Late last week I blogged about the London Assembly Planning Committee’s response to Mayor Johnson’s guidance to boroughs on the Community Infrastructure Levy, or CIL. CIL is a new charge councils levy on developers to pay for things like parks, schools, and health centres, and local authorities across England are in the process of drafting their rates.
Our boroughs are unique in that London is the only place in the country where developers will face two CIL charges: one from the local authority, and on top of that one from the Mayor. That’s one reason why it was right for the Mayor to draft guidance for boroughs on CIL.
However, the committee pointed out that the draft guidance fails in particular to offer sufficient help in three essential areas: viability; cross-boundary projects; and the impact of CIL on affordable housing. We also called on the Mayor to lobby the Government for further guidance that local authorities are calling for.
The committee’s response has been endorsed by a planning expert at Pinsent Masons, a top 20 UK firm. Partner Richard Ford told Out-Law.com:
The Committee’s recommendations are good ones. We have been suggesting more detailed CIL guidance for over a year as there is huge inconsistency across London and indeed nationally in how rates are being calculated, how viability is being measured and how local infrastructure lists and section106 agreement contributions are dovetailing. More consistency is clearly needed.
The committee will release a fuller report documenting the findings of our CIL investigation later this year.