I support the community infrastructure levy in principle. I have grave concerns about the tax on increase in land value, a point the noble Earl, Lord Caithness, touched on. My amendments in this and subsequent groups relate exclusively to the community infrastructure levy. Before speaking to my amendments, I must mention that I am chief executive of London First, a business membership organisation.
Amendments Nos. 435CA and 437CA in this group relate to the purpose of CIL. These are the first of seven of my amendments, which fall into three separate groups. They all fundamentally focus on one goal: the funding and delivery of infrastructure. The community infrastructure levy must be fairly and reasonably levied to broadly reflect the impact of development, through the development plan process, and the moneys collected must be spent on ensuring timely delivery of infrastructure.
My two amendments in this group on the purpose of CIL would ensure that CIL is not a tax on land value and that references to it as such are removed. Critically, referring to increases in land value is inappropriate. First, it sends the wrong message about the purpose of CIL. CIL is not to tax the increase in land value arising from the grant of planning permission; it is to secure a contribution from development to additional infrastructure needs created by new development in the area.
Secondly, the issues around using land value increases as a basis for assessing viability are highly complex. Any simple reference to uplifts in land value flowing from planning permission would inevitably lead to differing interpretations, not least because land can increase in value irrespective of development or planning permission.
The principle is that CIL is not a tax on land value, and I would prefer to see any unintended implication that it is removed from the Bill. That is why Amendment No. 437CA suggests the removal of a subsection which is not required and, indeed, may contradict the later provision in Clause 201(3)(b). Amendment No. 435CA also removes the reference to land value as the basis for establishing CIL. Instead, CIL must be fairly and reasonably levied in a way that broadly reflects the impact of development through the development plan process. I will return to this point in later amendments.
Planning Bill
Proceeding contribution from
Baroness Valentine
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Thursday, 23 October 2008.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Planning Bill.
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
704 c1239-40 Session
2007-08Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2023-12-16 01:33:51 +0000
URI
http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503004
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503004
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://data.parliament.uk/pimsdata/hansard/CONTRIBUTION_503004