If this is the case, having taken account of local specifics, then the charging authority will have failed to demonstrate that they have struck an appropriate balance between the desirability of funding from CIL and its effects on the economic viability of development across the whole area, as now required by the latest amendments to the regulations.
Some of these early adopters did not appraise affordable housing policy at the full requirement that is shown in the chart. Following current practice at examination, an authority would now have to formally adopt a lower affordable housing requirement in order to set CIL at these levels. Graph 4 shows the increased headroom for CIL and Section 106 that is created by adopting a lower affordable housing requirement of either 10% or 20%.
In the one case where the benchmark sits above CIL in the chart, there is headroom for Section 106 in addition to CIL. In the case of Oxford, there is likely to be headroom for Section 106 to be paid at around £6,000 per plot in addition to CIL, according to the benchmark.
Charging authorities should be explicit about their policy intention on additional Section 106 when setting CIL rates. As noted above, such payments can be substantial on a large greenfield site, to mitigate the impact of development of that site. The need for clarity on this point has been emphasised by the forthcoming changes to the CIL Regulations.
The charging schedules that are at the examination stage (including those examined but not implemented) include fewer authorities where little or no CIL is viable at the adopted affordable housing policy (Graph 5). This is partly because there are fewer authorities within this group with relatively low sales values, which continue to hold back the viability of larger sites.