Variation in approach to rate setting at local level

We have compared adopted and emerging CILs with our benchmark, in charging authorities where large greenfield sites form part of the housing land supply. It can be seen in Graph 4 that many implemented CILs have been set at a level in excess of our benchmark, indicating a threat to delivery of the authority’s development plan.

If this is the case, having taken account of local specifics, then the charging authority will have failed to demonstrate that they have struck an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding from CIL and its effects on the economic viability of development across the whole area, as now required by the latest amendments to the regulations.

Some of these early adopters did not appraise affordable housing policy at the full requirement that is shown in the chart. Following current practice at examination, an authority would now have to formally adopt a lower affordable housing requirement in order to set CIL at these levels. Graph 4 shows the increased headroom for CIL and Section 106 that is created by adopting a lower affordable housing requirement of either 10% or 20%.

In the one case where the benchmark sits above CIL in the chart, there is headroom for Section 106 in addition to CIL. In the case of Oxford, there is likely to be headroom for Section 106 to be paid at around £6,000 per plot in addition to CIL, according to the benchmark.

Charging authorities should be explicit about their policy intention on additional Section 106 when setting CIL rates. As noted above, such payments can be substantial on a large greenfield site, to mitigate the impact of development of that site. The need for clarity on this point has been emphasised by the forthcoming changes to the CIL Regulations.

The charging schedules that are at the examination stage (including those examined but not implemented) include fewer authorities where little or no CIL is viable at the adopted affordable housing policy (Graph 5). This is partly because there are fewer authorities within this group with relatively low sales values, which continue to hold back the viability of larger sites.

However, of these areas with CIL at examination, few have the headroom to pay a substantial amount of Section 106 in addition to CIL. Winchester is the exception, where there is likely to be headroom for Section 106 to be paid at around £10,000 per plot.

The Winchester headroom is a consequence of a zero rating of large greenfield sites for CIL, mindful of the benefits of creating flexibility for the Section 106 payment.

The contrast with the unviably high level of CIL proposed in Mid Sussex is stark. The same patterns have emerged amongst CILs at the draft (see Graph 6) and preliminary draft charging schedule stages.

In these areas, affordable housing policy has been set at too high a level in mid-to lower-value markets for there to be any headroom for either CIL or Section 106. Whilst some authorities with draft schedules, such as Cambridge, have headroom for Section 106, others have proposed unviably high level of CIL. In the case of Bracknell Forest, the 25% affordable housing policy gives some room for CIL, compared with other authorities at 40% affordable housing. However, the proposed rate is unviably high, given the substantial items of infrastructure that will be funded by Section 106, in addition to CIL.

More consistency needed

This benchmarking exercise has revealed inconsistencies in the way in which setting of CIL viability is being approached across the country. So far, only 31 CILs have been implemented, with a further 34 at examination (Graph 7).

A large proportion (27%) of authorities are either at draft or preliminary draft consultation and a further 35% are engaged in the process at an earlier stage, so there remains scope for greater consistency in rate setting. Our intention is to seek such consistency in the rate setting process, as the majority of authorities move towards implementation of CIL charging schedules.

Taken from
CIL - Getting it Right