Planning Bill

To address the issue raised by the noble Baroness, we will consider it and will write in some detail. Amendments Nos. 442ZF and 442ZG seek to remove the ability of regulations to decide the level of interest that may or may not accompany repayments of overpaid CIL from a charging authority to a developer. Instead, these amendments specify that where such repayments are made, they should do so with added interest of 3 percentage points above the Bank of England base rate. Let me reassure the noble Earl that the Government are keen to ensure that regulations provide adequate safeguards to CIL-liable parties. On the matter of repayment, the Bill contains provision for regulations to be able to require repayment in cases of CIL overpayment, including where appropriate a suitable amount of interest. However, given the careful balance that needs to be struck by any such interest rate in incentivising the right amount of payment in the first place, this is an issue that the Government would prefer to set out in regulations rather than in the Bill. Overpayment by 3 per cent, as envisaged in the amendment, might actually encourage developers to overpay to secure a better rate of return from the charging authority than from a bank, and it would penalise a charging authority to pay out of public moneys interest, even if overpayment were made through no fault of its own. I ask the noble Earl not to move his amendment and allow the Government to set out further detail on how charging authorities may be required to repay CIL-liable parties in cases of overpayment in regulations. On Question, amendment agreed to. [Amendments Nos. 438S to 442ZD not moved.] Clause 202, as amended, agreed to. [Amendment No. 442ZE not moved.] Clause 203 [Collection]: [Amendments Nos. 442ZF to 442ZH not moved.] Clause 203 agreed to. Clause 204 [Enforcement]: [Amendment No. 442A not moved.]