CIL changes not all they seem
Among other changes, the community infrastructure levy review panel has recommended a single, national CIL charge on all new developments [4 June, p27].
On the face of it, this may be an attractive proposition, but not all developments show sufficient viability to be able to make contributions towards infrastructure. Many authorities have adopted nil or very low rates on many forms of commercial development, because they simply do not generate sufficient value to make a contribution.
Housebuilding lobbyists appear to have persuaded the panel to “spread the load” of infrastructure funding to non-residential uses, even if these uses generate little need in terms of infrastructure.
For a single national CIL charge to work, it will have to be set at such a low level that the amounts raised by authorities will be woefully inadequate to fund sufficient infrastructure to make development sustainable.
Looking at the range of rates across the country set by authorities that have adopted CIL, there is a significant degree of logic. Developments in central London, where residual values are the highest, contribute up to £69.60 per
sq ft of CIL, while in low-value areas, CIL rates are as low as 93p per sq ft.
Some may question the logic of adopting something like 93p per sq ft in Kensington & Chelsea, which simply enhances land values to the detriment of infrastructure funding. There is a clear imperative to continue with local discretion on rate setting for CIL in order to raise a meaningful contribution from those who benefit from development, and avoid an adverse impact on viability.
How much of the review panel’s recommendations the government will take on board remains to be seen, but ultimately central government needs developers and landowners to contribute more to infrastructure to avoid the public sector having to fund it.
With their proposed low national charge, the review panel seems to suggest the opposite would happen.
Anthony Lee, senior director, UK residential, BNP Paribas Real Estate
Architect disconnect
I agree absolutely with Martyn Evans’ observations [28 May, p63] about the disconnect between architects, and indeed the design community in general, and developers.
However, there is a lot more crossover than he perhaps realises – Jonathan Falkingham at Urban Splash, and Roger Zogolovitch being leading examples.
Of the eight partners at Argent, three are architects by training, and we have one planner, one engineer, one accountant, one economist and one chartered surveyor.
Of course, part of the problem might be that a lot of architect/developers are actually mistaken for footballers [28 May, p238].
Perhaps if we all spent more time getting in touch with our inner Pelé (pictured)/Cruyff/Messi, development could become a beautiful game too.
David Partridge, managing partner, Argent
OnTheMarket on the rise
You may have read last month that OnTheMarket.com announced that overall support for the portal exceeded 7,000 UK estate and letting agent offices. This includes offices that are contracted and those covered by letters of intent to join Agents’ Mutual and to list at OnTheMarket.com when support exceeds 7,500 offices.
Since the launch at the end of January 2015, the number of offices listing on the portal has increased by over 1,650 to more than 6,250. Traffic also continued to rise in April to reach a record 7.3m visits (source: Google Analytics).
It will clearly take time for OnTheMarket.com to attract as much consumer traffic as the market-leading portals, but our progress has been rapid. We had more than 7.3m visits in April, we are providing a growing volume of high-quality enquiries to our agents and we are greatly encouraged by the feedback from our members and consumers alike – there is now a challenger agent-owned portal in the market to list and view properties on.
It might be disappointing for some of our detractors, but OnTheMarket.com is here to stay.
Ian Springett, chief executive, OnTheMarket.com
