Archive for February, 2012

CIL & S106 – the worst of all worlds? Call for CIL(AH)

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012

Last month the National Housing Federation held a one-day conference on the newly-emerging world of land-use planning. It was very useful to hear from one of the authors of the draft National Planning Policy Framework about the careful thought that had gone into its preparation – it gave one confidence.

 

It was unsurprising to see the shared bafflement of many in the audience about how the new-look planning regime, with its desire to empower people at Neighbourhood level, is going to deliver on the stated aims of increasing housing supply. That rather reduced one’s confidence.

 

But this blog is prompted by the final session of the day which addressed the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL). As many readers will know, CIL is the latest version of the tool first suggested in 2003 as a way of generating a lump-sum contribution by a planning applicant towards the cost of the providing “public assets” that are needed for a residential development and community to be successful. Not only does it cover roads and drainage, but also classrooms for the local school, parks large and small, health and leisure facilities etc.  CIL is charged to help create sustainable communities.

 

There are many advantages in a levy such as CIL – most notably that the applicant (such as a housebuilder) knows in advance how much they are going to have to pay. This places negotiations with the landowner on a much more secure footing and smooths the entire process of bringing land forward for development. Over the last 10 years negotiations with landowners have been extremely difficult because of the uncertainty over the cost of planning obligations that may have to be provided. Housebuilders can check local plan policies, but they have been in a state of flux since the Planning & Compulsory Purchase Act 2004. Furthermore, everybody knows that planners don’t achieve their policy requirements, but it can be difficult to predict in advance what they’ll settle for. All of which adds up to a long and bloody negotiation between housebuilder, the landowner and the planning authority either before or after the planning application goes in. S106 Agreements have worked, but they have been very time-consuming, messy and – in the case of affordable housing – disappointingly ineffective.

 

So there is much to be said for providing certainty through tools such as CIL. But affordable housing is specifically excluded from CIL.  Does this matter? Is it significant? Yes, as affordable housing is usually by far and away the most costly element on the planners’ shopping list. So CIL brings greater certainty to the negotiation process, but only for a small part of the problem.

 

But it gets worse. A scheme can only pay for “infrastructure” up to the point that it becomes financially unviable. Where the public goodies that are needed cost a lot more than the planning gain that is available (which will apply to every local planning authority in the land), choices have to be made. Roads and drainage, contribution to educational facilities, or affordable housing?

 

Having CIL deal with nearly everything apart from affordable housing, and then relying on a S106 Agreement to help house the homeless creates a problem. In short, CIL comes first. So if there is any debate about how much a scheme can contribute towards “public goodies”, it happens after the contribution to roads, drains, schools, leisure centres etc has been accounted for. In other words, it will be affordable housing that takes the hit, simply because of the timing.

 

So, CIL combined with S106s could be the worst of all worlds for those of us interested in increasing the supply of affordable housing.

 

Is there a solution? Government appears to have set its face against bringing affordable housing within the ambit of  CIL. So, how about CIL(AH)? A locally-set levy for affordable housing, following the same methodology as for CIL (which is essentially the same as for setting and affordable housing planning policy under the PPS3/NPPF). It would have the benefit of providing greater certainty to landowners, housebuilders and planning officers, whilst avoiding the problem of affordable housing suffering simply through timing.

 

What do you think?

Shelter want to know….rising house prices – good or bad?

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012

Over the long term – even allowing for the occasional “wobble” – house prices have run well ahead of inflation for decades. Rising house prices has been seen as an economic  feel-good factor, socially divisive (the asset-rich and the asset-poor), and as a substitute for state benefits covering pensions and care in old age. Is real house price growth really helpful to most people, or would a house price crash benefit most households?

We have been commissioned by Shelter to investigate. The work involves a  modelling study, looking at the likely effect of a range of house price inflation scenarios on different households. We expect to report in April.

Housing Plus successfully recruit with HATC help

Tuesday, February 28th, 2012

In February we helped Housing Plus to recruit a Senior Development Officer. The work involved advising on which competences should be assessed by test, and which by interview, devising technical tests and being part of the interview panel. The recruitment process proved successful and we wish Housing Plus and their new Senior Development Officer all the very best.

Charlie Riley, Housing Plus’ Development Manager said: “HATC’s support was really helpful, both in clarifying the skills we were looking for and in assessing the candidates’ technical ability to do the job. I’d use them again.”

Course Details

We are in the process of publishing all course details on our website. In the mean time please contact us for further information.

×
Conditions Of Application

All prospective students must read the following conditions before submitting the application form.

  1. Once a student is accepted onto the course, fees are not refundable in part or in total unless the course is cancelled by HATC in which case a full refund will be provided.
  2. HATC reserves the right to make minor change lecture times, venue or other arrangements but will advise students in advance of the course date.
  3. The course fee includes the examination fee for one attempt at the APM IC exam. If the student wishes to re-take the exam there will be an additional charge. Such charges will be reasonable, and will be set on the basis of HATC’s cost-recovery only.
  4. The above conditions will be subject to interpretation in English law courts.

 

×