Fenland District Council advised against introducing Community Infrastructure Levy, based on floorspace, for developers

Fenland Hall.

Fenland Hall. - Credit: Archant

A fixed levy calculated on floor space should not be imposed on developers, a report which is due before council says.

Independent experts, in a report which will appear before Fenland District Council’s Cabinet on November 20, say the Community Infrastructure Levy (CIL) is not the most appropriate or efficient way of funding infrastructure to support new development in Fenland.

The CIL is a charge that local authorities can choose to impose on new developments in their area. Under the levy, for each square metre of new floorspace a developer will pay a fixed, nonnegotiable charge to the council.

Instead, Fenland District Council should continue to use Section 106 agreements, which are agreements between developers and local planning authorities negotiated as part of a condition of planning consent, the report says.

Several key factors make the introduction of a CIL unsuitable for Fenland at the moment, the experts say. They include:

The viability of development is challenging at present in that the costs associated with new developments often outweigh any reasonable profit a developer might expect to make. This means only a relatively low CIL could be charged

The levy is fixed, ruling out any ability to be flexible in negotiating contributions with developers

Most Read

Large-scale developments are increasingly being excluded from CIL charging because big sites already have large on-site infrastructure provision and costs covered by Section 106. It is seen as unfair for such schemes to pay a CIL charge because they would in effect be paying twice for infrastructure.

There are lots of exemptions - for example, anything less than 100 square metres (except new homes), charities, affordable housing, self-build (which could be 20-35 per cent in Fenland) and conversions

Councillor Fred Yeulett, FDC’s Cabinet member responsible for planning policy and growth, said: “Fenland remains open for business and committed to growth.

“Despite the challenges, development remains viable here and developers can afford to deliver infrastructure. We will ensure it is provided at the right time and in the right place.

“Evidence suggests that CIL isn’t the best way forward for us at this stage. Having carefully considered all the options for securing developer contributions and infrastructure, of which CIL is only one, it seems the most effective solution for the time being is to focus on Section 106 agreements. However, that might change, so we will keep CIL under review.

“We are not alone in not progressing a CIL; most councils do not have one in place. Generally speaking, wealthy areas with high property values are introducing a CIL whereas less wealthy areas are not. That is because the evidence suggests introducing a charge would either make development unviable or bring in such small receipts that it is not worth incurring the considerable administration costs of collecting it.”

Become a Supporter

This newspaper has been a central part of community life for many years. Our industry faces testing times, which is why we're asking for your support. Every contribution will help us continue to produce local journalism that makes a measurable difference to our community.

Become a Supporter