The Role of the CIL Examiner

Nigel Payne, Principal Inspector

Introduction

• Less than 12 schedules examined so far, including London and Bristol.

• PINS Inspectors appointed as Examiners, no assessors needed to date.

• Guidance/regulation – 2010/2011 Regs, CIL – Overview – DCLG May 2011, the 2008 Act and now Localism Act 2011

• All DP Inspectors training for CIL Exams

Current practice

• DPD Exam model – need PO but not PHM

• Examiner leads discussions in Round Table sessions as per DPD Exam

• Anyone who has made a rep has a right to be heard if they wish (Section 212.9)

• 2 days of hearings sessions has been the norm, plus 2 weeks reporting

• LB of Redbridge/Portsmouth - W Reps

What is tested

• Compliance with Act and CIL Regs• Is rate informed by evidence – similar to justified

in DPD exams• Evidence needed - impact of rate(s) on

development viability. • Basic principle is that rate should not put overall

development of area at serious risk• Examiner only concerned if CIL rate(s) will make

a material or significant difference to level of risk

Essentials 1

• Simple concept – not difficult so far;– Development proposed– Infrastructure implications– Other sources of funding– Funding Gap? Has to be one or why a CIL– How far will CIL go to fill the gap? – not likely

to raise all of what is needed.– “Viability Testing Local Plans” - June 2012-

report from LGA/HBF/NHBC

Essentials 2

• Relationship of infrastructure and CIL

• “An” appropriate balance, not “the”

• Not a means to implement policy – planning or other – viability only

• Take into account other funding sources – e.g. “New Homes Bonus

• “State Aid” issue – beware

Report 1

• Compliance with Act/Regulations

• Light touch, but not a “soft touch” – “Aim to strike” the balance– “Which appears to the CA” – “Readily available” evidence– Infrastructure priorities a matter for the CA

Report 2

• Localism Act limits binding nature of the report• Examiner only able to ensure compliance with

the CIL legislation – reduce rates but not raise• Concise reports - reject, approve, or approve

with modification(s) • Examiner must give reasons, as always• Report goes to CA for “fact check” first• CA “judgement” likely to be largely unchallenged • Viability over whole area/zone, not single sites• Scope for legitimate and relevant

representations – zones and boundaries ?

Conclusions • Development/infrastructure/funding relationship at heart of concept – viability,

viability, viability.

• Up to date development plan critical.

• Avoid “over-engineering”, if CIL is to work well.

• Only part answer to infrastructure funding.

• LPAs have generally provided reasonably comprehensive and competent viability assessments of types of development, including to justify nil rates and for zones.

• Few real objections from developers so far, except Bristol – they like certainty. • Not much detailed evidence from representors – they know effects on single sites are

not normally relevant to the CIL rates – some just say “too high”.

• No need to be frightened of viability assessments – mostly just common sense.