The Committee also called on the Mayor, Boris Johnson, to lobby the Government for further guidance to ensure the introduction of CIL is successful the Committee said in a consultation response.
The recommendations were issued by the Committee in a formal response (9-page / 250KB PDF) to the Mayor's consultation on draft Supplementary Planning Guidance (SPG) on the use of planning obligations in the funding of Crossrail, and the Mayoral CIL. The consultation was launched in November.
The Committee drafted the response following an investigation it carried out to look at the potential impact of CIL on development and regeneration in London.
The Committee said in the response that during its investigation boroughs had expressed the need for further guidance, especially on CIL collection, and suggested that the existing working groups could help with that. One borough had pointed out that any technical issues could be solved more easily if the Mayor issued guidance on how to interpret the CIL regulations.
A number of stakeholders had said they felt that the Mayoral SPG could have a useful role in providing such guidance, and would “plug a few of the gaps” that exist through a lack of Government guidance.
The Committee recommended that the Mayor should make representations to the Government and suggest that the Government address the need for additional guidance, clarification and corrections to the current CIL regulations. It also said that the Government should address the need for more flexibility in the introduction of CIL, such as providing for transitional arrangements to allow more time to prepare the CIL schedules and for land prices to reflect the levy.
The response further recommended that a greater level of practical advice should be given by the Mayor to address the wider concerns about CIL’s impact on affordable housing, with an emphasis on monitoring contributions and delivery. The Committee said this would support boroughs in ensuring the continued provision of affordable housing in London.
"The Committee's recommendations are good ones," said Richard Ford, planning expert at Pinsent Masons, the law firm behind Out-Law.com. “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."
“London is unique: it is the only place in the country where developments are subject to two CILs, one charged by the Mayor and the other by the local authority," said London Assembly Planning Committee chair, Nicky Gavron. "The Mayor needs to recognise the difficult situation this places boroughs in as they draft their levies."
“The Mayor must lobby government to provide the guidance local authorities are calling for. Our investigation highlights the need to review how the Community Infrastructure Levy can best benefit local London areas. By making a strong case to Government over the need to provide additional guidance, the Mayor can ensure greater clarity on how the funds raised by the levy can be spent to help London communities in the way it was originally intended," Gavron said.
“The Mayor’s guidance as drafted fails to offer the concrete advice boroughs need to set their CILs at levels which will be lucrative without damaging viability. It also fails to address cross-boundary projects. The Mayor must also ensure that the CIL does not come at the expense of Section 106 agreements for affordable housing,” she said.
