Sunday 10 July 2011

Will CIL be the Pride of the Coalition or Prejudicial to Development?

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that a Council in possession of a fortune from CIL will be in want of an excuse to spend it on things other than Infrastructure (with apologies to Jane Austen)

A subtle little amendment has been proposed in the Localism Bill by two Lib Dem peers that could fundamentally alter the original premise for Community Infrastructure Levy, which became active last year.

The purpose of the Community Infrastructure Levy is to "ensure that the costs incurred in providing infrastructure to support the development of an area can be funded (wholly or partly) by owners or developers of land".

OK. It will provide a more certain (allegedly) position for developers and locals alike who can see the direct benefits of development (apart from the jobs created, circulation of economic benefit, a roof over ones head etc) translated into local infrastructure delivery and/or improvement. So far so good perhaps.

But an amendment tabled by the peers introduces a whole new way of reading the legislation. They suggest that CIL is contributed so that:

"owners and developers of land make a financial contribution to support communities in the area in which their development is situated, including the provision of infrastructure and the building, improvement and renovation of housing".

So not just Infrastructure then, but the plethora of all and any initiatives that may be on a local wish list, including building and renovation of housing. Pre-supposing of course that the development concerned is not for housebuilding in the first place presumably.

Liz Peace, chief executive of property industry lobby group the British Property Federation, said:  "If CIL is diverted to non-infrastructure items, that will undermine the ability of authorities to deliver and will hold back development and economic growth."

That has to be the understatement of the year. We all know what is going to happen don’t we. Yes we do. Profligate Council members will simply view CIL as a ‘get out of jail free’ card for their poorly contrived localist game of Monopoly so that any half baked initiative will be fair game for CIL funding irrespective of the need for or benefit to the area, so long as a vote might be in it. Too cynical? I think not. 

And who really thinks that ‘development’ revenues derived from CIL could really be the sole and only means of achieving all infrastructure requirements and everything else into the bargain. 

Come on guys, get real. If you want to develop your way out of the recession, make sure that development actually happens in the first place and don’t treat CIL as a panacea for resolving all political, economic, social and community ills.