Community Infrastructure Levy Consultation

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Hugh on October 12, 2018 at 15:10

Thanks for that clarification.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Keats Pereira on October 12, 2018 at 18:29

A chill ran down my spine when I read your heading.  Thought you meant Daniel levy the top bod at THFC and his uncle joe lewis (ENIC). Haringey council are scared of them. ENIC  English national investment company are spending more on TOTTENHAM land than on our team. Yes I'm a spurs fan.   ENIC buying up half of white hart lane rd.    

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dm on October 22, 2018 at 1:00

It does depend on when planning permission was granted and when Haringey's CIL came into force.

So some major schemes approved a few years ago will not be paying the CIL at all (apart from separate London Mayor CIL which has been charged for several years to pay for Crossrail).

Also CIL rates have been based on viability which in turn derives from sales values , hence higher rates charged in west of borough and the anticipated income from schemes can be higher . Similarly in places like Camden higher rates from housing are charged - in Hampstead,etc, and even one large housing development can generate several millions of pounds of CIL. Also remember some development is not CIL liable eg affordable housing

Ironically these can happen in the most affluent areas where crucial local social infrastructure is probably less needed and where  more  "articulate" and  "engaged"   residents have created neighbourhood forums ( PS i use quotes deliberately to mean  having the capacity and expertise in understanding and working the system).

So you have a perverse situation where more CIL ( and more than 25% not "up to" as quoted in the consultation - see https://www.gov.uk/guidance/community-infrastructure-levy#in-certai...) can be available to those areas.

However boroughs like Camden  allocates 25% collected in all areas to all  areas regardless of whether neighbourhood plans exist or not , which seems  more equitable. Haringey is keeping it at 15% in the areas which would seem to need it most.

Also it seems the  use outlined in the local consultation is being a bit selective, It can be used on a  wider range of infrastructure(PS I would be interested also in how and where the other 75%/85% is being used) :

The Government definition allows the levy to be used to fund a very broad range of facilities including (but not totally exclusively)  "transport, flood defences, schools, hospitals, and other health and social care facilities" and "play areas, parks and green spaces, cultural and sports facilities, academies and free schools, district heating schemes and police stations and other community safety facilities." 

(NB also to line up with the values anticipated to be generated by the defunct HDV there was as a revision to charging in part of east of the borough -up from £15/sqm to £135/sqm-see Haringey CIL website)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Michael Anderson on October 22, 2018 at 6:54

That’s really useful DM.  I think your point, that Haringey’s policy on CIL distribution ends up favouring the wealthier areas of the borough, needs to be emphasised to Haringey politicians.  It’s not something that I got straight in my mind and I’m sure that it passed some councillors by when the policy was adopted.  

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Charles Sharp on October 22, 2018 at 12:51

I think there is a misunderstanding that Haringey CIL favours the wealthier part of Haringey. All LAs have to say how they will spend CIL with an Infrastructure delivery plan. Here is Haringey’s https://www.haringey.gov.uk/sites/haringeygovuk/files/haringey_idp_...

This shows where CIL goes - mostly schools and healthcare, and a lot of it to the east of the borough. It is only the renaming 15% or 25% of the total 100% that is spent locally (in the borough wide strategic areas). So the policy very much favours the east, as the project lists show. You May get £1m CIL in Highgate as an example, but £750,000 would be spent strategically, and a large amount of the on infrastructure in the east.

So it’s quite the contrary - the bulk of CIL money will leave wealthier areas.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by dm on October 28, 2018 at 22:29

Charles, my comment was related specifically to the local element of the CIL and whether it could favour different areas more.  The Infrastructure Delivery Plan(IDP) is limited to only indicating potential sources of funding for some major projects, rather than guaranteeing them,  and appears to mainly target future strategic funds on major projects such as transport/highways . Out of interest I have tried to see what strategic allocations have been made if any , but without success (hence my separate point about scrutiny of how and where the majority is spent).

My main point is that it is the more local infrastructure, including smaller community facilities and projects in more deprived areas that could miss out where different rates are applied. These aren't identified in the IDP and unlikely to  receive strategic funds, so suggesting whether a common 25% could be applied boroughwide for local allocations so not just neighbourhood plan areas benefit?

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page