The conundrum in our e-zine, Future Perfect?, this month is as follows - let us know your thoughts:
There has always been a question, to our minds at least, about how a developer can be confident that in a "CIL world" the infrastructure on which his development depends will actually be provided. The CIL Regs do not require the LPA to commit to providing any of the items of infrastructure listed in its charging schedule, and certainly do not require them to stick to a timetable for such delivery. Current government thinking appears to be to widen the scope of CIL, so that it can be used to fund spending other than the provision of infrastructure. Will this further lessen the confidence of developers to rely on a planning authority to provide the infrastructure which it had previously been in control of? How will one developer ensure that the provision of "its" infrastructure is top of the list? The planning authority will of course have its own priorities. Permitting developers to negotiate on a case by case basis to provide their own infrastructure would seem to satisfy developers in this regard but go against the grain of the CIL system. So, what comfort would a developer want, and what comfort can be offered, on this issue?