The Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) has its value, but there appears to be significant variation in the way it is implemented, the Royal Town Planning Institute has said.
In its response to the Department of Communities and Local Government's review of CIL, the Institute called for there to "more coordination and transparency in councils’ infrastructure delivery plans as well as in applicant viability assessments to make it less possible for private owners to claim that the financial burden of the levy is making development, in many cases affordable housing, ‘unviable’".
The RTPI also said:
- It recognised that CIL was still in its early stages and made a small but important contribution to overall infrastructure being delivered in England and Wales.
- There was a disparity in adopting CIL across the country with land values acting as the main determinant. “Councils in places with depressed land values like rural areas do not often find CIL viable, with many councils still relying on S106 agreements. But the government’s recent restriction that limits the number of S106 agreements on one site to no more than five is hampering councils’ ability to deliver the infrastructure and supporting amenities communities need.”
The RTPI’s response concluded: “Given how much latent wealth sits in the hands of property owners, re-routing a proportion of the additional value of property that is created by public investment to the public purse seems a viable and fair way of funding infrastructure.”