---

Planning Bill

moved Amendment No. 129A: 129A: Clause 199, page 114, line 10, leave out from ““land”” to end of line 11 The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we now come to a completely different part of the Bill, which I know that we are all looking forward to enormously; namely, the community infrastructure levy. These are important clauses, although they represent the end of the Bill. I will not restate the case for CIL, save to say once again that a considerable consensus has been reached that CIL is the right way forward. My amendments in this group and others deliver the additional clarity that was sought by noble Lords in Committee and respond to specific points raised. Government Amendments Nos. 129A, 136B, 148A, 148B, 149A, 153A and 160A respond comprehensively to concerns raised in this House, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine, and by the industry, that CIL clauses place too much emphasis on the concept of land value uplift arising from the grant of planning permission. These amendments are either identical or broadly similar in effect to amendments proposed by the British Property Federation, the royal institute of chartered surveyors and Members of this House and the other place during the passage of this Bill. The Government have held extensive discussions with the industry over the terminology. The amendments in this group attempt to allay concerns that the Government are attempting through this legislation to introduce their previous proposals for planning gain supplement, PGS. The record will show that I was quite clear in Committee that this is not the case, but I have tabled further amendments to put to rest those concerns. These amendments delete mentions of value uplift arising from the grant of planning permission in this part of the Bill. The reference to value uplift at Clause 203(2)(b) as being something to which charging authorities should have regard would be replaced by a reference to a more general concept of the economic viability of development as a result of government Amendment No. 136B. I hope that noble Lords will recognise that this is an example of us listening closely to the industry and responding to concerns, while also making the right long-term choices for our country. Last week, in a statement, the British Property Federation welcomed the Government’s desire to, "““ensure that in the longer term CIL delivers the necessary support for our communities—but in a way that does not deter development, nor create the impression that this is a centrally imposed development land tax. We were concerned that the bill did not make this clear enough before, so this is a positive change””." This new amendment provides part of the explanation to the question of how CIL will work in London where there could be two charging authorities. I know the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith, was particularly concerned about this. The economic viability of development will include consideration of matters such as other costs that the development is likely to face. This would include developer contributions through planning obligations or CIL contributions due to another charging authority. The independent examiner would need to assess the combined impact of both charges on development and therefore consider the impact on development viability. I should add that we do not envisage that the developer would be required to make two separate payments in London to two different authorities. That is clearly not efficient and we very much want to explore how a developer can make a single payment for all the CIL liability due. This would probably be to the borough, as boroughs will determine the great majority of planning applications in London, but we will consult on that. I hope that that will satisfy noble Lords. Buried in the middle of the government amendments is an opposition amendment in the name of the noble Earl, Lord Caithness. It is better that I should hear him speak to his amendment first and then respond. The industry has asked us whether we would be prepared to countenance a procedure by which a development in exceptional circumstances could receive a discount against CIL. For instance, it is suggested that where unforeseen factors were not taken into account in the setting up of the charging schedule, the imposition of CIL might render a development economically unviable. Our position on that was set out in our August document at paragraphs 4.18 and 4.19. This legislation will provide charging authorities with a full range of tools to ensure that CIL charges are viable. For example, the Bill requires testing of the charging schedule by an independent person and it provides us with powers to create differential rates for different circumstances—paragraphs 3.61 to 3.63 of the August document—such as greenfield and brownfield land. Government Amendments Nos. 148A and 148B propose two changes to Clause 214 to enable the charging schedule to both provide for exceptions to CIL and confer a discretionary power on a person. These amendments are supported by the industry. The changes will ensure that provision can be made to allow for exceptions and discretionary decisions within the CIL framework to be applied at the local level through the charging schedule as well as through the regulations directly. They are designed to give us the powers to ensure that CIL charging schedules are flexible local instruments. One key use of these powers could be to enable a procedure for exceptional cases, as I described earlier. We are committed to continuing what has been a very fruitful dialogue with the industry to see whether we can design something that will meet its concerns. I hope that reassures the House, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Valentine. For the record, we are not interested in designing a procedure that allows the exception to become the rule, nor a procedure in which there are protracted disputes about whether a developer can afford to pay CIL. That is not the point. Indeed, it is precisely those sorts of disputes that the industry saw as a key risk proposed by PGS. The whole purpose of CIL, and the reason the industry supports it, is to cut down on the lengthy and unpredictable negotiations which the current system is prone to and which many Members of this House are familiar with. We are trying to get away from that with this reform. We want predictability, simplicity and transparency so any procedure would need to be very carefully designed. I beg to move.