Community Infrastructure Levy - In Use Building Credit

What is the In Use Building Credit?

"in-use building” means a building which -

(i) is a relevant building, and

(ii) contains a part that has been in lawful use for a continuous period of at least six months

within the period of three years ending on the day planning permission first permits the chargeable development;

“relevant building” means a building which is situated on the relevant land on the day planning

permission first permits the chargeable development.

We theory the regulation is as straightforward as it sounds. If your development is equal in size or smaller then the existing buildings onsite, you should pay no CIL, and if it's bigger, then you pay CIL only on the increase in floor area.

In those cases where your building has been in use for more than 6 months in the last 3 years (i.e. you can show use that is in accordance with any existing consent) this is plain sailing, and you won’t need our help.

Of course, in practice CIL collection departments are keen to disapply the in-use building credit, and often applicants have failed to even claim the credit.

It will be apparent from the definition above that the period of ‘use’ is determined from the date planning is granted (not the date the planning application is made).

With most planning applications taking over 6 months – it is never too late to put the building into use, as the date of the grant of planning can often be delayed by slowness in signing S106 agreements or similar administrative foot dragging.

In practice there are many grey areas in the application of the ‘in use building credit’ – so if you are in doubt, do telephone to discuss utilising our CIL mitigation services.

Affordable Housing policy changes in Teignbridge Draft Local Plan
February 10, 2023

Affordable Housing policy changes in Teignbridge Draft Local Plan

A look into the adopted and draft policies for Affordable Housing in Teignbridge.
Case Study: Duplicate Planning Applications, s106 Contributions, and Appeals
August 19, 2021

Case Study: Duplicate Planning Applications, s106 Contributions, and Appeals

This viability case extends through initial report, extensive negotiation and appeal. It demonstrates several important points, including the way greenfield infrastructure costs should be accounted for in viability assessments, how to deal with potentially unreasonable behaviour from a planning authority, and that just because a site is allocated in the local plan does not mean that site-specific costs cannot be taken into account. It also demonstrates that a duplicate planning permission can be used to vary previously agreed s106 contributions.
Dacorum Draft Interim Affordable Housing SPD
December 11, 2024

Dacorum Draft Interim Affordable Housing SPD

The SPD supports the current Affordable Housing Policy CS19.
High Section 106 costs are avoidable

Call us today for a free consultation. Market leader in viability assessment and Section 106 negotiation.

Call us now on
01392 840002
or
Request a call