---

Planning Bill

My Lords, Amendment No. 136D seeks a power for regulations either to provide for or to require the provision of differential CIL rates for developments which renew or replace existing buildings, where those redevelopers do not incur any significant costs to provide infrastructure to support them. I understand the noble Earl’s point and we have had discussions with the CBI on similar issues. I am afraid the amendment would be unworkable and I should explain that it is at odds with the approach to CIL, so I have to explain my reasoning. The amendment includes a test whereby redevelopments would be subject to a differential CIL rate only if it could be shown that they had not imposed a significant infrastructure cost. I understand what is behind the noble Earl’s amendment, but my concern is that charging authorities would, in practice, find it impossible to define and measure a test of significant infrastructure costs for redevelopments in their area without incurring significant administrative costs and invoking prolonged legal debates. We have already had reference to the fun that the lawyers will possibly have with CIL. Should significant infrastructure costs be defined relative to, for example, the costs of other developments or redevelopments in an area, or what? Without the significant cost test, which I genuinely believe is unworkable, the amendment cannot in itself be justified. Part of the problem is that redevelopments may well impose greater infrastructure costs than a new development. For example, an old house with some land can be replaced by a block of flats. That means many more people living on the same piece of land, many of them with cars, with many more needs for infrastructure support. More important still, this amendment is also inconsistent with the rationale that underpins CIL. It is a generalised charge; we have gone over this time and again. It is there to enable local authorities to fund the infrastructure needed to support the development of a local area. Unlike planning obligations under Section 106, CIL loosens the relationship between an individual development and the size of its contribution to fund infrastructure, because it is an average cost distributed evenly across a number of developments. The amount of CIL to be paid in a specific case will not be calculated on the basis of the specific need for infrastructure. I think that takes care of the noble Earl’s point about cumulative development as well. We are looking at a generalised assessment and a generalised charge, because CIL is a strategic undertaking. For these reasons, I must ask the noble Earl to withdraw his amendment.