The Role of the CIL Examiner

1. The Role of the CIL Examiner Nigel Payne, Principal Inspector

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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 2012- report from LGA/HBF/NHBC

6. 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

7. 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

8. 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 ?

9. 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.