjustment to reflect factors not

captured in past trends, e.g.

• Where formation rates have been suppressed by under-supply and worsening affordability

• Consequences of past under delivery

LPAs should take a view based on available evidence of the extent to which household formation rates are or

have been constrained by supply


PAS - Objectively Assessed Need and Housing Targets

Technical advice note – 2nd Ed. July 2015

Intro para 1.3

‘As pointed out in the PPG, assessing housing needs is not an exact

science. Many of the questions we address have no definitive answer,

and answers may change abruptly if national guidance is updated,

planning Inspectors and courts of law issue new decisions, or new

information comes forward.’


Current method of calculating FOAN – principal issues LPAs have to consider and

take a view on

• Format and scope of assessing the needs

• Projections and migration rates

• Jobs growth and economic forecasts

• Affordable housing requirements

• Extent of previous unmet need

• Market Signals


Policy-on / Policy-off approach

FOAN is on the starting point – LPs must translate into land provision targets

NPPG

Paragraph: 004 Reference ID: 2a-004-20140306

Can local planning authorities apply constraints to the assessment of development needs?

The assessment of development needs is an objective assessment of need based on facts and

unbiased evidence. Plan makers should not apply constraints to the overall assessment of need,

such as limitations imposed by the supply of land for new development, historic under

performance, viability, infrastructure or environmental constraints. However, these considerations

will need to be addressed when bringing evidence bases together to identify specific policies within

development plans.

Hunston Properties Limited-v-Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government (2013)

EWHC 2678 QBD Admin


Published February 2017

Regarding FOAN

Planning for the right homes in the right places

‘… But at the moment, some local authorities can duck potentially difficult

decisions, because they are free to come up with their own methodology

for calculating ‘objectively assessed need’. So, we are going to consult

on a new standard methodology for calculating ‘objectively assessed

need’, and encourage councils to plan on this basis.'

Proposed consultation on options for introducing a standardised approach to assessing housing

requirements.


Criticisms of the current system

• Too complex

• The current process leaves substantial room for interpretation

• costly and time-consuming process which lacks transparency

• local planning authorities, developers and local communities often

engage in disputes on the method used, which delays the process

(by around six months) and adds cost; and

• few methods take significant account of the affordability of housing

in their area


Benefits of standard approach

• simpler, quicker, and more transparent

• This would speed up the time taken to prepare Local Plans and give local communities greater

control of development in their area.

MHCLG considers that a standard method should be based on three key principles:

a) Simple – there should be an easy and transparent process for local people and other interests

to understand;

b) Based on publicly available data – which might include national data such as that from the

Office for National Statistics, or robust local data;

c) Realistic – to reflect the actual need for homes in each area, taking into account the affordability

of homes locally. High house prices indicate a relative imbalance between the supply and demand

for new homes, and makes housing less affordable. The affordability of new homes is the best

evidence that supply is not keeping up with demand.


Stage 1 - setting baseline

• Projections of household growth should be the demographic baseline for every LPA area

• Annual average household growth based over a ten year period (requirement to review LPs)

• 2014 based household projections (published July 2016)

Stage 2 - An adjustment to take account of market signals

• Household growth on its own insufficient as an indicator of demand

• Constrained by supply of available properties and people may not be able to find appropriate

accommodation in an area in which they want to live

• Use of median affordability ratios published by the ONS - compare the median house prices of all open

market houses sold in a year in LPA area to median earnings

• 2016 house price to earnings ratios (published March 2017).

• Areas where there is a greater gap between average house prices and average earnings will have

greater market signals adjustment


Step 3 - Capping the level of increase

Market adjustment will lead to a significant increase in the potential housing need in

some parts of the country - cap according to status of LP

Up-to-date LP - annual housing need figure capped at 40% above LP annual housing

requirement

LP >five years old - annual housing need figure capped at 40% of higher of projected ONS

household growth or the LP annual housing requirement

Exceptions?

• LPAs are able to plan for a higher number than set out by standard method

• LPAs may wish to plan for a higher level of economic growth than the standard

method


Transitional arrangements

No plan, or plan adopted more than five years

ago and has not yet reached publication stage

The new standardised method should be

used, unless the plan will be submitted for

examination on or before 31 March 2018, or

before the revised Framework is published

(whichever is later).

Plan has been published, but not yet

submitted

If the plan will be submitted for examination

on or before 31 March 2018 or before the

revised Framework is published (whichever is

later), continue with the current plan

preparation – otherwise, use the new

standardised method.

Plan is at examination stage Progress with the examination using the

current approach.

Plan adopted in the last five years Use the new standardised method when next

reviewing or updating the plan.


Reaction to the proposal

• Government not yet published consultation responses - due with NPPF amendments……

• Analysis by Savills suggested 1 in 3 LPAs could lose their 5 yrs HLS.

• Richard Blyth, head of policy at the RTPI, told The Planner: "Given the focus placed on

objectively assessed need by the government it is good to reduce the time and cost associated

with arguments over methodology. However, there could be concerns around potential delays

to local plans submitted after April in order to adapt to the new method.”

• Martin Tett, housing spokesman for the Local Government Association, said there could be

benefit in having a standard approach to assessing the need for housing. However, “a formula

drawn up in Whitehall can never fully understand the complexity and unique needs of local

housing markets, which vary significantly from place to place. It is crucial that councils and

communities can lead new development in their areas”.


Reaction to the proposal

Source – Savills – prepared on behalf of DHCLG

Source – Planning Magazine

What has come of the Housing White Paper? A round up

of consultations

• Use of Grampian conditions

• Capturing Uplift in Land Value

• Small sites

Use of Grampian conditions

Tackling unnecessary delays caused by planning conditions

2.26 We will tackle unnecessary delays caused by planning conditions by taking forward proposals, through the Neighbourhood Planning Bill, to allow the Secretary of State to prohibit conditions that do not meet the national policy tests, and to ensure that pre-commencement conditions can only be used with the agreement of the applicant. We introduced a new deemed discharge mechanism for planning conditions in 2015 and we arekeen to hear more from developers, local authorities and other interested parties about how this is working and if we can streamline the processfurther.


Consultation on the use of pre-commencement planning conditions

Consultation ran - 4pm on 30 January 2018 to 11:45pm on 27 February 2018

2016 consultation on improving the use of pre-commencement conditions andprohibiting the use of other conditions which do not meet the six tests inparas 203 and 206 of the NPPF.

s100ZA inserted into TCPA 1990 by s14 of the Neighbourhood Planning Act 2017

When brought into force will prohibit the grant of planning permission subject to a pre-commencement condition without the written agreement of the applicant to the terms of the condition except in prescribed circumstances .

The consultation paper sought views on draft regulations (set out in Annex A), which set out the circumstances when a pre-commencement condition can be imposed without the written agreement of the applicant.


MHCLG expectations

• LPAs and applicants will discuss range of conditions at an early stage

• Expect LPA to share with the applicant pre-commencement conditions (PCCs) at the earliest

possible opportunity

• Applicant to confirm agreement to PCC where acceptable

Proposals

If applicant does not accept PCC, LPA can issue a notice which must include:

a) the text of the proposed PCC;

b) the full reasons for the proposed PCC;

c) the full reasons for the proposed condition being a PCC, and

d) the date by which any response must be received which must not be before the last day of the

period of 10 working days beginning with the day after the date on which the notice is given


Applicant’s response - 4 options:

a) to provide written agreement to the terms of the proposed PCC, in which case the LPA may grant

planning permission subject to that PCC.

b) to indicate that they do not agree to the terms of the proposed PCC, in which case the local planning

authority may then either:

i. grant planning permission without the PCC,

ii. seek written agreement to an alternative PCC, or

iii. refuse to grant permission (if it considers that the disputed PCC is necessary to make the development

acceptable in planning terms).

c) to provide comments on the proposed PCC, in which case that condition cannot be imposed. Further

negotiations could follow which may result in agreement. The LPA could subsequently issue a further

notice triggering a new date for a response.

d) to not respond (i.e. remain silent). If there is no response by the date given in the notice the LPA may

grant planning permission subject to the terms of the PCC specified in the notice.

Capturing uplift in land value

Capturing uplift in land value

Government aim to reform the system for capturing land value to create a fairer balance

for those interested in and benefitting from infrastructure development.

Autumn Budget 2017 – proposals

• Removing pooling restrictions on 106 contributions for areas where viability is low

and on large strategic sites

• Allowing LPAs to set CIL rates which better reflect the increase in land values

between existing and proposed use

• changing indexation of CIL rates to house price inflation, rather than build costs

• Making it easier and quicker for LPAs to set and revise CIL and to to set a higher zonal

CIL rate in areas of high land value uplift, for example around stations

The CLG Committee invited responses by Friday 2 March 2018

Housing supply and small sites

Autumn Budget 2017 – the Government said it would consult on measures to require LPAs to bring

forward 20 per cent of their housing supply as small sites.

It was said that this would "speed up the building of new homes and supports the Government’s wider

ambition to increase competition in the housebuilding market“.

It also supports the custom build and self-build aspirations which wereRestated in the Housing White Paper.

Consultation draft of the revised NPPF intended to be published before the end of March 2018 with the ambition of producing a final version in the summer……....

St Modwen Developments Ltd v SoS CLG [2017] EWCA

Civ 1643

• A para 47 (and footnote 11) NPPF case:

‘To boost significantly the supply of housing [LPAs] should:

…identify and update annually a supply of specific deliverable sites

…illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory’.

• A para 49 NPPF case:

‘Relevant policies for the supply of housing should not be considered up to date

if the [LPA] cannot demonstrate a five year supply of deliverable housing

sites’

• Main issue at stake: to get into (or out of) a para 49 situation, how far does

‘deliverable’ require you to go in terms of the likelihood of the site coming

forward?

• The parties were apart, in terms of deliverable sites, by circa 10K homes.

St Modwen – how did it end up in Court of Appeal?

• Two schemes refused permission by LPA (E. Riding Yorks);

o Site A: up to 510 dwellings.

o Site B: up to 390 dwellings + 7.7 hectare employment use.

• Nov 2013 – Sept 2014: (Recovered) appeal inquiries into the refusals.

• Jun 2015: SoS dismisses appeals. St Mods launch s288 challenge.

• Apr 2016: Ousely J in the High Court dismissed the challenge on all four

grounds.

• Nov 2016: Lindblom LJ in CA grants permission to appeal:

‘When I did so, I said that the argument presented [by St Mods] seemed “more

elaborate that it need be”. I accepted, however, that there were matters fit for

consideration by this court – in particular the concept of “a supply of specific

deliverable sites…” in paragraph 47 of the NPPF’.

St Modwen – seven grounds but three issues

1. The SoS misinterpreted (or misapplied) para 47, and the concepts of ‘supply’

and ‘delivery’, and his reasons were not clear and adequate. IE Para 49 was

concerned with the probability of delivery.

2. The SoS misdirected himself or gave inadequate reasons, regarding the LPA’s

housing trajectory.

3. The SoS erred in law in his conclusions on the LPA’s record of housing

delivery.

…decided against a warning from Lindblom LJ emphasising limits to Court’s role in

construing policy [see Suffolk Coastal/Hopkins Homes]; AND excessive legalism

‘infecting the planning system’ [see Barwood]

St Modwen – the decision

• Lindblom LJ dismissed the appeal in Oct 2017. Was the writing on the wall?

‘there is no place in challenges to planning decisions for the kind of

hypercritical scrutiny that this court has always rejected [para 7]…The

conclusions in an inspector’s report or decision letter, or in an officer’s report,

should not be laboriously dissected in an effort to find fault’ [para 8][see also

Mansell].

Issue 1

• Para 36: The concepts of deliverability and expected rate of delivery are not

synonymous or incompatible. Delivery is not the same a deliverability.


• The fact that a site is capable of being delivered within five years does not

mean it necessarily will be. The LPA cannot control the housing market and

‘NPPF Policy recognizes that’.

• The NPPF policies are ‘consistently worded to refer to a supply of housing

sites that can be regarded as deliverable, not sites that as regarded as certain

to be delivered’ (para 36).

• Contrast with NPPF para 47 on housing trajectory – ‘expected rate of housing

delivery’ – for plan making.

• If the NPPF required more, it could have said so (para 37).

• FN11 NPPF and NPPG make clear that permission is not a pre-requisite for a

site to be deliverable.


• Para 39: ‘The production of the "housing trajectory" referred to in the fourth bullet

point of paragraph 47 is an exercise required in the course of the preparation of a

local plan… The policy in paragraph 49 is a development control policy. It guides

the decision-maker in the handling of local plan policies when determining an

application …warning of the potential consequences … if relevant policies of the

development plan are out-of-date. And it does so against the requirement that the

local planning authority must be able to "demonstrate a five-year supply of

deliverable housing sites", not against the requirement that the authority must

"illustrate the expected rate of housing delivery through a housing trajectory for the

plan period".

• The Inspector had taken on board FN 11 (‘realistic prospect’) and that it may well

turn out that not all sites would actually come forward.


Issue 2:

• Dismissed for much the same reasons as above, IE that the SoS (and the

judge in the first instance) had correctly interpreted/applied the NPPF.

• Lindblom LJ did not wish to intervene in a matter that had been well aired and

understood, on two previous occasions, and which concerned planning

judgement.

• Para 51: ‘It is not open to St Modwen now to go behind the inspector’s

conclusions on the credibility and reliability of the parties’ respective

cases…Such conclusions were well within the province of planning

judgement’. Reasoning should not be dissected and individual sentences

separated from their full context.


Issue 3:

• Challenge based on how the LPA could square its anticipated housing supply

with a past record of persistent under-delivery, and failure by the Inspector to

grapple with that.

• As with issue 2, Lindblom LJ was not convinced. Past shortcomings were

addressed by the 20% buffer being applied.

• Para 61: ‘But the question of the deliverability of housing sites, the essential

question for the inspector in considering the parties’ cases on the five-year supply

of housing land, required her to exercise her planning judgment. This had now to

be done in the light of the emerging local plan, with its new policies for housing

development and its new allocations of land for such development. In doing it, the

inspector did not ignore the council’s housing record. She had regard to it, though

– correctly – not as a “principal important controversial issue”’.

St Modwen – final thoughts

• Allows LPAs greater confidence in defending housing supply position against

developers trawling through sites to raise delivery issues.

• Raises the bar in terms of what developers will need to show to demonstrate

lack of realistic prospect.

• The case involved sites included in an emerging plan.

• Does not absolve an LPA from defending inclusion of certain sites wholly

however.

• Yet more jurisprudence regarding the Court’s unwillingness to intervene in

planning judgement; and distaste for overly legalistic attacks on decisions. But

is the bar now too high?

St Modwen applied

• Appeal ref APP/E2001/W/16/3165930: Gladman vs East Riding Yorks.

Council. Decision of 2 Nov 17.

• Main issue: whether the LPA could show a supply of specific sites sufficient to

provide 5 years’ worth of housing land supply. Dispute over the inclusion of

allocated sites.

• Para 31 NPPG says: ‘deliverable sites for housing could include those that are

allocated for housing in the development plan … unless there is clear evidence

that schemes will not be implemented within 5 years’.

• Para 12 applies St Mods: ‘The judgement says, “The assessment of housing land

supply does not require certainty that the housing sites will actually be developed

within that period. The planning process cannot deal in such certainties”. I take

this to mean that for a site to be deliverable, it should be capable of being

delivered not that it will be delivered.’

St Modwen applied

• Para 13: ‘In light of the St Modwens judgement, the trajectory

identifies what is likely to happen and the deliverable supply is an

expression of what is capable of happening. Trajectory does not …

go to … whether a site is deliverable … Rather it is, as the St

Modwen Developments judgement identifies, that past

shortcomings in the supply of land are to be addressed in the

manner required by the Framework i.e. through the application of a

20% buffer.…In my view not achieving the trajectory does not go to

the determination of whether a site is, in planning policy terms,

deliverable’.

R. (on the application of Wet Finishing Works Ltd) v

Taunton Deane BC [2017] EWHC 1837 (Admin)

• A judicial review against the grant of a s73 Consent which proceeded on two

grounds:

o Procedural unfairness in s106 arrangements.

o Grant was ultra vires of s73.

• Regarding the second, Singh J addressed whether increasing the number of

consented units from 84 to 90 was within s73.

• Citing Arrowcroft (Coventry City Council ex p. Arrowcroft Group plc [2001]

PLCR para 33: ‘is able to impose different conditions…but only if they are

conditions which the Council could lawfully have imposed on the original

permission in the sense that they do not amount to a fundamental

alteration of the proposal…’ Singh J rejected the second ground’

Richborough Estates-v-SoS CLG [2018] EWHC 33

Challenge against Gavin Barwell’s WMS issued on 12 December

2016:

…..This means that relevant policies for the supply of housing in a

neighbourhood plan, that is part of the development plan, should not

be deemed to be 'out-of-date' under paragraph 49 of the National

Planning Policy Framework where all of the following circumstances

arise at the time the decision is made:

• This written ministerial statement is less than 2 years old, or the

neighbourhood plan has been part of the development plan for 2

years or less;

Richborough Estates

• The neighbourhood plan allocates sites for housing; and

• The local planning authority can demonstrate a three-year supply

of deliverable housing sites.

Richborough Estates

Five grounds of challenge

1. The WMS was inconsistent with paragraphs 14 and 49 of the NPPF and in

having the effect of amending paragraph 49 without explicitly doing so

represented an approach which was irrational and unlawful;

2. The Government had made errors of fact in the research that was relied upon

in formulating the policy;

3. The WMS was invalid for uncertainty and confused given a lack of clarity as

to how the three-years’ supply was to be calculated;

4. Irrationality in the face of the stated intention of the NPPF to “boost

significantly the supply of housing“;

5. Breach of legitimate expectation that there would be public consultation

before planning policy for housing was changed by the WMS.

Richborough Estates

Brief chronology:

• 12 December 2016 - WMS issued

• 30 December 2016 - Pre-action protocol letter

• 20 January 2017 - Govt Legal Department response dismissed all

five grounds

• 25 January 2017 - Proceedings issued

• 7 March 2017 - Proceedings adjourned pending the decision in

Suffolk Coastal DC-v-Hopkins Homes

• 10 May 2017 – SC judgment in Suffolk Coastal

Richborough Estates

Brief chronology (continued):

• 10 August 2017 - NPPG relating to WMS guidance amended

following the Suffolk Coastal decision

• 7 and 8 November 2017 - Richborough Estates heard by Dove J

• 12 January 2018 – judgment handed down

Richborough Estates

Decision – Dove J

Ground 1 – following West Berks case, provided that the policy does

not frustrate the operation of planning legislation or introduce matters

which are not properly planning considerations at all and is not

irrational, the matters which the SoS regards as material or immaterial

to the determination of the policy being issued is a matter entirely for

the Secretary of State

Ground 2 – the evidence was considered as being adequate with the

shortcomings acknowledged by the SoS – use of the term ‘recent

analysis suggests’ indicates that the SoS was not asserting that this

was a hard and fast concluded view

Richborough Estates

Ground 3 – the judge had no difficulty concluding that ‘a three-year

supply of housing’ in the WMS means a three-year supply in terms of

the exercise for assessing a five-year supply required by paras 47-49

of the NPPF.

Ground 4 – the judge held that the SoS had not acted irrationally in

issuing the WMS, which it was argued would frustrate the aim to

“boost significantly the supply of housing”. The NPPF clearly

promotes this as a key priority but it is not an objective that exists on

its own isolated from other interests addressed by the NPPF. It isn’t

to be pursued at all costs and not above all other objectives of the

NPPF. Neighbourhood planning being one such other objective.

Richborough Estates

Ground 5 –

• no statutory requirement for public consultation for planning policy

• Narrow way that the ground was pleaded – legitimate expectation

that the housebuilders would be consulted based on past practice –

didn’t mention others with an interest such as LPAs, community

groups or the public

• Ground not made on the facts – there are two previous WMSs

relating to housing which were not consulted upon – the first was

removing gardens from the definition of previously developed land

in 2010 and the second was “Planning for Growth” in March 2011

Richborough Estates

So what is the application of the WMS following Richborough and

Suffolk Coastal?: Where:

• The WMS is less than two years old or the NP has been part of the

Development Plan for two years or less; and

• The NP allocates sites for housing; and

• The LPA’s can demonstrate a housing land supply calculation of a

more than three but less than five-year supply

then para 49 requires the planning balance to be struck using the

tilted balance in para 14 and significant weight is to be given to the

NP.

Latest CIL Amendments

• Criteria for Regulation 128A:

o On day pp A is granted – no charging schedule

o New pp B is granted in relation to development under S73

o On day pp B granted – charging schedule is in place

• “chargeable amount” shall be:

X – Y

Where

X = chargeable amount for B calculated in accordance with Regulation 40

Y = amount that would have been the chargeable amount for A, if A first

permitted development on the same day as B

• But how do you index the notional pp A CIL?

Latest CIL Amendments

• The Community Infrastructure Levy (Amendment) Regulations 2018

[SI2018/172].

• In force on 9 February 2018.

• Apply to any liability notice (or revised notice) issued by a collecting authority

on or after date of coming into force.

• Address how to deal with indexation, on which the Regs were previously silent.

• Amended Reg 128A includes an assumption that the notional CIL for the first

permission has the index figure for the year in which the amendment

permission is granted.

• To do otherwise ‘depresses’ the pp A figure, leaving a liability under Reg 128A

even if floorspace is no different, and floorspace previously outside of CIL was

charged CIL indexation

the broken housing market and the standard methodology · and our online extranet system can...

Documents