Changes proposed to Community Infrastructure Levy >>> "If these changes were introduced they would give developers greater flexibility, which could speed up the delivery of larger sites."

The developers at Knowle have been trying to avoid paying the Community Infrastructure Levy, by classifying their development as a 'care home':
Futures Forum: Knowle relocation project > Pegasus planning application 16/0872/MFUL >>> Strategy 4 - Balanced Communities >>> Strategy 34 - Affordable Housing Provision Targets

It's not clear how much CIL funding the proposed development at Sidford will attract:
Futures Forum: Sidford business park >>> planning application submitted >>> 16/0669/MOUT

Elsewhere, in Shropshire, councils are experimenting with different ways of extracting value out of developments - but not everyone is convinced:
Council plans to accept 'in-kind' CIL payments | Planning Resource

'Payment in kind' plan over new developments in Shropshire
June 4, 2016 07:59
Shropshire Council could soon accept a new form of payment from developers building in the county in a bid to improve infrastructure.
“There is a risk that developers will regularly seek this form of contribution rather than making a financial payment.
“This could significantly increase administrative burdens and slow down the planning process.”

'Payment in kind' plan over new developments in Shropshire « Shropshire Star

Meanwhile, developers have welcomed the government's proposals to 'cut red tape':

Task Force to Accept BPF Recommendations on CIL

JUNE 3, 2016 / ANDREW LAINTON

The government’s specially appointed task force is to call for a radical overhaul of the community infrastructure levy six years after it was introduced.

It will recommend a major policy U-turn, stripping CIL back to its original purpose by funding local infrastructure with a simple, national base tax on all new developments.

Section 106 charges would return for infrastructure requirements on large developments.

The changes are expected to be considered after parliament’s  summer recess. The recommendations come from the Department for Communities and Local Government’s CIL review panel, set up as an
independent working group chaired by former British Property Federation chief executive Liz Peace.

Changes are likely to need primary legislation and could be inserted into the Neighbourhood Planning and Infrastructure Bill.

CIL NOW	CIL PROPOSALS
The rate is optional and set by individual local authorities, which can charge all at once or in phases	Compulsory low-level tariff across all new developments
Rates can vary by geographic area or use or size	S106 infrastructure payments reintroduced for large developments
S106 payments are only used for affordable housing provision and site-specific mitigations	Local authorities to integrate CIL charging schedules into Local Plans

CIL was introduced in 2010 to create a “fairer, faster and more certain and transparent” levy than s106 payments, which can require lengthy negotiations.

However, the regulations have been amended every year, adding layers of complexity (see below).

Barratt Developments’ group land and planning director Philip Barnes said: “We were hoping that when CIL was introduced it would give us more clarity and certainty, but actually we are finding we often have to negotiate s106 on top of CIL. If these changes were introduced they would give developers greater flexibility, whichcould speed up the delivery of larger sites.”

Details yet to be determined include how the base tariff would be set, whether any types of development would be exempt, and howmedium-sized developments could avoid being hit by both CIL and s106 requirements.

CBRE’s chairman of UK planning Stuart Robinson said: “The key questions will be, who will set the tariff and on what basis? And how will does affordable housing fit in?”

Simon Ricketts, partner at law firm King & Wood Mallesons, said he would not want a lower CIL rate subsidised by higher s106 payments. He added: “If there is a shortfall between what is needed and a new, low CIL, that should not come from s106, which would add extra complexity.”

The recommendations are in line with those put forward by the BPF in response to the government’s consultation on proposed changes, which ended in January.

Chief executive Melanie Leech said: “The BPF has long been pushing for government to introduce a more flexible approach to CIL for complex, large-scale development sites and for the introduction of a simpler, lower charge for smaller developments so to see government take such recommendations forward would be very welcome.”

Task Force to Accept BPF Recommendations on CIL | Decisions, Decisions, Decisions

Community Infrastructure Levy rules likely to change as developers don’t like them | East Devon Watch

Even the developers find it all rather confusing:

---

Click here to open timeline

CIL: a complicated history

2010 Introduced as an optional alternative to s106 for councils to charge for developer contributions towards local infrastructure

2011 Changes brought in as part of the Localism Act included regulations defining appropriate evidence for a charging schedule

2012 Regulation changes included correcting errors on the formula for calculating liability and social housing relief

2013 Use it or lose it introduced – new rules to make communities repay the charging authority if the levy is not used within five years

2014 Measures implemented to ensure granting planning permission cannot be dependent on a s106 or s278 agreement for infrastructure

2015 New rules introduced restricting local authorities from pooling more than five s106 obligations to pay for infrastructure projects

EGi - News Article - CIL red tape set for cut

See also:
Futures Forum: Missing out on developers' S106 funds...
Futures Forum: 'Planning gain' - the replacement for S106 cash from developers - the Community Infrastructure Levy - but is it still 'bribery' by a different name?
.
.
.