The Role of the CIL Examiner Nigel Payne, Principal Inspector

Introduction Less than 12 schedules examined so far, including London and Bristol. PINS Inspectors appointed as Examiners, no assessors needed to date. Guidance/regulation – 2010/2011 Regs, CIL – Overview – DCLG May 2011, the 2008 Act and now Localism Act 2011 All DP Inspectors training for CIL Exams

Current practice DPD Exam model – need PO but not PHM Examiner leads discussions in Round Table sessions as per DPD Exam Anyone who has made a rep has a right to be heard if they wish (Section 212.9) 2 days of hearings sessions has been the norm, plus 2 weeks reporting LB of Redbridge/Portsmouth - W Reps

What is tested Compliance with Act and CIL Regs Is rate informed by evidence – similar to justified in DPD exams Evidence needed - impact of rate(s) on development viability. Basic principle is that rate should not put overall development of area at serious risk Examiner only concerned if CIL rate(s) will make a material or significant difference to level of risk

Essentials 1 Simple concept – not difficult so far; –Development proposed –Infrastructure implications –Other sources of funding –Funding Gap? Has to be one or why a CIL –How far will CIL go to fill the gap? – not likely to raise all of what is needed. –“Viability Testing Local Plans” - June report from LGA/HBF/NHBC

Essentials 2 Relationship of infrastructure and CIL “An” appropriate balance, not “the” Not a means to implement policy – planning or other – viability only Take into account other funding sources – e.g. “New Homes Bonus “State Aid” issue – beware

Report 1 Compliance with Act/Regulations Light touch, but not a “soft touch” –“Aim to strike” the balance –“Which appears to the CA” –“Readily available” evidence –Infrastructure priorities a matter for the CA

Report 2 Localism Act limits binding nature of the report Examiner only able to ensure compliance with the CIL legislation – reduce rates but not raise Concise reports - reject, approve, or approve with modification(s) Examiner must give reasons, as always Report goes to CA for “fact check” first CA “judgement” likely to be largely unchallenged Viability over whole area/zone, not single sites Scope for legitimate and relevant representations – zones and boundaries ?

Conclusions Development/infrastructure/funding relationship at heart of concept – viability, viability, viability. Up to date development plan critical. Avoid “over-engineering”, if CIL is to work well. Only part answer to infrastructure funding. LPAs have generally provided reasonably comprehensive and competent viability assessments of types of development, including to justify nil rates and for zones. Few real objections from developers so far, except Bristol – they like certainty. Not much detailed evidence from representors – they know effects on single sites are not normally relevant to the CIL rates – some just say “too high”. No need to be frightened of viability assessments – mostly just common sense.